Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive267

User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: Moot)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: User is currently the subject of an ANI discussion into his/her behavior. User has also been reported here for edit warring violations. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 09:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Diff 4 is unrelated. The user is harassing me, to try and get me blocked. WP:BOOMERANG time? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Still a revert. Doesn't have to be related, just a revert added to the others within a 24 hour period.  Seems weird that alot of users are trying to "harrass" you and "get you blocked".  Perhaps it isn't them, but it's you. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 10:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Why in the world is this editor blanking long sections of an article about a Thai scientist DOes he seriously think someone made up the gui's work history? Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's unrelated. Discuss it in the appropriate place. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the 'Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page' is not an article talk page at all.

And,

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I did not try to discuss the dispute on the article talk page, neither did Igor. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 10:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a user talk page... Can we get that block reinstated already? He''s threatening to release thousands of draft articles now. Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous and so melodramatic. I was discussing the principles of new users making new articles on Wales' talk page, is all. Sheesh, get a grip. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Legacypac has been here since 2007, I've been here since 2006, you have been here since yesterday. You are the new user, not us. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 11:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the correct venue for this discussion, so I will disengage. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Riiiight, like you were going to disengage on Jimbo's talk page and on ANI. Believe it when I see it. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 11:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * . Based on the closure at ANI and the pending report at SPI, it would be best not to take action on this board. No comment as to the merits of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Both editors are responsible for edit warring, but Igor was the worse because he was fooling with somebody else's comments, and Neutralhomer was arguably justified in restoring his own comments. Gorillawarfare has vouched for Igor.  Please complain to her about his actions if anything new happens.  At this time I see no benefit to issuing blocks for this incident, and see a risk that it could make things worse. Jehochman Talk 16:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:2A02:8108:8140:1108:38DD:A186:44E:9D27 reported by User:Yaan (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Several IPs who may or may not be the same user keep on reverting two sections of the article: One is about what triggered the protests (it eventually turned out different sources actually make different claims about this), the other is a sentence about counterprotests.

Yaan (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . My guess is they are the same person. However, all you have are three reverts each one day apart. If it gets worse, you could come back here or go to WP:RFPP. BTW, it may be a waste of time, but you should have at least notified the IP you reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

IP-Hopper (2A02:8108:8140:1108:255F:622F:E4B7:FD9A (talk) continues edit-warring:

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

User received uw-3rr warnings,. Please protect the page. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yaan tries to bring his disinformation (about the trigger) into the article by edit-war. -- See history -- I hope, it's ok to restore the valid sourced information. It seems, Yaan dislikes the sources. --2A02:8108:8140:1108:255F:622F:E4B7:FD9A (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The part the ip claims to be the reason for the reverts was PEGIDA was founded in Dresden by a twelve-member group in response to plans to build new refugee centres in Dresden, which I based on the sentence Mr Bachmann started PEGIDA in October to protest plans to add 14 centres for roughly 2000 refugees in Dresden. from this source, which was used in the article before I ever edited it. Not sure about why the ip did have to revert other parts of said article.
 * Now that the user has started communicating, I think a page protection might be a bit premature - that is, unless she/he keeps on edit warring Yaan (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Contributor82 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Locked; later warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Not vandalism! There is no policy against aggregate score in the score box."
 * 2)  "Unexplained removal."
 * 3)  "To make sure I'm not going against any wiki guidelines relating to this matter, please cite/link me to that guideline."
 * 4)  "There is no final rule as to how this issue should be done so I don't see why you have a problem."
 * 5)  "If an album has an excess amount of producers then there's nothing wrong with creating a space for the execs. It looks less clustered. This format was allowed on I Am Not a Human Being II."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on The Pinkprint. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Pinkprint. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Pinkprint. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has reverted other users, without ensuing discussion, on The Pinkprint numerous times within 24-hours and has been warned against said edits. They're also acting in force of owning the article as it is the primary article they've edited since joining the site days ago. User was warned, with attempt to discuss within warnings; user ignored warnings, instead, removing them from their talk page.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 01:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * First observations:
 * Removing warnings isn't ignoring them. In fact, removing warnings is not only allowed, but it is prima facie evidence that the user in question has seen those warnings.
 * It's odd that you would bring this report up to AN3 when the last edit on the page was 16 hours ago.
 * The above being said, I don't deny that there may be a real problem here. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 3. Isn't it a tad hypocritical for you to complain that this user is removing warnings from their talkpage when they, and you ? Jsharpminor (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * . The article has been fully protected for a week by .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * True, I did it as a bit of a stopgap. Take any action you see fit on top of this (or if my action was adequate, go ahead). I just noted the general edit warring atmosphere between 3-4 parties over hte last fwe days. NativeForeigner Talk 03:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a little late in coming back to this., you are that if you revert again at The Pinkprint after the lock expires, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "weird error in intro"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Support by physics */"


 * Comments:

User has been site blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. User has been warned [] User has been blocked [] As soon as the block expired, user is now back on the page, reverting against consensus, and still calling me a vandal. TMD  Talk Page.  04:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . I don't see the name-calling, but the edit warring is clear. I suggest you be careful, though,, as another user's misconduct doesn't entitle you to edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. I fear that this issue will come up again as soon as the block expires. Banning the user from the B-theory of time page might be a more permanent solution.-- TMD   Talk Page.  18:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And the name calling is on the talk page of the article.-- TMD   Talk Page.  00:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Miracle dream reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Undid revision 639759051 by MtBell (talk) I used the previous consensus. Thank you)
 * 2)  (Undid revision 639775355 by CurtisNaito (talk) how many oppose? how many agree with?)
 * 3)  (Undid revision 639784764 by CurtisNaito (talk) 3:2 can be considered as "majority" ? In that 2 month discussion, we have 6:1 and still be required to convince the last one who disagree.)
 * 4)  (I don't know how old it is, If you see the edition history. The old version is more closed to my version but user cn rewrote this article in June after previously discussion and changed it. However, this will be my last edition like thi)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

My comment: If you see the summary of the edition I made: "However, this will be my last edition like this". Hence, I have claimed that I will not change anything again before you notice me. Also, please see the final version of the article which is .My last edition was at 21:31, 27 December 2014 but was immediately reverted by user;CurtisNaito at 21:38, 27 December 2014 (Only 7 minutes later). His edition became the final version and I did not change anything when my edition was reverted by him. It is like what I claimed in edition summary the previous edition"will be my last edition". That means I stopped to edit anything when somebody immediately revert my edition. After that, I did not do anything. I did not change again when somebody revert the edition three times. Miracle dream (talk)


 * Comment: It's clearly 4 reverts of the same material in a 24-hour period. But I have this question: What is the issue that's being discussed here? Can you summarize what the substantive difference is between the two versions? Jsharpminor (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This and the below report are the same thing. Both reports are correct. Miracle Dream and Curtis Naito are both edit warring here. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is about the Nanking massacre. In Feburary, there are two month discussion about this topic. At last, the consensus is neutrally to keep all claim from different scholars. Hence, the result in article Nanking Massacre is " The death toll has been actively contested among scholars since the 1980s, with typical estimates ranging from 40,000 to over 300,000." or "During this period, between 40,000 to over 300,000 (estimates vary) Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants were murdered by soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army." Then editors tried to use this summary edit all articles related to Nanking Massacre which include article Battle of Nanking. However user Curtis Naito rewrote this article by ignoring the previous discussion. The discussion before is Talk:Nanking_Massacre/Archive_8). Curtis Naito joined the 2 month discussion before. After this rewritten, the figure is "Though the Japanese also committed random acts of murder, rape, looting, and arson during their occupation of Nanking, military historian Masahiro Yamamoto notes that of the more than 40,000 corpses buried in and around Nanking after the fall of the city only 129 were women or children which suggests that the large majority of the victims of the massacre were adult Chinese men taken by the Japanese as former soldiers and massacred." Please see this version . Then in December, I added contents again and keep the figures following the main article Nanking Massacre. After some version changed, the article became current version.
 * Thank you very much for the explanation. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All editors involved are hereby warned that any further contentious edits to the disputed sections, without reaching consensus on the talk page, may result in immediate blocks with no notice. Please, continue the discussion on the talk page and do not perform any further reverts. This does not mean that no blocks will be given for behavior already exhibited; that is up to administrator discretion. Involved editors include, but are not limited to, Miracle dream, MtBell, Curtis Naito, and TH1980. Other editors may face the same sanctions if they come to participate in the warring. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am very confused here. 10 months ago, we have a long discussion which involved more than 10 users. At last, we spent 2 months to reach the consensus. Now someone want to change the article, then we need to discuss again? Hence, it made previous consensus become totally useless by this theory. Then after 10 months, many users in that discussion left wiki. It is unfair to those users who joined the discussion before.Miracle dream (talk)
 * You and Curtis Naito are the primary two actors in this edit war; as you have both cooperated I doubt very highly that either will be blocked in the immediate future. the statement that a consensus was ever reached. If you could link to that discussion where a consensus was reached 10 months ago, that would be helpful. In any case, there's apparently a discussion to be had, so let's have it on the talk page. We can move forward from there. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the discussionTalk:Nanking Massacre/Archive 8 or the completed version Talk:Nanking Massacre/Archive 8. User: Banzaiblitz had been blocked because of sock-puppet. User: Kamakatsu is one of the sock puppet of Banzaiblitz  Miracle dream (talk)


 * &mdash; Both editors have been warned not to make contentious edits or risk immediate blocking. Both are responsive and actively participating in the talk page; blocking seems unlikely and punitive at this point. Closing as warned. Will repoen if the issue comes up again. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Miracle dream is warned for breaking WP:3RR, though several others participated in the edit war. All parties are advised to get consensus for any further changes to the death toll. The talk page discussion is not well organized. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment, and offering specific wording for review. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:CurtisNaito reported by User:Miracle dream (Result: Miracle dream warned)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Page:

User being reported: Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  (Most users deny that a consensus exists on these figures. In the talk page a majority are opposed.)
 * 2)  (I count three users concurring and two opposed)
 * 3)  (no consensus for this change)

The same thing happened in 15 December 2014 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1)  (WAY too many sources for the purposes of this article. Eventually though I think we should create another article on the Nanking Garrison Force including all these estimates and more.)
 * 2)  (Discuss this change in the talk page before restoring the material)
 * 3)  (Could we talk about this on the talk page first?)
 * 4)  (No consensus to re-add this)
 * Comment: This and the above report are the same thing. Both reports are correct. Miracle Dream and Curtis Naito are both edit warring here. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All editors involved are hereby warned that any further contentious edits to the disputed sections, without reaching consensus on the talk page, may result in immediate blocks with no notice. Please, continue the discussion on the talk page and do not perform any further reverts. This does not mean that no blocks will be given for behavior already exhibited; that is up to administrator discretion. Involved editors include, but are not limited to, Miracle dream, MtBell, Curtis Naito, and TH1980. Other editors may face the same sanctions if they come to participate in the warring. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The information in the article had been stable for many months and at the time I thought it was inappropriate that contentious edits be added to the article when three of the five participants in the talk page were clearly opposed. In the talk page of the article, only two people agreed that a consensus among Wikipedia users had ever been reached which should appropriately have been applied to this article. Most were against the change and even those who remained neutral disagreed that any previous consensus had ever been reached. It seems I did go over three reverts once over a week ago on 15 December 2014, but that was before the talk page discussion had started and I stopped reverting after receiving a warning on my talk page on 27 December 2014‎.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You and Miracle Dream are the primary two actors in this edit war; as you have both cooperated I doubt very highly that either will be blocked in the immediate future. Apparently there's a discussion to be had, so let's have it on the talk page. We can move forward from there. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Both editors have been warned not to make contentious edits or risk immediate blocking. Both are responsive and actively participating in the talk page; blocking seems unlikely and punitive at this point. Closing as warned. Will repoen if the issue comes up again. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Miracle dream is warned for breaking WP:3RR as detailed in an earlier report on this noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked 60 hours.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (→‎Adverse effects)
 * 2)  (→‎Adverse effects)
 * 3)  (→‎Adverse effects)
 * 4)  (→‎Adverse effects)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Warning: Edit warring on Circumcision. (TW))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (→‎User Doc James has just started an edit warring)


 * Pretty clear-cut case of edit warring. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Behzat reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Australia does not view the events as genocide. This is explicitly stated by Australia's FM Julie Bishop in 2014 as sourced."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 639968291 by MarshallBagramyan (talk)"
 * 3)  "Added Australia"
 * 4)  "/* Terminology */ Rearranged the order of the text. Comparing it in the first line with the Holocaust is a Godwin and has a psychological effect that affects the objectivity. Placed it in the second paragraph."
 * 5)  "The fact that the point of view of rejection of the Armenian Genocide is ALSO supported by scholarship needs to be clarified, it is insane how much effort needs to be made for this to be done"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Armenian Genocide denial is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:AA2 */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Armenian Genocide denial . (TW★TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Evidence? Please show us, the sources are not direct sources */   per WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, all of which were not observed in this instance"


 * Comments:

Edit-warring for days adding material which is reverted by multiple editors without obtaining consensus first on the talkpage. Latest reversions are only a sample. This has been going on much longer since at least 22 December. Directing personal attacks at others. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Remark from user: Every single addition, or even request for reference gets removed. For example: the position of Australia on this case is clear, as can be seen in: link Yet upon adding it to the article it gets removed with the reason "Disingenous remarks - please do not lump Australia's government together with the blatantly denialist countries like Turkey and Azerbaijan. In Australia there are genocide memorials and commemorations that gov. officials take part in each year" The position of the government of Australia is clear, and properly sourced in the Wikipedia article. You should not blame me for an edit war, but ask the user removing it why such properly sourced information is removed.--Behzat (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to block Behzat for 60 hours for edit warring (the material is under a 1R restriction), and will impose a topic ban for one year on editing articles related to Armenia and the Armenian genocide, broadly speaking. I'll allow them to contribute to talk pages, as long as they keep their cool. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Matthew J Falkner reported by User:Loriendrew (Result:User already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Based primarily on "The security of Englishmen's lives, or, The trust, power and duty of the grand juries of England" by  [John Somers, 1st Baron Somers]"
 * 2)  "/* United States */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Grand jury. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Grand jury. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Making legal threats on User talk:Loriendrew. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Making legal threats pushed the limits on this one. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789; &#9743;(talk)  23:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nick (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:FDMS4 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/640153028

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/640160700
 * 2) Special:Diff/640161157

Comments:

I have provided several clear explanations in my edit summaries. There has been no explanation at all on Beyond My Ken's side, the first revert even lacked a revert indication in its edit summary. As this is not a content dispute (matter of taste), but de facto just rollback abuse, I don't think there is need for a talkpage discussion at this point.    FDMS   4    00:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BMK reverted twice. Is this page under 1RR? If not, this report is utterly frivolous. Also, I disagree that it wasn't an improvement; collapsing a large template is a good idea, and having the more conventional link to a commons category, with some decent formatting to boot, seems like a good idea - and even if it isn't, it is worth discussing. It is also possible that BMK hit rollback instead of undo (easy enough mistake to make), and since you've not bothered to contact him to discuss the reasons, you are also breaching WP:AGF. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that 2 < 3, which is why I didn't report it as a 3RR violation. The situation would be entirely different if someone else reverted me, even without any edit summary. I don't think that a user with a long history of good- as well as bad-faith editing (judging by his contribs and block log) accidentally undos without providing a reason and then accidentally rollbacks. There is nothing really to discuss on the article talkpage here, both versions are fine, but replacing one with another is just an invalid edit. The situation would also be entirely different if one party believes that one version is a wrong version, but as I provided a link to WP:LAY this should not be the case.    FDMS   4    00:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ., you reverted twice as well, and three reverts does not violate WP:3RR; four does. Your other arguments have no merit at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:74.5.159.196 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * Two users being reported:
 * IP sock and
 * Sockmaster
 * Please see also:
 * Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheIndependentMind


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640039532 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 640030786 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 640005460 by Dr.K)" - revert performed by the master
 * 4)  "Undid revision 639936169 by Taivo)" - revert performed by the master


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning for IP:
 * 1)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW★TW)"
 * Diffs for the master
 * For brevity's sake please see associated 3RR, third-level unsourced, ARBMAC DS, and SPI warnings on talkpage of master.
 * For brevity's sake please see associated 3RR, third-level unsourced, ARBMAC DS, and SPI warnings on talkpage of master.


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


 * Comments:

IP is sockpuppet of. Continues edit-warring for the past day or so adding unsourced OR about the Slavic cognates of the Ancient Macedonian language. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * by as a result of SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:217.165.78.76 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640193134 by Dl2000 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 640193640 by Josh3580 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 640194583 by Dl2000 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640194583 by Dl2000 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640194583 by Dl2000 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring over re-insertion of copy-vio content. Has been warned repeatedly of edit warring and copyvio. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Msnicki (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Added: More of the same behavior on Sargun Mehta, Breaking Bad and Shema Yisrael where he's also violated WP:3RR within the last 24 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

I reverted one pending change which Winkelvi reverted  but that was my only recent edit to this page. I'm otherwise uninvolved. Msnicki (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I do see a lot of reverts, but it seems to me that at least some (maybe many) of them are good-faith attempts to undo unexplained edits that may not be vandalism, necessarily, but at least borderline-disruptive, such as this one. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Having watched the Robin Williams article, I have to say it gets a lot of vandalism or otherwise problematic edits. The best solution may be protecting it again. -- Calidum  04:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also notified the user in question, since the filer didn't. -- Calidum  04:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I did warn him about edit warring, here, but he quickly removed it. I had not yet warned him of this discussion.  Msnicki (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He also reverted two time ips correction on Sargun Mehta, [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargun_Mehta?diff=640038864 1], [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargun_Mehta?diff=640039537 2]. Himanshugarg06 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments: I have to admit I am quite surprised, as well as confused, by this report filed by Msnicki. I spent the majority of my time on Wikipedia yesterday working recent changes patrol.  As Drmies pointed out, a once over of the edits would have revealed what was actually going on.  Three of the articles were being hit by problematic edits as well as vandalism.  Two of the articles I came to during recent changes patrol. The Breaking Bad article is on my watchlist because of a recent history of problematic IP edits,  In fact, the IP who kept reverting a change there ended up vandalizing the article because he wasn't getting what he wanted.  After looking into his claims I corrected the article accordingly.  At the Shema Yisrael article, I explained to the problematic IP through edit summaries with each reversion why the article couldn't reflect what they were reverting back in.  I went to the IPs talk page to explain.  I even went so far as to ask for advice at the MOS talk page regarding what appeared to be a breach of MOS in the IPs edits.  These were not a result of edit warring behavior, it was article protection from problem IPs and vandalism.  As far as the Robin Williams article goes, Calidum is correct: it has been an article prone to problematic IP edits and edit warring by new contributors since August.  And I wasn't the only editor reverting the changes of the unresponsive, non-communicative, and very persistent IP edit warrior who has been there for the last couple of days.  Pretty much all of the edits I reverted yesterday were due to obvious vandalism, problematic edits, suspicious IP edits - and most of them had no edit summary explaining their edits.  I left numerous warnings, welcomes, and comments on the talk pages of those users as well as in the edit summaries.  My reasons for reversion were clear.  And, honestly, when Msnicki put the edit warring warning on my talk page, my first reaction was, "Is she kidding?" and then, "This must be a knee-jerk retaliation for reverting her edit at the Robin Williams article".  But I never thought she would actually come here.  As I said above, a quick look at my edits yesterday would have made it clear that edit warring behavior wasn't what was actually happening. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I know which IP editor is talking about, and I have left a note on User talk:70.190.229.97: they're the one who could have been reported here, with some justification. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not one of your reverts to Robin Williams is exempt as a revert of "'obvious vandalism" (emphasis in the original) as required by WP:3RRNO. You're not allowed an exemption because you think you're merely enforcing what you think is the consensus or because you think someone else is edit-warring.  Content disputes are not exempt.
 * Two of your reverts to Robin Williams, numbers 1 and 3, were to revert edits back from "active" → "years_active" in the Template:Infobox comedian. But you were wrong both times.  The correct name of the field is "active", not "years_active".
 * Every other revert, numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, was clearly over a content dispute not involving vandalism. In two of the reverts, number 4 and 8, you were restoring an "influenced" field in the infobox based on claim of talk page consensus that, having looked at it more closely this morning, seems questionable.
 * I haven't gone through each of the edits to those other articles but brought them to the discussion to point up what appears to be a pattern where an inordinate number of your edits are reverts. Other editors experience that as chilling, as if you've set yourself up as the gatekeeper for the article.  That's unhelpful and I think you should change your behavior.  Msnicki (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This simply looks like is doing something most of us should be doing - reverting vandalism. I don't see any immediate issue. It certainly doesn't look like he's trying to push a POV or anything, he's simply reverting common vandalism. I'd urge him to not try to communicate in edit summaries and ensure that he's reporting the vandals. Otherwise, perhaps we should move on. D</b><b style="color:#F60">u</b><b style="color:#090">s</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the IP editors most active at the Robin Williams article has been . They've only been here for the last seven days, but in that amount of time they have chosen to clear their talk page five times. This is one of the people that Winkelvi was reverting. I suggest that User:Msnicki should study the last 100 edits at Robin Williams more carefully, and consider the wisdom of withdrawing this complaint. Certainly an admin would give some consideration to semiprotecting the article, given that so few of the recent IP edits have been helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I count 5 of the 9 reverts as reverts of . But two of the reverts were simply wrong, reverting "active" back to "years_active" in the infobox.  The other were clearly content disputes not protected by WP:3RRNO.  If the IP editor is being disruptive, the answer is not to edit war him, it's to take it to the talk page to establish consensus or bring it here.  You don't get to revert edits because someone made other edits you didn't like or because you think they're more active than you like or because they clear their talk page.  They're allowed to do that.  Msnicki (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I count zero reverts of vandalism in that list. Which of those revert(s) I listed do you believe should be exempt under WP:3RRNO?  Msnicki (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On his talk page, User:Winkelvi has now agreed to take a one-month break from the Robin Williams article and its talk page. I suggest that an admin could close the 3RR complaint without a block on that basis, since that ensures that the war reported here won't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Regarding Shema Yisrael, an anon SPA showed up favoring "G_d" over "God" in a brief edit-war spurt of a few minutes.  This could, technically, be viewed as a "content dispute" or something similar, but the consensus on such issues is so well-established, and frankly, so well-known, that the SPA really should be viewed as a vandal, especially considering his only explanation has been the repeated deliberately misleading "Fixed typo" Edit Summary.  Choor monster (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . The article has been locked for two days by .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not exactly what I'd call a rifle-shot solution to a problem of edit warring by one editor who says he's left the room. It looked to me like normal discussion was returning to the talk page.  Msnicki (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Truthspeaker33 reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Adding child rapist to a BLP article. Jsharpminor (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . Materialscientist (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:74.101.157.77 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: we are dealing with map legend.

Diffs of the user's reverts: (1RR rules apply, newest first)
 * 1)  undid User:EkoGraf's and 2nd reversion within 24 hrs
 * 2)  changed again, reverted by EkoGraf
 * 3)  reverted by User:EkoGraf
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This article is the primary article under 1RR Syrian Civil War community sanctions Large warnings

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

Comments:

1. While debated, there has never a consensus to include Israel in the infobox, either as a belligerent or map legend. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Israel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Israeli_support_for_Syrian_rebels

2. This has long been in the infobox: <--DO NOT ADD ISRAEL. PER Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive215, ANYONE WHO ADDS ISRAEL WILL IMMEDIATELY BE BLOCKED. -->

3. Large warning template about 1RR here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War and WARNING Editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours when reverting logged-in users, in accordance with a July 2013 motion and community consensus on August 2013. See this page for further details. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks or other sanctions (such as page or topic bans)." when you open the edit window.

4. I've reverted a change by the IP to the location of Iraqi Kurdistan in the infobox, but that is not as clear cut on edit warring, so I'm not raising it here at this time. Seeking appropriate sanctions for the IP. This change should not be made period, and definitely not 3 times, twice in one day.


 * Comment: The user was not warned until after all the edits listed here. I'm not even sure there were two reverts -- there is no clear description above. 'Reverted by Ekograf' -- how does that tell us if the IP edit was a revert? Try asking the user on their talk page what they were attempting to do. When you talk about adding Israel -- does that mean there is consensus to *not* put the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights on the map? If so please link to where that consensus was found. EdJohnston (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Each of the three diffs provided make nearly identical changes to the map legend - to add "Israel" as a party to the Syrian Civil War in the legend of the map. This and similar proposals have been extensively discussed at the linked locations. I don't think the IP has discussed this change anywhere (at least as the IP). Comment 2 is a warning long embedded in the infobox, plus other warnings listed. No reason to edit war with all the bold warnings around the article. User:EkoGraf reverted Diff 2 and 3. I reverted Diff 1 (the newest). Sorry if my report was not clear enough. I think a warning will suffice here, and hopefully the IP will start communicating. Legacypac (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP editor is warned that this template is under WP:1RR per the Syrian Civil war sanctions. Any changes to the template need to have consensus, especially if they mention Israel. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:200.83.101.225 (Result: No action--closed by semi-abusive admin)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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:

This user is behaving disruptively, apparently as a result of a grudge they have developed against me (see immediately above). This article is far outside their usual sphere of editing of popular culture articles, and I believe they are removing the prod tag merely to provoke. They have now reverted my placement of the tag four times in half an hour. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere I urged to help bring the temperature down, not up, and I'm closing this report in hopes of achieving that purpose. The technicalities of PROD removal and good-faith and all that are exciting, and we'll discuss that over beers. This edit war, however, is over; I have put the article up at AfD and have no wish to see anyone blocked over any of this. So I'm going to close this report, and if anyone wants to drag me to ANI for admin abuse, so be it. Happy holidays to everyone, and I wish you many fun edits. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:201.222.232.74 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Semi)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "RAMAL from spanish"
 * 1)  "RAMAL from spanish"
 * 1)  "RAMAL from spanish"
 * 1)  "RAMAL from spanish"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Constitución, Chile. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Constitución, Chile. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on User talk:Winkelvi. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* December 2014 */ Aléjate de mi página de discusión"


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


 * Comments:

IP hopping edit warrior who, at first, insisted on inserting unreferenced content numerous times (also as IPs 106.185.32.199 and 81.240.173.140. Policy on referencing has been explained to him several times. Warnings have been placed on each IPs talk page.  He has come to my talk page to discuss - everything has been explained to him there, as well.  Is now inserting references to Wikipedia articles - it has been explained that Wikipedia articles can't be used as references.  Refuses to stop inserting unreferenced and improperly referenced content, reverts and edit wars instead.  I don't expect the improperly reference content insertion to stop any time soon as he seems intent on going against policy. -- <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;">✉ ✓  06:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Has now obtained a different IP address and readded the same content to the same article as well as vandalizing my talk page. If you look at the newest IP's user contributions, you will see that he has a history of being disruptive - even at Jimbo Wales' talkpage (see here: ).  He did the same at Jimbo's talkpage a few months ago as one of the other IPs listed above.  This obviously all goes beyond edit warring and adding unreferenced content.  Looks like WP:LTA.  -- <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;">✉ ✓  07:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * More IPs The IPs keep coming at the Constitución, Chile article as well as vandalism at my talk page and various other articles I have edited recently. -- <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;">✉ ✓ 07:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment ✉ winkelvi completely abuses his power and is not open to discus matters in an open and academic manner. I tried to have an open discussion with him about the sources of the hard work i had completed but he preferred to delete the work rather than contribute in helping me to improve it. I find this attitude oounterproductive and against the ethos of wikipedia. I completely appreciate that suitable reference are required, however wikelvi deleted the page and work before I had a chance to improve it meaning I lost all my work. Also the references exist in spanish and are accepted on the spanish version of the page. I think it is rather inappropriate to exist any language that is not english from being referenced. If you only accept references in english for a page about a country which is not english speaking you largely.limit the quality of the page to poorly informed second hand sources.

To conclude I would like to formally complain about the conduct of winkelvi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.6.125.2 (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sock of User:Bosnipedian According to this edit it seems this IP-hopping edit warrior and vandal is sock of the indef blocked Bosnipedian.  From the talk page history I've read at Jimbo's user space Drmies has past experience with this sock/vandal. -- <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;">✉ ✓  08:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ''' ???? This is without evidence, please provide references. You are making assumptions without evidence, the very thing that you criticize others for. I guess you wouldnt like it if someone deleted your post, because you would feel its true and well researched. You would feel that they should discuss it with you first? I think you should learn to justify you accusations before making wild and slanderous claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.75.91 (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected. At least one of the four IPs is User:Bosnipedian. The other three IPs are from different continents which may just indicate the evasion prowess of Bosnipedian. So instead of blocking Winkelvi for going overboard, I'm applying two months of semi. Winkelvi is advised not to keep this up indefinitely, since breaking 3RR causes a lot of bells to ring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:107.204.38.215 reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: Blocked)

 * User being reported:

Edit warring on multiple pages.

Also personal attacks. Jsharpminor (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Page:
 * 1)  "Pvpoodle, LOL at you mere indian internet trolls !! Keep trying, and try harder !!  hehe."
 * 2)  "Pvpoodle go spank your monkey some where else !"
 * 3)  "Go spank your monkey some where else !"
 * 1)  "Go spank your monkey some where else !"

Page:


 * 1)  "Pvpoodle, LOL at you mere indian internet trolls !! Keep trying, and try harder !!  hehe."
 * 2)  "Pvpoodle, I now see that you are a mere indian student living in NZ and you got OWNED by someone on the internet ? lol, BTW, your did not get me, I did not read your message, just simply see that huge paragraph you wrote is enough of a hint, try harder !"
 * 3)  "Pvpoodle, go spank your monkey some where else !"

Page:


 * 1)  "lol, actually, I am not Chinese. Therefore, no matter how hard you try, it will not affect me. LOL"
 * 2)  "Pvpoodle, I now see that you are a mere indian student living in NZ and you got OWNED by someone on the internet ? lol, BTW, your did not get me, I did not read your message, just simply see that huge paragraph you wrote is enough of a hint, try harder !"
 * 3)  "Pvpoodle, you are the one need to learn English ! You and you indian speak English with your silly accent, and it is not even your language, it was force onto you Indians ! Why don't you Indians speak your own language then ?"
 * 4)  "Removal of Sourced Content"
 * 5)  "remove older source and replacing it with update and more reliable source. The source clearly stated that there are two prototypes !"
 * 1)  "remove older source and replacing it with update and more reliable source. The source clearly stated that there are two prototypes !"

See also the report at AIV, as well as SPI. Jsharpminor (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * previously reported on Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang and just now also reported on WP:ANI. He edits china military related pages with his own sino centric viewpoint without any references or sources and removes sourced information that contradicts his POV. Anyone who disagrees with him are constantly badgered by Personal attacks. My Talk page and user page are under long term page protection due to his incessant racially motivated personal attacks which have been going on for the last 6 Months!!
 * Pages he has been edit warring on may require temporary page protection as he is not going to stop after the ban. (the SPI case archives should be proof enough of this) Pvpoodle (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: IP already blocked 24 hours by User:Edgar181. There are too many articles to easily semiprotect them all. If any followup is needed (semiprotections or rangeblock) it's better to request them in the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Iṣṭa Devata reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   17:51, 30 December 2014‎ - No explanation
 * 2)  18:01, 30 December 2014‎  - False allegation of vandalism
 * 3)  18:16, 30 December 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Iṣṭa Devata

Comments:


 * Inclusion of hoax as well, see Malasana. Bladesmulti (talk)

What was restored was the version of the page that includes both opinions, while bladesmulti has been removing differing opinions which is disruptive. Technically vandalism was the wrong word for it since his edits seems sincere if not well thought over. He is doing the same thing on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvars Bladesmulti has been contributing POVs from his (presumably) Vaishnav Hindu background and erasing things he disagrees with without engaging in any debate. This is the case on multiple pages. His revisions have been destructive to several pages and have required reverting. He has a history of pushing this POV in at least one other article as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hinduism_and_Judaism The erasing of verifiable material to push an agenda or worldview is antithetical to wikipedia's purpose. This is why bladesmulti has already been reported at least once for Wikipedia:TE. Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those three reverts clearly seems to have been made under 24 hours, and in fact 2 hours. It is also obvious that you are going to revert again if your POV version has been reverted. Show me where I haven't discussed? None of your above irrelevant nonsense has anything to do with your disruptive editing on Malasana, I have not erased any verifiable material, yet you are not only removing references but also removing category, image, etc. because you don't like them. Have I mentioned your deliberate incompetence that you don't even know what is the meaning of vandalism. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The section you had added, Malasana, it looks like a hoax. Are you here for promoting false information and hoax? Bladesmulti (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Look up the pose in any traditional yoga book (Light on Yoga, Yoga Mala, Dharma Mittra's book, Srivatsa Ramaswami's book, etc.)and you will see that the picture was of upavesasana since mālāsana (traditionally) has the big toes together. The pose name also appears in the Sritattvanidhi from the Mysore Palace and is spelled with long ā meaning garland, not poop. The use of James Mallinson was a place holder because there is apparently no serious academic discussion proposing the poop theory. Not to mention anything named asana had to be usable for ashtanga yoga. No other 'asana' is for anything other than asana practice. These points are all made on malasana's talk page, which you haven't been participating in. The page already included both opinions the way it was. Your reversion to restore a picture completely removed months of work.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Claiming that you have gained your hoax through the "private emails" from James Mallinson is not helpful, it cannot be considered as a citation. Doesn't matter how long it took you to create your crackpot theories, since it seems disruptive and hasn't improved the page, but only removed reliable citations, category, image, and promoted hoax. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation. There are not enough reverts to violate 3RR. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page. If either party continues to revert it may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti is now attempting to change the malasana page from another profile User:TheRedPenOfDoom to avoid being reported. I'm afraid to revert changes. Help please. Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have reached three reverts. If you revert again, you may be blocked. It's up to you to persuade other editors, using the reliable sources. If you can't make any progress, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Twobells (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)&diff=640304878&oldid=639251189

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)&diff=640304878&oldid=639256898

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)&diff=640304878&oldid=639336499
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)&diff=640304878&oldid=640241171
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)&diff=640304878&oldid=640256546
 * 4) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)&diff=640304878&oldid=640303367
 * 5) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)&diff=640304878&oldid=640303978

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have had to revert the (initially) reversions 9 times over two days, every time I try to add legitimate citations to the article it has been reverted, I have tried everything to get two editors to play fair including issuing edit warring warnings but they continue to try and raise objections to the point that I am unable to move further forward.


 * Result: Article protected five days. Please open a discussion on the talk page. Protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Info4allthepeople reported by User:Lachlan Foley (Result: Submitter blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640189384 by Lachlan Foley (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 640233388 by Lachlan Foley (talk) nothing wrong with the heading of the page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 640234614 by Lachlan Foley (talk)there is nothing wrong with the heading section. stop"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 640234976 by Lachlan Foley (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640233388 by Lachlan Foley (talk) nothing wrong with the heading of the page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 640234614 by Lachlan Foley (talk)there is nothing wrong with the heading section. stop"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 640234976 by Lachlan Foley (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Well, that's sweet. All this starts with this unexplained and rather asinine revert; did not see fit to put anything on the talk page or on the user's talk page, as far as I can see. So, as far as I'm concerned, they're the one who is falling short of expected rules of behavior. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Lachlan Foley blocked 24 hours. Both parties went past 3RR, but Info4allthepeople did not continue to revert after getting a 3RR warning. It is unclear why Lachlan Foley thought he was improving the article with his removals. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Info4allthepeople reported by User:Lachlan Foley (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640205962 by Lachlan Foley (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 640234592 by Lachlan Foley (talk)the charts and certifications are not correctly placed"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * There is no 3RR violation here... and you have a thread open above on this user, so why file this one? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * – EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Just the two latest reverts are reported, older reverts were already reported at Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive266.
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This user was engaged in edit warring at Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic. He made numerous reverts with no intention to discuss it. He was reported here and blocked for 24 hours (see: Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive266). As soon as the block expired, he made two more reverts (those are also reported in the case I linked). For this, he was blocked for 72 hours. During this time, me and other editors tried to explain to Антон патріот to stop edit warring and to discuss every dispute at the talk page (see: User_talk:Антон_патріот). He acknowledged that he read our comments, but he was not very cooperative. As soon as the second block expired, he made two more reverts (diffdiff). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanjagenije (talk • contribs) 10:21, 31 December 2014

This is a malformed report. The two reverts are to different articles. He has only made one revert on each article since his block ending, not two. Furthermore, we have coaxed this guy to start participating in the talk page, where there is a discussion relevant to his edits.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. This can hardly be considered edit warring. The user made a controversial edit, but was immediately reverted . If this user was involved in edit warring, he would revert the page back (engage in edit warring), but his next edit was taken to the talk page . The purpose of a block is "to prevent a user from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism." This user's edit were stubborn, but he went to the talk page over choosing to revert, which is not disruptive. "A block is not intended as punishment". Sure, the user did edit war in the past, but I really doubt this qualifies.--BoguSlav 17:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When you have a history of edit warring and your block expires, you don't immediately revert and when reverted go to the Talk page, you immediately go to the Talk page without reverting, even once.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * . The report may not be perfectly filed, but it is not malformed. Even one revert after block expiration is sufficient to reblock. Here there were two to two different articles. The editor's comment on one of the Talk pages is hardly the stuff of collaboration.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:200.83.101.225 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:28, 30 December 2014‎ (UTC) "no reason given for revert"
 * 2)  "actually it was already discussed at length, and people actively refused to justify the mention of the speech.  enough is enough, if it can't be explained then it has to go"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 640238955 by MelbourneStar (talk) concentrate, will you?  The sourcing is not the issue.  The relevance is the issue.  No relevance is explained."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 640235818 by Bilby (talk) a speech was given.  Politicians give lots of speeches and there is no attempt to explain why this one is important."
 * 5)  "I see that people have not been able or willing to explain what this speech contained or why it was important.  The absence of this basic information renders the sentence meaningless and so it must be removed."


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


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


 * Comments:

IP was asked to not remove sourced content, and discuss their edits on the article talk page. Indeed, going through said IP's contributions, they have a history of edit warring. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 14:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am discussing this on the talk page. User was asked to understand that sourcing was not the issue but failed to do so.  They have also misrepresented my first edit as a revert.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This user is also at 3RR on Motifs in the James Bond film series, but has managed to avoid a report by finally visiting the talk page.- SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SchroCat has reverted three times at Motifs in the James Bond film series. The relevance of that to this report is not clear.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is that I tried the article's talkpage and left a message on your talk page. I have not edit warred on numerous articles in an attempt to force my opinion against consensus, and you have. (Not that I am trying to claim any defence for my three reverts, there is none, except frustration). - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You and I are, in fact, currently discussing things on the talk page. I am also currently discussing Paul Keating on that talk page.  Don't insinuate that I am not.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made no such insinuation. - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So what did you mean, exactly, by "The difference is that I tried the article's talkpage"? 200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So what did you think I meant in my first comment when I said we were discussing on the talk page? - SchroCat (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Another edit war halted after intervention by and an edit by  which supplied the valid context the IP has been asking for since July. Yes, edit warring, sure; yes, a bit of inflammatory rhetoric, sure; but also a valid point that was not addressed in all these reverts. If a simple majority establishes consensus and is not required to actually address any problems we will not make much improvement. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Drmies, that edit war was not halted, as the IP reverted (or at least substantively reverted) his edits too. This editor has been previously banned, is conducting a bunch of determined, querulous and pointless edit wars across a bunch of completely unrelated articles apparently for the lulz, but seems to have the social skills to be able to con a couple more editors every time he comes back into taking him seriously enough to drag them out for another couple months. He needs to be banned again already. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never been banned and I don't appreciate you making stuff up like that. There is a discussion going on on the talk page, and several editors working to improve the article.  You should join in.  200.83.101.225 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for three months in July for "personal attacks and harassment and edit warring". Nice try. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a rather immense difference between "blocked" and "banned", that I am quite certain you are fully aware of. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * does this look halted to you? I certainly beg to differ. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 02:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

He is now up to eight reverts in 24 hours. He has been previously blocked for three months for rampantly ignoring the 3RR as well as for his behaviour towards other users. This needs to be acted upon again. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected one month. The IP has broken 3RR and seems likely to continue their campaign. (They reverted again after User:Drmies left his comment above). It isn't the first time they have edit warred about the speech. If it were up to me I would remove the reference to the True Believer speech by Keating in 1993. People seem to remember the speech fondly but are unable to explain why it was significant. Anyone who wants to report the IP to SPI is encouraged to do so. It's presumably the same editor as in Sockpuppet investigations/190.44.133.67. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I missed all that excitement. I'm sure is enjoying this too. Funny how two admins agree with the content of the IP's edit (if, Ed, I read you correctly). And now I'm going to watch House, thanks to Netflix. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted too many times and I apologise for that. I was trying to make various different edits, all of which were being reverted by the cabal of editors who are bizarrely working hard to prevent the explanation of obscure Australian political references in the article.  As for this new accusation of sockpuppetry: are you aware of the concept of dynamic IP allocation? 200.83.101.225 (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

and, you're clearly both aware that this is a user with a habit of similar antics going back many years, a block log as long as my arm, and a clear intent to evade accountability for that as made abundantly clear because of his comments here. This is blatant trolling: make a point that sounds like it has the faintest touch of reason, rudely refuse any attempts at compromise or dealing with the request, and deliberately driving legitimate editors up the wall, spread over many topics and many years. I would like an explanation as to why you feel that hard rules like 3RR that apply to every other editor on this project do not apply to this user. And I'm aware that once again, in posting this, this user is getting exactly the reaction he wants, and that he's being utterly abetted in this by two legitimate editors is distressing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Wolesslap reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked and semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * 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:

Despite userpage warnings, breach of 3RR. More importantly, this is almost certainly a sock of, who had just been blocked for the exact same edit war (etc.) just prior to Wolesslap commencing. Since both apply, I'm posting here rather than SPI for the usually quicker turnaround. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * pinging as the blocking admin for the other account. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Vandalism only account and yes probably a sockpuppet. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Fanaticamileycyrus (Result: No violation)
This user has reverted my edits but, they are correct. I have added refrences and I will re-add my edits with other refrences and watch this user revert my edit. He reverted my edit on Enamorada de Ti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanaticamileycyrus (talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * – Not enough reverts by either party to violate WP:3RR. Neither of you has posted anything to the article talk page. Your complaint might be more persuasive if you had more than five edits to Wikipedia. If you are actually User:Marielopez124 it would be better for you to use that account. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Submitter is now blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/Marielopez124. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:Mevagiss (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Attempts to discuss the issue have been dismissed and discussion unilaterally closed by imposing some sort of box around our record of correspondence, together with accusations levelled at me of being an edit warrior — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevagiss (talk • contribs)


 * No breach of 3RR, (three reverts over three days) no warning left, other editor has reverted as many times, and against the long-standing status quo, all on grammatically dubious grounds. Editor needs to drop the stick and walk away here. – SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Warning was left and deleted by SchroCat, who appears to be motivated by WP:OWN and using rudeness and intimidation to enforce a point of view.--Mevagiss (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there was no warning of 3RR, so please don't mislead people with false statements.
 * Please don't throw around unfounded accusations of ownership. I disagree with you in respect of one word (as does another user on the talk page): that is not uncivil, and it is a personal attack to make such an unfounded allegation. – SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * . I know editors at Wikipedia have a penchant for bickering over some of the most unimportant things, but arguing over grammar in a film plot section? Please give it a rest. There's no breach of 3RR here, not even close. To the extent there is an edit war, both parties are equally culpable. I'm not even going to suggest that you work it out on the Talk page, although that normally is the place to start. Why don't you find another way to word the sentence without using may or could? I don't want to see either of you back here about this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:RAN1 reported by User:ChrisGualtieri (Result: Locked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* To grand jury result */ rm poorly-sourced fringe theory about BLP-related events"
 * 2)  "/* Grand jury decision in the media */ rm fringe theory"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 640536243 by Isaidnoway (talk): Blog post referencing deadlink HuffPost opinion, violates BLP as poorly sourced"
 * 4)  "/* Grand jury decision in the media */ clarifying opinion"
 * 5)  "/* Reactions to grand jury decision */ rm BLP violation, still a blog, still a primary source and still a fringe theory pending talk page explanation"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Warning per Discretionary Sanctions  */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Warning per Discretionary Sanctions */"


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


 * Comments:

Editor's repeated claims of "BLP violation" or "Fringe" or "OR" in specific detail to the operation of an investigative grand jury and is sourced to Paul G. Cassell a former United States federal judge, who is a professor at the law school of the University of Utah. He is best known as an expert in and proponent of the rights of crime victims and has wrote extensively on the case.

Page is under discretionary sanctions. Consensus that it is not a BLP violation or Fringe material. Additional details covered by includes half a dozen other legal professionals including already cited within the article. Discussions include Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown and others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Said source is a primary source posted in the Volokh Conspiracy, a news blog, propagating the fringe theory that the Ferguson grand jury merely investigated the incident without investigating crimes. This also falls under BLPPRIMARY BLPSPS. Complainant also refuses to mention attempts to resolve the dispute on the talk page, where I explained my rationale on the talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=640544303&oldid=640544186] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=640541565&oldid=640541046] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=640537808&oldid=640535564]. No attempt was made to resolve my BLP concerns on the talk page in question, instead I was warned on my talk page under DS before this was forwarded to 3RRN. I've already made a post at BLPN, as I believe this is a pretty obvious violation of BLP and this shouldn't fall under 3RR. --RAN1 (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that the opinion is fringe is nothing more than your opinion. There is no official viewpoint or scientific consensus to be fringe to. Its not a primary source, and in any case is not revealing any personal information about anyone so I am unsure why you are bringing up BLPPRIMARY. The opinions are largely about a process, not a person, and are defending the process, so your claims that this is somehow a BLP issue seem pretty weak. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Volokh Conspiracy is a blog-format with editorial control (not self published) with contributors being almost exclusively law professors and prominent judges who write on legal matters. The Washington Post hosts the relevant material since it is normally paywalled. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that I put in BLPPRIMARY instead of BLPSPS, which is what I meant to say. I've reverted myself since apparently it's disputed whether this article is about a BLP-heavy event. The grand jury was under the direction of McCulloch and his named prosecutor team, on the case of Wilson shooting Brown. That's a fairly BLP-heavy article and considering there's been BLP disputes about the implications of how the grand jury was operated would have on McCulloch's professional reputation, this falls under BLP so 3RR shouldn't apply here. The official viewpoint is that the grand jury chose not to indict because they saw all the evidence and found that there was no probable cause . The fringe theory Cassell propagates is that the grand jury investigates without the premise of crime when grand juries are actually assembled to try and determine felonies and investigate all crimes as noted in the Missouri Constitution . Btw, as noted on the Volokh Conspiracy's own website, they have full editorial control, ergo they are self-published. Even if this isn't a violation of FRINGE, it's still a violation of BLPSPS. --RAN1 (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and we removed them because they were mostly self-published opinions by experts and consensus was against including them, something which I am adhering to now. I fail to see what's the difference here that could have convinced you this wasn't a BLP issue and that this 3RR complaint is provided for by consensus. --RAN1 (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - It should also be noted that a couple of Missouri Law Professors and the Jackson County, Missouri Prosecutor all support Cassell's opinion as well, and RAN1 has suggested on the talk page that the reliability of their opinions should be questioned as well. Isaidnoway (talk)  22:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - ChrisGualtieri refactored removed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=640568117&oldid=640568044 his own comment] with no proper reason. --RAN1 (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly refactoring, it was withdrawing a comment they'd made, and they did give a proper reason. Not exactly sure what stunt you're trying to pull there. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a note, not a stunt. My reply has no context with the original comment removed. --RAN1 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ran1 is continuing with more alterations of Cassell's material.This is 6RR and more insertions of factually inaccurate material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * fully by for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bawer1 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: All of the 17 edits to Kurds - diffs listed here at wmflabs (This represents 12 reverts as the 2 last edits on 16 November, the 2 edits at 6:05 and 6:07 on 22 December and the edit at 23:57 were amendments to a revert the user had just carried out.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Long term edit-warring to remove references to Kurds being an "Iranian people" in the article's lead, and also, in the lead, to make Kurdish "languages" singular. User has made 17 edits to article since July all of which are to do this (except 5 of them are the user amending or adding to a revert he's just made). Because 12 reverts are involved it seemed more sensible to link to the wmflabs report than to cut and paste all diffs here. Hope that's ok. User's campaign really began in November and intensified from 22 December. On 29 December he was eventually persuaded to enter discussion on the talk page but seems to have given up on this and began reverting again on 31 December with this and this. From contribs it appears is engaged in similar POV edit warring on related articles. DeCausa (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: After the posting of this report and Bawer1 receiving the AN3 notification, he reverted again and posted a meatpuppetry threat at my talk page. DeCausa (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Kurds: Revision history contains an astonishingly large number of reverts by Bawer1. Maybe admins could give him/her a week's rest?--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I count 13 reverts of the same edit since 16 November and he's just done his 3rd revert in 24 hours after I posted this report. DeCausa (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Elliotness1 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kirkwall Ba game."
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kirkwall Ba game."
 * 3)   "Kirkwall Ba game"


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


 * Comments:

Has been asked repeatedly for sources, declines to discuss and repeats edit. Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:68.189.130.204 reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I edited out the word "extreme" because it is subjective. If you truly want an objective view of this article, then the word "extreme" should be struck from the article and the word "Biblical" replaced in its stead, which is accurate."
 * 2)  "edited the word "Extreme" since that is subjective."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 640583029 by Haminoon (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 640583536 by Haminoon (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 640583946 by 68.189.130.204 (talk)"
 * 6)  "←Replaced content with 'Your use of the word, "EXTREME" is subjective. How do you not get that?'"
 * 7)  "The word "extreme" is not objective. Removed for a more objective reading of the article."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 640587461 by DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 640587848 by Melcous (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640587848 by Melcous (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Faithful Word Baptist Church. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Faithful Word Baptist Church. (TW)"


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

– 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kely123 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Please note
 * Technically this user has not broken 3RR. But due to the volume of the edit-warring on multiple K-pop articles and the large-scale reversals s/he is performing against multiple editors, as well as the absence of any communication on his/her part, there is no indication at all that s/he will stop without getting blocked.
 * Also edit-warring on
 * ‎(1 revert)
 * ‎(2 reverts)
 * ‎(2 reverts)
 * ‎(2 reverts)
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Large scale edit-warring across multiple articles and against multple editors restoring fluff which was removed by a consensus formed after long discussions related to K-pop articles. Large-scale reversals without attempt to communicate and without using any edit-summaries. Probable sock but, in this sock-plagued area, I am not fully certain whose sock it is. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 19:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42 reported by User:MrX (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 640467207 by Billy Hathorn (talk): Not debunked, valid source. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 2 edits by Dumbo779 (talk) to last revision by Gaijin42. (TW)"
 * 3)  "/* EURO controversy */ This is not Knights BLP, and BLPPRIMARY in anycase."
 * 4)  "/* EURO controversy */ That is information directly about this "controversy". stop making a WP:POINT"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Controversy length undue */ proposal"
 * 2)   "/* Removal of sources */ misinterpretation of WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARY; violation of WP:NPOV."
 * 3)   "/* Kenny Knight */ new section"

Also troubling is that content is being removed for reasons that are out side of policy. For example, in this edit, content was removed because "This is not Knights BLP, and BLPPRIMARY in anycase", however when I removed the rest of the Kenny Knight content here, Gaijin42 reverted it. Also, the source in the previous edit is a secondary source (local newspaper), so BLPPRIMARY would not apply.- MrX 15:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

I claim the BLP exception for all of these diffs.
 * Diff #2 is unsourced and contains clear NPOV editorializing completely inappropriate for a BLP.
 * Diff #3 is BLPPRIMARY, and further about a person other than the subject of this article
 * this entire section is based on a blog, who found an anonymous forum posting on the stormfront website. Others have subsequently reprinted the allegations raised in the blog, but the entire section is a huge BLP risk imo. In any case, the other diffs are removing reliably sourced opinions and facts which provide WP:NPOV balance including statements directly from those involved in the controversy.

I suggest this report be put into abeyance. I will be taking the entire section to WP:AE shortly to resolve these issues. If I have acted out of line the boomerang will surely be coming. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Diff #2 is unsourced, but it is not contentious and it is easily verifiable.In fact, other sources already in the article support it. So, actually it is sourced, just not with an adjacent inline citation.
 * Diff #3 is not BLPPRIMARY AFAIK. The source is a newspaper (see my comments above).
 * The section is based on ~307 news sources, according to Google. Many controversies arise out of blogs, forums, telephone calls, letters, stained dresses, etc. We follow reliable sources.- MrX 15:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "indicating he supposedly does not research where he will speak or who he speaks to" you think is appropriate editorialization and is sufficiently sourced? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Scalise himself said ""I was without the advantages of a tool like Google. It's nice to have those," (sourcesource), so the content while awkwardly worded, is consistent with his own words.- MrX 16:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the AE post Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
 * This is pretty obviously vexatious.- MrX 16:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, for diff #2, this is the diff that I attempted to revert, which is even more obviously a violation but the same editor changed their own post prior to me pushing the twinkle button so both edits were reverted. But that even more strongly puts that diff into the BLP exception. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you also removed valid content. Dumbo779 self reverted the editorializing here. - MrX 16:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC), 16:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Diff 2 is removal of an unsourced contentious claim about a living person. (Scalise claimed he did not know it was a racist gathering, indicating he supposedly does not research where he will speak or who he speaks to.  is not sourced, and I would not believe anyone who says the claim as made is not "contentious")  Thus WP:BLP directly applies to diff 2. Gaijin42 hit 3RR and not 4RR as a result. Collect (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

- I am withdrawing this report as Gaijin42 and I have agreed to a mutual 1RR restriction for 30 days on Steve Scalise, as documented here. Thank you. - MrX 20:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: No action since MrX and Gailjin42 have agreed to a mutual 1RR on Steve Scalise for 30 days. For the record a block was unlikely anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Baatarsaikan reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Please note that this article is subject to a 1RR restriction under WP:ARBPIA. User:Baatarsaikan was given notice of the ARBPIA sanctions on December 31. User:Baatarsaikan spent the morning edit-warring on this article and Persecution of Christians and ignored warnings to stop. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * per WP:ARBPIA.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Fleetham reported by User:wuerzele (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1 January 2015
 * 1)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=640453169&oldid=640393630 640453169] copy edit
 * 2)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=640462005&oldid=640457778 640462005]please don't revert
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=640462579&oldid=640462298 640462579]I'm not sure what your concern is. What do you mean by"the edit is not a copy edit?" As I did not add new content, this is a copy edit
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=640466409&oldid=640464396 640466409]discuss on talk--don't revert please!)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFleetham&diff=640480095&oldid=640466374] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFleetham&diff=640488690&oldid=640480095]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

first revert re section started 12/29: simply called "copy edit"


 * Recently, Fleetham is using this "copy edit" tactic instead of discussing things at the talk page, while being warned at Talk:Bitcoin that his purported "copy edits" contain WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, incorrect grammar, and delete sourced information. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi,, Ladislav, somehow it looks, like it's going to be 36 h archiving and no decision again.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No citation for Arewa Consultative Forum's relationship to Boko Haram. Using the word "Jihad" doesn't equal support of Boko Haram"
 * 2)  No edit summary
 * 3)  "edit discussed at length, see my talk page"
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After the first revert, deleting a paragraph from the Background section, I reworded the paragraph to remove any possible suggestion that the APC/ACF were being described as supporters of Boko Haram, as he appeared to think. I then opened the discussion on his talk page.

He replied here that "the word 'Boko Haram' is not in the reference you cited", revealing that he hadn't even looked at the reference ("Boko Haram" is in the title, and repeated throughout), before deleting the paragraph.

He states repeatedly in all his responses that the reference does not claim that the APC are supporters of Boko Haram, but as I repeatedly point out, the article does not claim that they are! He claims repeatedly that because I quote the founder of the APC speaking about jihad, I am claiming that the APC support Boko Haram. eg here, "it is naive to believe that every Muslim group that says 'Jihad' automatically support Boko Haram". I have tried to WP:AGF, and reminded him repeatedly that the article doesn't say or imply anything that the reference doesn't. Without attempting to refute this, he simply replies each time that it does indeed claim or imply that they support BH, without explaining why he thinks this, eg "why does the wikipedia article imply that they do support Boko Haram?".

His other "complaint" is "what does any of the following have to do with Boko Haram?", to which I reply here that it "describes the long-term background of Islamic militancy in the north of the country" and again here that "a couple of sentences to describe the main political group representing the interests of northern Nigeria is hardly undue."

I began 100% assuming good faith, and I am sorely disappointed. His initial failure to even glance at the reference, followed by his repeated refusal to recognise the fact that the background section of an article contains background, and that the section in question doesn't say (or imply) anything that the reference doesn't, have left me with no option but to report his behaviour here. When he said "I don't need to prove a negative, you job is to prove that APC supports Boko Haram" two minutes before reverting for the third time, it became clear that a) it is completely hopeless trying to communicate with him, and b) he firmly believes that he can remove any sourced material he doesn't like for whatever spurious reason. zzz (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

And, by the way, this, "Again, everyone who says Jihad does not equal support of Boko Haram and I also see you are on a crusade to delete articles about other radical Muslim groups in Nigeria" appears to me at least to be a completely unwarranted and offensive personal attack. zzz (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * – It takes four reverts to violate 3RR. Please hold the discussion on the *article* talk page. A discussion on a user talk page may not be seen by others who are following the article. If you can't reach agreement, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I knew was going to happen, User:Lipsquid is now repeating his edit and refusing to discuss on article talk. zzz (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mustafa ug reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "referenceses must support. And this is not advertising the university. This is politics"
 * 2)  "not active links to validate this. No need for promotion of the university"
 * 3)  "no need to put these things here. no valid references  and not enough knowledge about events there, political effects about education and missing information about sitoation"
 * 4)  "/* Supreme Court ruling on rector's dismissal */"
 * 5)  "/* Supreme Court ruling on rector's dismissal */"
 * 6)  "/* Supreme Court ruling on rector's dismissal */"
 * 1)  "/* Supreme Court ruling on rector's dismissal */"
 * 2)  "/* Supreme Court ruling on rector's dismissal */"


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


 * Comments:
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Anasapananas reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Please note
 * Anasapananas has engaged in a longterm campaign since 31 December restoring non-notable awards against consensus and waited after getting a 3RR warning, only to start again soon after the 3RR 24 period expired, thus gaming the system. Non-communicative, shows no signs of stopping without getting blocked. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 2)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 3)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 4)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 5)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 6)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

Longterm edit-warring on K-pop article Kwon Yuri edit-warring against multiple other editors and against consensus. Waited just long enough to not get caught breaking 3RR and then started again. No communication, no use of edit-summaries, just blind reverting. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * . I have to say nobody else is using the talkpage either, Dr.K.! But I agree Anasapananas's edits have an appearance of slow edit warring and perhaps gaming the 3RR rule, with no attempt to discuss even via edit summaries. Blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but there is a centralised discussion taking place amongst the other editors including at the K-pop wiki-project and in other articles as well where discussions have taken place and consensus formed. The MO of the reported user is typical of socks which blindly revert without communication. But the edits of this account are not enough for me to open an SPI as yet. This type of behaviour has plagued K-pop articles for years. A very similar case is just above where  got blocked for a week. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  19:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:86.169.134.161 reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640818633 by FrB.TG (talk) The source of the contention is in the article cited! No-one would subject a human to 8 weeks at 4°C."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 640817728 by FrB.TG (talk) A SCRIPT IS NOT COMPETENT TO JUDGE MY CONTRIBUTION."
 * 3)  "/* Adults */"


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


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


 * Comments:

I am the person who reverted to my own edit, twice. I had no idea of 'edit warring;' and have no intention of such. My first reversion was to undo a reversion effectively by script (and a user who only got editing permissions yesterday, I learn from his own page).

The second was to point out that the original citation was about mice stressed to an extreme of cold. The citation (though not the article itself) implies a serious medical condition (atherosclerosis) may affect adult humans (being the subject of that section of the page). There are no grounds to assert that comfortable acclimation by humans to moderate reductions in ambient temperatures is in any way comparable to an extreme test done on mice!

There is an article at http://www.jci.org/articles/view/68993 which shows that several SHORT term tests at moderate conditions have shown useful results and no harm, though long term tests are still wanting, as that article and many other state. For now, I request that you let my edit stand, until someone does it better. This is better than removing it and leaving people worrying about atherosclerosis when they should be thinking about a careful reduction in their own weight and their consumption of energy. It is far better that people learn that more human-based research is needed, instead of being forced to fall back on scare stories about extreme tests on mice!86.169.134.161 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I am an uninvolved editor, there is no 3rr breached here, some mild edit warring, and after a quick read of the reference used, the one already in the article, the IPs edits are supported by the reference. A little helping is needed to the IPs edits not blank reverting. Murry1975 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP appears apologetic on his talk page and I am tempted to believe him. He is informed of edit warring policy and a block is probably not required. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:198.96.85.111 reported by User:MadGuy7023 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640826320 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 640826223 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 640825794 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 640824111 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 640822503 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 640822081 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 640813287 by MadGuy7023 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 639348128 by MadGuy7023 (talk)"
 * 9)
 * 10)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: (both warnings)


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


 * Comments:

This user is has been edit warring for a very long time. He/She has been reported here and here. A page protection and two blocks weren't enough for them to stop. I am running out of options as they always seem to return with the same editing and edit warring. I would rather lose my privileges to stop this user than let them get away with it. This has been on going and each block was 24 hours, which didn't last the lack of edit warring long. Callmemirela ( talk ) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Consider reporting this IP at WP:SPI if you are hoping to get admin action on other articles. The only common element I could see in the IPs is that they were all from Canada, though from different cities. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, it would be greatly appreciated if you could please also block the IP. Now that the article is blocked, said user has turned to the article's talk page, and is making a nuisance there. This is someone who clearly needs an enforced timeout. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Emerwalnut reported by User:NebY (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 List of wealthiest historical figures. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring to add material that is far outside the scope of the article, introduced 17:23-17:24 here. NebY (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . "far outside the scope of the article" is a polite way of putting it. The edits are a blend of incompetence and vandalism, probably more the former. The user name is a problem, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Nikolaserbboy1995 reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Demographics */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 640751378 by Elekhh (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 640741601 by Chasewc91 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I am not actively involved in the Vienna article; I just happened to come across this user's edit warring yesterday in recent changes and reverted him once. User has not even left edit summaries explaining his changes, and is likely aware of other users' reasons for reverting him as he used the "undo" feature twice. Other users have warned him on his talk page. He still chooses to edit war. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * and may wish to comment here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dyrnych reported by User:Afronig (Result: Both 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:

Editor has engaged in multiple revert wars on this article in one 24 hour period. The BLP issue with asserting that a choke hold was the conclusive cause of death is that multiple agencies (NYPD, Medical Examiner's Office, Richmond County Grand Jury, NYPD PBA, Officer Pantaleo) dispute that a chokehold was in fact used. Since Daniel Pantaleo is alive, along with other police and EMT, they must be afforded the protections of WP:BLP. This editor is being reported for a violation of 3RR. He or she did not make any attempt to discuss this issue on the talk page before making the 4th revert. Afronig (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I honestly can't tell whether this is a complete report or not, but I'll go ahead and answer. This incident started when Afronig removed sourced material as to Eric Garner's cause of death with no explanation and continued to remove the information despite being asked to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The material that this editor continues to remove has been heavily discussed on the article's talk page.  It represents the verbatim conclusion of the medical examiner's report as to the cause of Eric Garner's death.  Notably, a number of editors have recently engaged in an attempt to debunk the notion that the medical examiner actually included the disputed term "choke hold" in the report, only to be informed by the medical examiner's office that the term in fact appears in the report.  Afronig has declined to participate in this discussion—which would have been an excellent forum for him/her to air his/her concerns and to see that they've probably already been addressed—and has simply edit warred to impose his/her own preference on the page over consensus.
 * I'll also note that Afronig templated me well after I'd stopped editing the page. Afronig's purported effort at discussion were subsequent to his/her repeated removal of sourced, consensus material with no regard for WP:BRD and were accompanied by what appears to be an ultimatum that I restore his/her edit or face a report on this board.  I can't imagine how Afronig can honestly accuse me of not discussing the matter under these circumstances.
 * Finally, it looks like I did technically violate 3RR due to an edit that I'd made yesterday afternoon (and had subsequently forgotten about) involving a different claim and a different user. It's my responsibility to ensure that I'm not violating 3RR (even inadvertently) so I will accept whatever sanction I receive.  However, I would ask that the Afronig receive the same; while he/she hasn't violated 3RR as of right now, his/her edits are certainly edit warring and his/her hands are hardly clean. Dyrnych (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

All you have to do is revert your revert before action is taken and this report will be rescinded. This report is complete as of your edit; apologies for my technical difficulties. If a third party endorses your reversion I won't revert (even though I might be able to revert 1 more time since I only reverted twice compared to your 4 times, my intention is not to play games here or get people blocked. I do take BLP issues though very seriously.) Afronig (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Both and  are  that if they continue their battle over the material they risk being blocked without notice. A couple of additional comments. First, @Afronig, there is no BLP violation here, not even close. The article appears to faithfully report the facts based on reliable sources. Second, I accept Dyrnych's explanation that they didn't mean to violate 3RR, but remember that you can be blocked for edit warring, which doesn't depend on the number of reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Bbb23. Your warning and reminder are well taken. Dyrnych (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, I will "appeal" your assertion on the BLP violation to the BLP noticeboard. I also find your action here arbitrary and capricious. Namely, I suspect if the tables were turned and I had reverted 4 times and Dyrnych 2 times in a similar fashion, you would have blocked me and not warned Dyrnych for 2 reverts because of your personal ideology. In fact, your warning to Dyrnych here for 3 reverts on 1 issue and 1 revert on another was pretty mild and you knew I said I would not edit further, regardless of the technicalities of 3RR. It seems you deliberately took my words out of context. Regardless, the 3RR issue is moot but the BLP issue is not. I will file a notice on the BLP notice board which you are welcome to join. Afronig (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue deletions
I would like to report [] making undue revisions to the Fine Tuned Universe page, deleting fleshed out explanations to the Design argument preventing a page with a full and thorough debate. Wikipedia wanted to improve the 'Wikipedia Creationism' section and having two sentences explaining the Design argument and 500 explaining the atheistic scientific argument is not balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd998 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   05:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:ThorpLove reported by User:Eman52 (Result: Declined)
I would like to report that User:ThorpLove has made roughly six false edits on the 2014-15 NFL playoffs. He appears to be convinced, despite explanations of the NFL playoff format, that the Panthers are playing the Seahawks. I would recommend to block the user for 24 hours (by the time he can edit again, the match ups will be finalized. Eman52 (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   05:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)  revert 5 made while or after the report was filed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Signedzzz warning on Lipsquid's talk. Signedzzz's 3RR report above. Since Signedzzz just warned and filed a 3RR which was declined as no violation, it seems pretty hypocritical to promptly go over 3RR himself on the point. Not the first edit war between them.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and elsewhere.

Comments:I'm mainly watching the article page, not edit warring here. No opinion on the merits of one version vs the other.

Yes, I accidentally went over 3RR, so as to specifically direct the user to discuss on talk per BRD. After filing the detailed request last night, so as to avoid this, which I knew was going to happen, I forgot to count my reverts for last 24 hours, assuming that I was still safe. Last night when I filed my report I was on 2 and he was on 3. Now I am on 4 and he is on 5. I should have stopped when I was on 3 and he was on 4. I apologise for my mistake. zzz (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

At least I didn't have to fill in this report again, which took me hours last night. zzz (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * When I filed the report both editors were at 4 (8 reverts total), but now Lipsquid's gone to 5, so I've updated. Suggest an RfC as this is a fairly high profile article with many involved editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the article and the source in detail around the disputed edit and reported my findings. My assessment is that Lipsquid's edit is quite justified and that Signedzzz is following WP:OWN and not the RS's by reverting. I also note that going back at least a few weeks Signedzzz has been pushing a similar point on another part of the article, reflecting a failure to follow sources. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Legacypac, you say above that I am "hypocritical" and that I am "pushing" a "similar point" in some other part of the article. These accusations are not relevant here. Please clarify this one point:
 * Which RS's am I not following in the disputed paragraph (which cited only one ref, cited in my report above)? zzz (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * missed a word. Possessive not plural. the RS's information. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh you missed a word. So, which piece of information in the paragraph is not in the source? zzz (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The info and quote is in the source, but it was placed out of context in a way that is potentially misleading to the reader. It is off topic to the Boko Haram article. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So a couple of sentences to describe the main political group representing the interests of northern Nigeria, who have a military and intelligence capability, and are suspected of involvement in sectarian riots, is misleading and off-topic in the background section of the Boko Haram article, and must be deleted. Is that what you are claiming? zzz (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, if you're right, why was the information in the source? Is the source misleading and off-topic? Do you have a source for that? zzz (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "It was placed out of context" - how do you come to think that? The source was an article about the background of Boko Haram. The context it was placed in was the background section of the Wikipedia article. Please explain how this is "out of context". zzz (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you've now edited the section in the article to remove the information you find to be misleading and off-topic, and accused me of various things including not following the source(s), please explain your reasoning. zzz (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And, briefly, what "similar point" have I been "pushing" in another section of the article? zzz (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you have accused me of hypocrisy, incompetence and falsifying sources, please explain. zzz (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not edited the article recently except a one letter typo. Everything else is explained above. If you wish to have a content despite take that to the article talk. Legacypac (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You explained what exactly? What "similar point" have I been "pushing" in another section of the article, for example? zzz (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You've weighed in on the article talk page agreeing with everything User:Lipsquid says (of course), but it's got nothing to do with the article. zzz (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at both editors versions and the source, then at your arguments and found my assessment is pretty close to Lipsquid's assessment. I just reported my findings to the 3RR report I started after I reviewed everything. Now please stop with the nattering here. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lipsquid's assessment: "the word 'Boko Haram' is not in the reference you cited." zzz (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced this editor can't read english. I said assessment, I did not say I agree with every word in their comments. Now stop the harassment please. Legacypac (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:23.92.129.86 (also editing as User:Jfd998) reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Semi, block)
Note: IP has apparently registered and is continuing edit warring as User:Jfd998 (reported by User:Dominus Vobisdu)

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: [diff] See talk page discussions: I think that the edit history and talk page discussions demonstrate that this IP has already been involved in discussions.

Comments:

The IP is removing sourced on-topic material on spurious grounds, and replacing it with entirely unsourced content. The recent history of the article suggests that a single contributor is behind a whole series of edits aimed at removing legitimate sourced content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Update - the IP has now created an account, and has continued to edit-war: AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That argument is ridiculous. AndyTheGrump prevents information with 'citations needed' from being removed barring legitimate links. I agree that the criticisms part of the intelligent design argument should stand and my edit was not right. However, I was totally right to remove the 'bubble universe' portion - two of the three paragraphs are unsourced, and the one quote that is sourced is not from a science journal even if it is passed off as such making it unreliable and misleading.

The one addition I made was to the proper section - intelligent design - and linked the article from whence the quote came while nothing the bias of the author who wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.92.129.86 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP (now editing as User:Jfd998) is completely misrepresenting edits - note this unsourced edit, and this  removal of sourced content. They also seem to think that their own unsourced opinions (describing  sourced content as 'science fiction') is legitimate grounds for removal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And see where Jfd998 resorts to insults, rather than addressing the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Jfd998 blocked indef by User:JzG. Article semiprotected 3 days by User:Vsmith. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:PabloOsvaldo17 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640949209 by RealDealBillMcNeal) Sorry have you not read what I've written I don't care what the original statement read that's no longer the case now look: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/"
 * 2)  "A.C. Milan have already signed Torres permanently from parent club Chelsea, otherwise he would not be moving to Atlético on loan from Milan! It's not a case of a two-year loan being cancelled half a season in and the loan club Milan giving permission..."
 * 1)  "A.C. Milan have already signed Torres permanently from parent club Chelsea, otherwise he would not be moving to Atlético on loan from Milan! It's not a case of a two-year loan being cancelled half a season in and the loan club Milan giving permission..."
 * 1)  "A.C. Milan have already signed Torres permanently from parent club Chelsea, otherwise he would not be moving to Atlético on loan from Milan! It's not a case of a two-year loan being cancelled half a season in and the loan club Milan giving permission..."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user was warned as to why he shouldn't make the change and continued to revert. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I see 3RR exactly from the both of you. Afronig (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * . Only the blocked editor violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:86.130.140.194 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Edit warring warning
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Avignon Papacy. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Many more reverts have been made over a series of Vatican related pages. Has been invited to discuss with no effect. Charles (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The same editor's edit-warring is continuing. See 25 December 2014 – 4 January 2015}.  Esoglou (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And again, five more times! Esoglou (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Editor is busy changing styles contrary to WP:MOS and reverts against anyone who disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:WilliamThweatt reported by User:Ezhilarasan446 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suryavarman_II&diff=640921875&oldid=640798481

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suryavarman_II&diff=640921875&oldid=595101556

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suryavarman_II&diff=640921875&oldid=581925338

User talks

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ezhilarasan446#February 2014

Comments:

my edit reverting for Suryavarman_II. I gave some references on the page for suiryavarman is pallava king.I need proper answer from history researcher whether suriyavarman II is pallava orgin king or not.


 * - It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. Please take care not to break the formatting of the article with your changes. You have never used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:71.213.12.5 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1 2 3

So obviously this doesn't break 3RR, but it's still a back-and-forth that constitutes non-3RR edit-warring. Remember, for something like this to not count as edit-warring, he'd have to have been reverting vandalism or work that a banned user had managed to come around the wall to place. I quote the ANI as a reminder: "Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism." Therefore, since Ttll213's edits are neither vandalism nor edits from a banned user, that means that spshu's reverts are still edit-warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

No, spshu has not tried to resolve this with Ttll213 in the talk page. This is another sign of his edit-warring, because he has not tried to follow B/R/D first.
 * . This is complicated. The IP is a sock of User:IDriveAStickShift. They've used other IPs before to edit this article. The user is retaliating against User:Spshu because in the edit war between IDrive and Spshu earlier, I blocked IDrive but not Spshu. Therefore, I've blocked the IP for one week and blocked the named account for three months. I've also semi-protected the article for three weeks. All that said, there was an edit war between Spshu and, not just by Spshu, and I'll let another administrator evaluate that aspect of the report, although I will watch to see if the edit war has stopped. Both editors have thus far reverted three times, although Spshu's third revert was outside the 24-hour window.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

bbb, you apparently have problems understanding the edit-warring policy:

1. To break 3RR, a person needs to have reverted not just 3 times, but 4 within the 24-hour period. 2. Not having reverted for a 4th time within a 24-hour period doesn't mean there's no edit war. The warring editor(s) should still be warned/blocked even if they didn't break 3RR but were still warring. 3. If you believe that Spshu and Ttll213 were both warring, then that means that when you thought IDrive was warring, Spshu was too.

You also have a problem understanding what sock-puppetry is and is not. You seem to think that once a person has edited with a named account, they are "no longer allowed to edit while not logged in," and so editing while not being logged in is suddenly now "sock-puppetry," according to you. But editing while not logged in, by itself, is not a breakage of Wiki policy that amounts to socking.

You also are only assuming that IDrive and the IP were one and the same, but you haven't confirmed any proof of that. There has been no investigation of the two, such as on SPI or whatever. Besides, though, even if they are the same, you have not proven that there was more happening than merely editing while not being logged in, which is still allowed by Wikipedia.

Additionally, you are just guessing that there's been retaliation. You don't automatically know the mind of an editor, so you can't just say that. Someone really needs to have you reevaluated as an "administrator."

71.219.21.215 (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note I have blocked 71.219.21.215 for block evasion. <b style="color:Indigo">Chillum</b> 04:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:93.171.217.170 (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Version from before the edit war started: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marsh_Mokhtari&oldid=639733905

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: User talk page was enough, only one reverter.

Comments: Bladesmulti is persistently restoring a gimped version of the article; one without categories, without sources, and with significantly reduced amount of entirely unsourced content. Complete removal of all references is especially troubling as the article's a WP:BLP. Full page protection was requested, but after forum shopping, Bladesmulti convinced his admin buddy Courcelles to semi-protect the page, block the IP user who brought attention to Bladesmulti's disruptive editing, and remove a significant portion of the relevant page protection request. Bladesmulti's behavior was criticized in good faith by an uninvolved editor, but Bladesmulti simply deleted his comment describing it as "busybody behavior" in the edit summary. It's time to stop him, and restore the good version of the article. 93.171.217.170 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The so-called good version of the article is a verbatim copyvio from imdb, written by an anonymous author and completely unreliable. Such copyright violations are exempt from 3RR. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 06:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He didn't mention copyvios, did he? No. That he removed them was only through sheer luck, it was never his intention. And he removed categories and sources too, not just copyvios. Now we have a blp without sources. IMDb may not be the most reliable source out there, but it's better than nothing. And don't forget the other website on the list of references. Plus he made 4 reverts in 1 day. Yeah, he needs to be reminded not to edit disruptively. 93.171.217.170 (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Banned sock of Beh-nam
 * Copy-vio indeed: IMDb, Marsh Mokhtari Biography. [[User:Joshua Jonathan| Joshua Jonathan] - Let's talk! 12:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Now since this show is entertaining already, I am writing here for future preference. These are obvious duck IP addresses. JJ and Dr.K, you both are aware of 94.210.203.230. 94.210.203.230 was recently blocked as a sock of Beh-nam and the recent investigation(still ongoing) has proven that range blocking is not going to be helpful as he has access to a large number of proxies. It is just behavioral evidence that would help, and tracking of every single proxy as shown in one of the link that was provided by Callanecc. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant to the matter at hand. What do you have to say about your disruptive and unconstructive edit-warring? 104.41.3.167 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Banned sock of Beh-nam


 * . Bladesmulti has apparently been removing copyvios, good for him. Also, Bladesmulti was 3RR-warned by User:EoRdE6 (the warning linked to above) plus also by ; not by the IP posting this report. Are you either or both of those, 93.171.217.170? If you have an account, please use it, don't jump in and out. And no, sock concerns aren't irrelevant here, as they go to your credibility. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Blades is getting better and better! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bladesmulti's increasing ability to get away with more and more disruptive editing (casting aspersions, edit warring, incivility, etc., all in above diffs) sure is a cause for celebration. No, not really. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Banned sock of Beh-nam

Second opinion needed
There's more to Bladesmulti's disruption (see above) than what Bishonen dismissed as "removing copyvios"- second opinion from another admin is needed here as given Bladesmulti's documented history of forum shopping in this case, it's likely Bishonen was canvassed off-wiki to defend Bladesmulti. In such cases it's always better when 2 admins express their opinion instead of 1. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Banned sock of Beh-nam


 * Three contributions, and then being able to state "Bladesmulti's increasing ability to get away with more and more disruptive editing", and know how to ask for a second opinion? I've made 27,000 edits, and I didn't even know that it was possible to ask for a second opinion. Quack quack! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your incompetence doesn't justify Bladesmulti's disruption. Also, I requested help from an admin, not uncalled-for hostile comments from the peanut gallery. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)  Banned sock of Beh-nam
 * 104~, you're flattering me! "The peanut gallery" - what a great term! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional request for admin help Please explain to Joshua Jonathan why requests for help shouldn't be answered in a hostile manner, why requests for admin help shouldn't be answered by non-admins, why his above comments are inappropriate, and why it's counter-productive to treat Wikipedia as a battlefield. Then maybe also introduce him to the first law of holes. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Banned sock of Beh-nam

Well well could someone please educated the IP on copyright laws? This is getting tedious as I looked at the "correct" version and can confirm it is a copyvio from imdb and thus exempt from WP:3RR, do we even do second opinions on this edit board? This seems to be a case of I just don't like it Avono (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Avono, you cannot expect any better from a banned user. See Sockpuppet_investigations/Beh-nam, this massive pool of proxies is of course annoying/entertaining. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then its best just to ignore this. Avono (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not Beh-nam, plain and simple. Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, Bladesmulti. As for copyvios, we already established removing them wasn't Bladesmulti's goal, it happened through sheer luck, and there was much more disruption from him than that. A second opinion from an admin very much is needed. Know your place, Avono, and drop the stick already lest you hit yourself with it. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Banned sock of Beh-nam
 * Beh-nam, how come you don't know the meaning of IMDB spam? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved admin. There is no violation as the reverts were removing copyright violations and that is specifically exempt from 3RR.  Nothing more to do with this report.  -- GB fan 18:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note; the IP spouting a bunch of rubbish here has been blocked for their disruption. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dannywiki1 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 641116307 by Kashmiri (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 641116307 by Kashmiri (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 641116307 by Kashmiri (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 641116307 by Kashmiri (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Places speedy tags on sourced articles (Hamza Makhdoom, Hari Parbat, Makhdoom) based on POV - which I promptly revert, in violation of 3RR, in order to prevent article deletion, as has unfortunately happened today to Hamza Makhdoom. Likely sock of User:Neyn (along with at least four other socks) - SPI report will be filed tomorrow. Thanks to block for at least a week until SPI process is through, although this SPI account is definitely NOTHERE. Regards, <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  19:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article doesn't meet CSD criteria than you have nothing to worry about. The connection with is not immediately obvious. Let's pretend they're not a sock, but a user acting good-faith. That would mean you are edit warring as well, and have exceeded the 3RR. If you stop, they continue to add CSD tags after they've already been declined, then that's blockable behaviour on their part. I say hold off for a minute until we figure this out. &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk 20:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wish it was as you are saying. Unfortunately, Hamza Makhdoom was deleted today just a few minutes after this user placed the tag. This is a part of something much bigger which I have no time to address at the moment, but look here pls: User_talk:Kashmiri. If you looked through the edit history of the ~8 articles involved, you'd see ~5 socks plus a few editors restoring whatever they damaged. There are a couple of deletion discussion going on as well with these editors involved. Anyhow, SPI will hopefull show things, but for the time being thanks to either block the user or fully protect Hamza Makhdoom, Hari Parbat, Makhdoom, and Sultan-ul-Arifeen. Regards, <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  20:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If it meets CSD than it probably should be deleted. Unless you are the original author, remove the CSD tag and simply tell the user to bring it to AfD. There you'll get community input, SPAs and socks (which will be confirmed by then) will be ignored, and if it results in a keep then subsequent requests for speedy deletion will be declined. That's the easy way out, I think. I can't block when it's not obvious. The other accounts were involved with AfDs but not CSDs. It's not a concrete connection to me, but maybe it will be to another admin. My recommendation is to back off and let process take care of things naturally. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 20:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . Thanks, converting it into AfD might be a good idea, I will do that. Even though I am not sure this will stop the vandal. Regards, <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , you should not be removing CSD tags from articles you have created as you did at Hamza Makhdoom. if you continue to do that you can be blocked.   -- GB fan 20:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@: I appreciate your warning, but the article was only recreated by me after speedy deletion earlier today. Until then, it was there for many years. I mentioned this above twice. <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article as tagged was created by you, therefore you should not be removing any CSD tags left on that article. Just because a previous version was deleted that does not give you the right to remove the speedy deletion tag from this version.  I have also told Dannywiki that the tag was not a valid speedy deletion tag for the article.  If you feel the article should not have been deleted, you can request the original article be restored by going to the deleting admin.  If that does not work you can go to deletion review.    -- GB fan 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please. I am not sure I need you telling me what I should or should not do. I am curious how you know that I did not contact the deleting admin? Also, the recreated article, even if showing as my work, is - legally - a work of several editors - it was recreated verbatim from a web cache. See, I've spent quite a lot of time doing SPI and, hopefully, am able to tell a GF editor from a sock or SPA. I can also assure you that any behaviour by such accounts which brings serious and intentional damage to Wikipedia will be reverted irrespective of revert counter. Hope this clarifies. Regards, <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If this harassment continues Kashmiri, I'm willing to stick my neck out as a non-admin and say that I'm happy to de-CSD anything that has an obviously invalid tag if you bring it to me. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lukeno, much appreciated :) Let's see if it reappears once new day comes to South Asia. Regards, <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri  <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've left a note for User:Dannywiki1 to come here and explain his changes, which are starting to look peculiar. It seems like Kashmiri has been defending some Sufi-related articles against speedy deletion that have weak sources, though in many cases the people or places described are obviously notable. One way to deal with this would be a series of AfDs. Revert warring the speedy tag isn't a good solution. Since Dannywiki1 seems inexperienced he may not know how to open an AfD. His account was created today, 5 January. It can't be ruled out that he has edited previously under another identity. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours by User:Ronhjones for a 3RR violation at Hari Parbat. From the talk page of Dannywiki1, It appears that this is an inter-Sufi religious dispute. The question is which sage should deserve the title of Sultan ul Arifeen, "King of those who know God."  It is hard to imagine a genuine sage who would pay attention to their billing on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for blocking. [edit: that was another editor]. I apologise I won't comment on this "inter-Sufi dispute" but I have very limited knowledge of, and rather faint interest in, theology wars, that including Islam. I objected to blank removal of sourced material related to an obviously notable person and place, and reasons behind other editors' reverts became apparent to me much later in the course. Agreeing fully with your view on sages and Wikipedia :)  Regards, <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri  <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  23:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 640946897 by Richiekim (talk) It shouldn't be populated yet until episodes have actually aired in 2015. This should be done with all of those TV shows."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 641021383 by Richiekim (talk) Then do it when it premieres. WP:TVUPCOMING"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 641057315 by Malachi108 (talk) Read the article history."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 641059504 by Adamstom.97 (talk) Marketing material that only you have seen? Sounds like an own-y argument, since no-one else has seen it."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 641060002 by Adamstom.97 (talk) Posted a discussion."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

5 reverts within 24 hours on one page. Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I somehow overlooked the first two reverts listed earlier today when I warned this user and User:Adamstom.97 for getting close to 3RR. If I'd noticed I would have blocked him for 24H, but I'll let others decide now. I'm blaming it on the lack of sleep, and am keeping an eye on the talkpage to see how the discussion goes. Bjelleklang -  talk 21:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you'd notice, I ceased the edit warring, and took both discussions elsewhere - the first to my own talk page, and the second to the article's talk page. Both discussions have been settled. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Counter reporting of User:Ttll213 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:
 * It is Ttll213 that is edit warring.


 * Reverting to


 * 1) 16:37, 5 January 2015
 * 2) 17:52, 5 January 2015
 * 3) 18:02, 5 January 2015
 * 4) 18:08, 5 January 2015 & name calling on top of that


 * Talk:One_Magnificent_Morning - is were I attempted to talk to Ttll213 on top of requests in the edits that his edit should be sourced then responding to the odd source that he used as possible unreliable. Spshu (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He was also warned by Bbb23 on his talk page the day before. Spshu (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . The same duration but for different reasons. This was Ttll213's first block, but they not only violated 3RR, they also attacked the other user and failed to heed - or even respond - to my warning. This was Spshu's third block for edit warring, so it was an ordinary escalation.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Punjabsind82 report Against User:Kashmiri due to his/her Bias Edit War and unprofessional Attitude (Result: Nominating editor blocked)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported: Punjabsind82 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364
 * Respected Admin of Wikipedia, User: Kashmiri is wailed much upon the deletion of Page of  Hamza Makhdoom (late reverted by admin) and declared it an action against a Saint, Whose sainthood is so minor that it is limited to a small area of  Kashmir only, Admin must understand that as an Editor User: Kashmiri  have committed negligence and have made wrong use of his powers. Moreover, User: Kashmiri  have also used Wikipedia for his Personal objectives, I have exposed his  Edit war against Sultan Bahoo and his teachings on the Articles Shams-ul-Fuqara, Mujtaba Akhir Zamani, Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings and Risala Roohi Shareef as well as Sultan ul Arifeen and Sarwari Qadiri, I am a regular Reader of Wikipedia Articles written on Islam, Sufism, and on Qadri Saints, This is my opinion and Wikipedia Adman’s will decide the issue on merits, But neither User: Kashmiri  abstained  nor the Wikipedia management  took any notice of the matter.
 * Sultan Bahoo is renowned and famous Saint in the whole world. There is a large number of his lovers and followers all over the world, which is proved by the fact that there are more than hundred websites and thousands blogs and books Published on his sacred Personality. Whereas there is not even website or Blog or even no book on Hamza Makhdoom . How could Wikipedia allow User: Kashmiri to be so biased and misuse his Authorities as an Editor that he is continually putting Citations/ Deletion, unclear and confusing tags on above mention Article related to Sultan Bahoo Personality and teachings and changing that statements by add his own views even thought, He Has no knowledge of Tasawwuf  as it is not his field. A particular group of Editors is coordinating with him to achieve certain objectives, like User:MezzoMezzo. The User:MezzoMezzo Vandalized   14 times and co-partner or other version  of,  User: Kashmiri  who is working under same school of thoughts.
 * I request to admin keep User: Kashmiri within the limits of his duty otherwise edit war will remain continue among different users, Do not agitate thousand of lovers and followers of Sultan Bahoo who visits these pages on Wikipedia. User: Kashmiri should be among the preachers of love and Peace and not the ones who spread hatred. I request the management of Wikipedia to carefully go through the Edit War which has been started by User: Kashmiri since 31 December 2014 against Sultan Bahoo and his teachings, bound him within the limits of his duty and stop him from the edit War which is a proof of his biased attitude.
 * I hope that Wikipedia will now control User: Kashmiri and put an end to this is issue.
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information. Bjelleklang -  talk 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:mrashid364 (Result: Nominating editor blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

The User:Kashmiri again and again revert page Sultan ul Arifeen and violate 3RR dated 5 January 2015 Mrashid364 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * (cur | prev) 19:53, 5 January 2015‎ Kashmiri (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (302 bytes) (-609)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Dannywiki1 (talk) to last version by Kashmiri) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 17:09, 5 January 2015‎ Kashmiri (talk | contribs)‎ . . (302 bytes) (-609)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 640979593 by Kashmiri (talk): Rv vandalism. (TW)) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 09:27, 5 January 2015‎ Kashmiri (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (302 bytes) (-3,829)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 182.185.141.225 (talk) to last version by Kashmiri) (undo | thank)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information. Bjelleklang -  talk 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:SummerPhD reported by User:Qwesar (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: User has too long a history of edits on the page.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_combining&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Food_combining#A_Tad_Biased Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 2

Comments

SummerPhD's long history of edit to the Food Combining page has left the page a brief definition of Food Combining, Wikipedia is not a dictionary it is an encylopedia. SummerPhD is edit protecting a failed weight loss study that two users in the talk page of Food Combining have deemed bias because from the perspective of the readers, they would only remember Food Combining as failed weight loss when it is a respected area of study of nutrition rich with information. I also explained why weight loss studies shouldn't be included as encyclopedic information because weight loss varies greatly as people's diets and exercise routine are infinitely diverse. I simply want to contribute to the page but SummerPhD is going to have to be blocked before I can turn the disappointing bias stub of a page into an encyclopedic entry. Qwesar (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment No edit warring at all. I see one edit to this page by User:SummerPhD in the last seven months. Meters (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I see no evidence of edit warring. At best this appears to be a content dispute - although calling it that is even a stretch as SummerPHD has only edited the article once in the last six months. Even when looking at the older edits, they were to appropriately remove content that was unsourced or had sources which failed WP:MEDRS guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. A completely baseless action. Meters (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm not seeing it either. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  02:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine I won't contribute to that bias dictionary stub, with everyone against me I'll just bow out and let it remain what it is, 5th page on google search of "Food Combining". Also the Food Combining chart on the page is outdated, not fixing that either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwesar (talk • contribs) 02:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:VoiceOfreason reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* November 2014 */"


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring to insert negative personal editorial commentary into an article, editor appears to believe they are justified in doing so because they are righting great wrongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel ( talk ) 05:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Volt60x reported by User:Vigyani (Result: IP block and protection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "" (from IP account)
 * 2)  "" (from IP account)
 * 3) this by another account User:Ashutoshsinghkaulvalmiki
 * 1)  "" (from IP account)
 * 2)  "" (from IP account)
 * 3) this by another account User:Ashutoshsinghkaulvalmiki


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Requesting move */ new section"
 * 2) here and here
 * Comments:

After he is warned by Bladesmulti, user started using IP. Perhaps user is having difficulty in understanding whatever we are telling him, but they need to slow down. Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He was also told to stop abusing multiple accounts and IP addresses, now he is trolling, because he just placed the banned template on the talk pages of Vigyani, and mine. He also re-posted the page move request that he had already repeated once. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: The page at Talk:Valmiki was semiprotected 12 hours by User:Ged UK. The IP editor was blocked by User:Materialscientist for harassment. User:Ashutoshsinghkaulvalmiki looks like a sock. If the abuse continues at Talk:Valmiki most likely an SPI report should be created to keep track. Volt60x has also been active at Valmiki Caste. It's possible this dispute is an instance of caste warring. I've notified User:Volt60x of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Opened Sockpuppet investigations/Volt60x Bladesmulti (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Greenman reported by User:WinterstormRage (Result: Submitter warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cryptocurrencies&diff=641231608&oldid=641183923

Here I was asking him to discuss before making changes which are clearly incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cryptocurrency

Upon looking into the matter, I realize this user has been re-adding his prefered marketing material, and avoiding a deletion proposal without discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BlackCoin

Comments:

late December, I discovered the cryptocurrency page is quite outdated and made an edit. User:Greenman decided to revert, citing things I removed were legit. I initiate a talk attempt while looking into the matter. I realize same user has attempted to block a deletion of a page BlackCoin, there was no censensus and nearly no debate took place. However claims from Greenman made about 'references' being legit were all blogs and press releases from the same media circle without mainstream media endorsement, which makes the material non-notable. A quick google search also finds no legit news from mainstream media. User:Greenman attempts to camouflage a 'Reuter's forwarded press release' as 'Reuters news' and claims a 'blog on wall street journal' as 'WSJ reference'. Connecting the dots together, I realize this User keeps reverting the pages back to a version which contains 'BlackCoin' in cryptocurrency and its template, which leads me to believe he's trying to use Wikipedia for Marketeering for his own profits. I am uncertain how to take this further, and believe asking a third party, or reporting to admin for a more objective check on the matter maybe a better way to deal with this rather than engage in meaningless editting war on this person. While I was typing this up, the same violater is adding non-notable cryptocoins like 'Tit coin' back to the Cryptocurrency template.

diff link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cryptocurrencies&diff=641242355&oldid=641234767

I now think this is a clear case of proposeful sabotaging. I will stop dealing with this person and allow this matter to be dealt with in proper channels. thank you. WinterstormRage (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel myself involved in that matter because I'm advocating auroracoins removed from the same list of currencies by the same User without previous talking. ONaNcle (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In response to his accusations of "sabotage", let's look at the edit history. I reverted some edits by User:WinterstormRage that I felt were overzealous (for example, removing entries with articles from a navigation template, all while making unsubstantiated accusations of them being scams etc.) In response, WinterstormRage accused me, as the user that added one of the coins back, of a 'marketing heist'. I responded politely, asking him to WP:AGF (link and link). After reverting another of his edits, he then accused me of trying to 'sabotage Wikipedia' (link and link). The user also attempted to solicit other users to his assistance, stating on their user pages that I am involved in "a clear attempt to mislead" (link). Luckily for the editor's blood pressure, he has only made a few edits, all related to trying to remove certain cryptocurrencies, but I can only imagine how he would react if he got into a real edit war :) The editor has strong opinions on notability, but Titcoin, which he uses as one example of my heinous attempts to cover my sabotage, has an article, and so adding it to a navigation template is probably not the most controversial decision in the world. Perhaps someone should post some hugs on his page to help him calm down - though I think he may not appreciate any coming from me, the evil saboteur :) Greenman (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I admit I lack experience in wiki-rules and that's the reason I refuse to go on an editting war with you. You however forgot to mention how to removed the Deletion discussion for BlackCoin, and that you tried to use invalid references which were all press releases/blogs and KNOWING that you call them from Reuters and WSJ. I do not think anyone looking into the matter will have a problem seeing the black and white of the situation. If you are as 'experienced' as you claim, you will know that violates the non-notable rules. Though you clearly are trying to defend your own coin for that propose, re-adding without caring for consequences.  I am the one trying to keep the information inline and lean, and you are the one actively adding trash to the topics.  You were also adding WRONG info, claiming Vertcoin is 'scrypt-based', you did so with your meaningless 'reverts' without fact checking, FYI, Vertcoin is now LyraRE, they have changed that a while ago, hence my 'accusation' of you sabotaging, which you did as you start reverting 'wrong' information into the article (probably unknowingly to you, as you are trying to camou your addition of BlackCoin by adding Titcoin, Potcoin and all sorts of 'worthless' joke coins into the mix.)   Anyway, I know you will likely hide behind rules, that is why I asked 3rd parties to be the judge of that matter, if they think I am wrong, I will accept.  However, I think everyone seeing the matter will see your clear attempt to try to add 'bogus references' to support a Coin to have it's own page, and using that as a 'fact' to add it to 'cryptocurrency' page. (circular referencing yourself based on bogus references).  I will let the admin decides the matter. I thank you for whoever will be dealing with this matter. WinterstormRage (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:WinterstormRage is warned for edit warring. You've also abused the WP:Proposed deletion process at BlackCoin, as pointed out by User:Laser brain. I suggest you limit your reverts and make better use of the talk page until you are more familiar with Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Tintor14 reported by User:Snowager (Result: already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "lying isnt nice! the naruto characters have all three of this."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 641385551 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 641385708 by Snowager (talk) ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! ok let me get Tintor2 up in here, and screw u Sjones27."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

He also hurled a personal attack at Sjones23 again. Snowager (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 13:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:4444hhhh reported by User:Besieged (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removing those tags"
 * 2)  "Getting rid of unnecessarily things."
 * 3)  "Fixing the page and removing the tags as the proposal is based on the notion of old, out of date information as described in the talk page."
 * 4)  "Only make the proposal IF based on valid and up to date resources, not on personal or original research."
 * 1)  "Only make the proposal IF based on valid and up to date resources, not on personal or original research."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Accipitrimorphae. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Accipitrimorphae. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Vultures are not Accipiters. */ new section"


 * Comments:

User is acting as if s/he owns the article and removing valid maintenance tags without action or discussion regarding those tags, and is presuming their own personal knowledge trumps that of others, even when up to date and valid 3rd party research was supplied to justify the placement of the tags.

Please see the discussion raised by USER:4444hhhh and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Besieged#Accipitrimorphae my reply thereto here]. be siege d talk 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the above link to point to prior discussion at User talk:Besieged. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action at this time, but User:4444hhhh's removal of the article tags raises eyebrows. There were only three reverts, and problems did not continue after the warning. Try to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. There must be an appropriate WikiProject where you could ask for input if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Alon12 reported by User:Aergas (Result: Protected, at WP:DRN)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I told him that if he continues i might request help of administrators, instantly after he dared me to do it

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I oppened a new section on his talk page, asking him to stop removing sourced material, but keeps saying the same things, and as I said above, he dared me to contact the administrators, I think that I won't get anywhere trying to talk to him.

Comments:

Right now I'm having trouble with an edit warrior that continues to remove sourced information, he removed citations to a book, claiming that it was about African Americans, despite that it isn't he then removed it saying that it wasn't a genetic study, but a book "therefore irrelevant"(a peer reviewed book for the matter, but he don't cares), seeing this, then I added a citation to a genetic study but he continues removing it ,   saying that is an study about African Americans when the study itself states that: "By comparison, 48 percent who self-reported as Caucasian had more than 95 percent European American ancestry". When I oppened a discussion in his talk page, instead of discussing he kept saying the same things and insisting that the article is about African Americans when only 37% of the participants in the study were and as I wrote above already, the study clearly talks about the findings in the caucasian participants of the study, after I directly let him know this on his talk page, he moved the goalpost and recurred to the burden of proof fallacy, saying that the cited material does not give enough details, when he has presented zero proof to his own claims: he keeps pushing his edits saying that "the current sources don't say it doesn't support my claims, therefore it does and it's up to you to disprove my baseless claims with sources" when in reality, Wikipedia don't admits unsourced assumptions by policy. In the meantime this editor dared me to contact the administrators, so here I am.

It should be noted, that I attempted to contact administrators first regarding this issue, and we go over it in my talk page. He has no answers for actual official genetic studies I post regarding this subject. All he has is shady blog posts in comparison. Aergas appears to be challenged in the english language, I suspect. By the way, he has been making his edit war on the page, for far longer than I have been a member here. Alon12 (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The official genetic studies you presented aren't related to the issue at all. And don't back you up at all, we are discussing this in your talk page right now, don't bring it here. That's the main problem with you, you are saying things that aren't true, and then link unrelated articles and try to pass them as useful for your posture. And why did you almost copy my userpage? Aergas (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not the time or the place, but you can look at my talk page. You have basic english language comprehension issues, you cannot even understand actual genetic studies. I had to show you how to interpret even abbreviations on a genetic paper, because you are seemingly incapable. Let's go back there now, shall we? Alon12 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: Article protected three days. Both editors broke WP:3RR. If this continues, blocks should be used next time. You can use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to get more opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Discussion underway at dispute resolution noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Sveuciliste1669 reported by User:Amelung10 (Result: no result)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Zagreb&diff=641432807&oldid=641392512]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Zagreb&diff=641392512&oldid=641387162]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Zagreb&diff=641372475&oldid=641277740]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Zagreb&diff=641277659&oldid=640264664]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Zagreb&diff=640236833&oldid=640220829]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Zagreb&diff=640205550&oldid=640163428]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Zagreb&diff=640085481&oldid=638645032]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sveuciliste1669]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Zagreb#Discrimination_affair]

Comments:


 * Instead of blanking with no rationale, you should take it to the talk page. I have locked the page for 24 hours. Go get consensus for the removal, please. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  17:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)