Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive275

User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:New England Cop (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning to Malik Warning to IP

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

Comments:

This is a slow motion edit war between Malik Shabazz and the IP 173.73.23.229. While the letter of the law has not been violated certainly the spirit of the law has been. (This is my first time making this manner or a report. I apologize if I have failed to fill it out entirely and correctly.) New England Cop (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Malik Shabazz has not violated any policy; certianly not 3RR or anything of that nature. May I ask:

1. Why are you reporting this supposed edit war, when you were not involved in it?

2. If you cared so much about it, why are you not trying to resolve the issue on the article's Talk page?

-- Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP is clearly inserting highly controversial information sourced with non-reliable sources. Someone needs to revert it. The spirit of the law is to improve the encyclopedia. That is what Malik Shabazz is doing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Your report is appreciated, NEC, and I certainly don't find it unreasonable; I think you worded the issue rather well and it is arguably a slow-moving edit war. And, just to be clear, any uninvolved user is welcome to bring up a report here. However I don't think this particular incident is disruptive or severe enough to warrant any administrator intervention. The IP was trying to make a change, which Malik disputed while giving a clear reason, both on the IP's talk page and in the edit summary. Malik directed the IP to the article's talk page, but the IP has made no effort to discuss their proposed changes, and instead has just continued to edit war over it. Because of this, I can't particularly hold Malik's actions against him. In fact, I think he handled himself pretty well. He had the power to block the editor or protect the page, but he restrained himself and merely reverted the IP. I don't think that's all that unreasonable on his part. No harm in asking for an uninvolved review of the situation though, your concern is appreciated! Best,  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  04:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Swarm, for your thoughtful reply. I agree with this outcome, tho perhaps the IP should be formally warned about any future edit warring? Maunus and Softlavender, during my law enforcement career I always thanked and encouraged uninvolved civilians when they reported a crime or concern that they were not personally involved with. Does Wikipedia require me to be personally involved in every subject before bringing it to the attention of the appropriate authorities? Moreover, we NEVER asked them to get involved before making a call to 911 and reporting a situation. New England Cop (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is fine to report things without being involved. But rather than reporting problems it is always better to participate in solving them through consensus building at the page where a problem is observed. When an edit war like this happens, stepping in as an uninvolved mediator is the best help you can give. Reporting issues is generally reserved for egregious problems that has proven not to be possible to solve through collaboration, and which requires some kind of administrative action. Our policies are not laws to be enforced in the same way that laws are in society, they are helping guidelines that help us in building an encyclopedia together. This means that reporting an infringement of policy is not to be done just to get the person who did it punished, but rather to solve an issue that cannot be amicably solved through discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's some confusion here. You are offering instructions about mediation and such that I can find nowhere on this page. I thoroughly read the instructions here and came across nothing of what you describe. New England Cop (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this page tells you how to report people if they you need intervention. It doesnt tell you when not to request intervention. That knowledge comes from understanding how wikipedia is a collaborative project based on consensus building, and from knowing the Basic values and principles we operate under (look particularly under the last two pillars: No firm rules, and consensus building). I am sure similar things exist in law enforcement, the knowledge of when not to arrest someone, is probably not written in to the manuals.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything we do in LE is documented. Going with your gut or gestalt isn't good police work. I'll bring up violations to the authorities and not go vigilante as you might want me to. New England Cop (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not law enforcement, and we dont do police work here. And really we have no authorities either, just some people with mops to clean up messes. Participating is not vigilantism it is collaborating to build an encyclopedia which is what this project is about. It requires discussing how to do things. ANd the philosophy of the project is that the outcomes of discussions are better when more people participate. I think you may want to rethink the law enforcement angle here on wikipedia, it really doesnt work that way. Maybe you should rather thing of it as building a house together: if you see two other bricklayers arguing about how to make the wall, then stepping in and giving a suggestion on how to overcome the problem they have is going to get the house built quicker than running to the foreman.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to build a brick wall. If the masons were arguing I definitely wouldn't try to get involved. My first stop would be to the foreman. New England Cop (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, just remember that what matters here is getting the wall built and that that is what we try to do together, the only valid reason to be here. The rules and policies are here to help us get the wall built, nothing else. SO for example even if Malik Shabazz had broken the 3rr rule he might not have been sanctioned, because what he was doing was clearly in the best interest of the encyclopedia, whereas the insertion of controversial bad information and the IPs failure to discuss when approached by others was a problem for the encyclopedia. We dont use rules punitively, only preventively. And if it is against the encyclopedias best interest we dont use the rules at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:LawrencePrincipe reported by User:Xanthis (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glengarry_Glen_Ross_(film)&diff=650398770&oldid=648885280 [his original deletion]
 * 2) //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glengarry_Glen_Ross_(film)&diff=650604460&oldid=650599605 [reversion]
 * 3) //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glengarry_Glen_Ross_(film)&diff=650865341&oldid=650852789 [reversion]
 * 4) //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glengarry_Glen_Ross_(film)&diff=650900529&oldid=650873361 [reversion]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LawrencePrincipe&diff=650607206&oldid=650604189

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glengarry_Glen_Ross_(film)&diff=650854423&oldid=650853966 //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glengarry_Glen_Ross_(film)&diff=650873925&oldid=650865136 //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glengarry_Glen_Ross_(film)&diff=650876241&oldid=650875321

Comments:

LawrencePrincipe deleted some material on the Glengarry Glen Ross (film) page which is the subject of an open RfC, complaining that it violated WP:LEDE wiki style guidelines. I reverted the edit and asked him to discuss the matter (both on his user talk page, and on the article talk page) offering possible solutions that would satisfy his style concern while the RfC was open and explaining why, in my opinion, it was important that the material remain visible until the RfC was closed -- particularly so that less experienced editors (such as myself) could easily examine the disputed references and also in the hope that the "failed verification" citation notes would attract editors to the talk page during the remaining time of the RfC.

I offered several suggestions for how his WP:LEDE concern could possibly be addressed during the remaining week of the RfC. He will not consider any alternatives, and insisted that his deletion must stand.

He threatened to close the RfC himself -- which he then did ("per WP:SNOWBALL"). //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glengarry_Glen_Ross_(film)&diff=650899568&oldid=650876241

He has accused me of edit warring. I am not very familiar with Wiki policy is on edit warring (this is my first time on a AN; perhaps I am calling fire down upon myself!) but to my mind it doesn't seem right that he will not stop his deletions or discuss possible solutions. . . or that he would unilaterally close an RfC in retaliation.

I look to you all for guidance. Xanthis (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the situation and I've found that user's behavior to be absolutely unacceptable. Falsely citing policy, closing an RfC where he was involved, blatantly misjudging consensus, edit warring over something that's being actively discussed, and then turning around and having the audacity to warn you for edit warring, unbelievable. You can see my comments at his talk page as well. The RfC closure has been overturned by a different admin. Given that there's not only edit warring but other disruptive behavior in play here, .  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  06:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:142.129.113.158 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Provided a more balanced representation of conventional wisdom on the frequency of false rape accusations. Gave more credence to those who cite the false rape numbers at 8% by naming the FBI specifically instead of "others"."
 * 2)  "removed the paraphrase of Michelle Anderson as it has no citation  and is merely anecdotal, intentionally vague and in no way authoritative as mentioned at length on the talk page."
 * 3)  "removed and others, too vague and doesn't contribute."
 * 4)  "deleted the sentece, "Studies have found that police typically classify between 1.5 and 8% of rape...." it has no citation, sources and anonymously discredits itself"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 651007305 by EvergreenFir (talk) So you undid everything else why? Why did you bring back the Michelle Anderson quote? Why did you delete the FBI source?"
 * 6)  "Deleted DOJ 2% statistic it has no citation anywhere and I can't find this figure on the internet..."
 * 7)  "Gave context to the sentence"
 * 8)  "deleted or more. they say 8% not more."
 * 9)  "changed False to unfounded for FBI. No reason given for retaining Michelle Anderson quote or unfounded 1.5 - 8% figure so deleted them. We have to be Scientific not politically correct..."
 * 10)  "See talk. Do not revert to old article without responding to valid criticisms..."
 * 11)  "Undid revision 651105335 by EvergreenFir (talk) Had no response to the fact this article contains false information and is the consensus of one woman..."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651007305 by EvergreenFir (talk) So you undid everything else why? Why did you bring back the Michelle Anderson quote? Why did you delete the FBI source?"
 * 2)  "Deleted DOJ 2% statistic it has no citation anywhere and I can't find this figure on the internet..."
 * 3)  "Gave context to the sentence"
 * 4)  "deleted or more. they say 8% not more."
 * 5)  "changed False to unfounded for FBI. No reason given for retaining Michelle Anderson quote or unfounded 1.5 - 8% figure so deleted them. We have to be Scientific not politically correct..."
 * 6)  "See talk. Do not revert to old article without responding to valid criticisms..."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 651105335 by EvergreenFir (talk) Had no response to the fact this article contains false information and is the consensus of one woman..."
 * 1)  "changed False to unfounded for FBI. No reason given for retaining Michelle Anderson quote or unfounded 1.5 - 8% figure so deleted them. We have to be Scientific not politically correct..."
 * 2)  "See talk. Do not revert to old article without responding to valid criticisms..."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 651105335 by EvergreenFir (talk) Had no response to the fact this article contains false information and is the consensus of one woman..."
 * 1)  "See talk. Do not revert to old article without responding to valid criticisms..."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 651105335 by EvergreenFir (talk) Had no response to the fact this article contains false information and is the consensus of one woman..."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Figures without citation */"


 * Comments:

Violated 3RR after warning.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:The Destroyer Of Nyr reported by User:Yerevani Axjik (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

The user had been already blocked for edit warring on 2 March 2015, and unblocked on 10 March 2015. He received warning from an administrator that if he continues with edit warring he would be blocked. He got this warning on 10 March 2015, as you can see on the reported user's talk page. Still, he continues to revert edits calling them "vandalism" (and they obviously aren't - those were very well sourced informations, like you can check in the history of mentioned articles) and "neo-nationalist" (what ever that means) "propaganda".

Also, the reported users calls Serbs - Chetniks, a historical group from the World War II that has really complex history and it's an offensive term. .

Hello. Obviously, the user doesn't know what they are talking about. They insist a referendum is illegal because it did not have 66% turnout, although voters were physically blocked from participating by the military. Also, he insists on calling Serb and Croat writers with a murky biography reliable sources. And he also called muslims "Wahhabis", another controversial term, if we are talking about these things already. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The user also violate 3RR several times, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Democratic_Action and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_independence_referendum,_1992 (after having a warning on their talk page already). The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Destroyer, look. I don't (I don't know who are they) insist on anything. I used reliable sources - namely, from the International Law Reports published by the Cambridge University (Bosnian independence referendum). I have never, not once used any Serb writer in any of the mentioned articles. I did however used one Croat writer, one Bosnian Muslim writer and two British as well as one Italian writer. Still, you labeled this Bosnian Muslim author a "Yugoslav communist", which he obviously isn't (even if he was or is, it doesn't mean anything, it's ad hominem attack). And nobody ever refered to Muslims as wahhabis, although, there is a branch of Islam called wahabbism... so...


 * And, no. I reverted you only once, after which I started a discussion at the talk page. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only are your sources laughable, but also your way of thinking. Concluding that a referendum was illegal because it did not have 66% turnout for the sole reason of voters being physically prevented by military from voting says a lot. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You are basically building the entire rest of the article assuming that idea. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's what the source says, not me. Also, not any source mentions what percent of voters was physically prevented from voting. This is not a discussion about article. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a discussion about the article, but as that article is the subject of dispute, it must obviously be mentioned. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's already mentioned in the article and nobody removed anything from the article - except you. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you are building the entire rest of the article on the base of that claim. All the paragraphs about how the referendum was illegal are directly countered, negated and annuled by that fact. Also, this report should be the opposite way around, if anything. You continued vandalising even after having been warned, and seemed completely oblivious to any calls or attempts to resolve the dispute on the talk page. I tried to act in good faith, but cooperation requires two people. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I continued vandalising after being warned what sir? I haven't edited not a single article involved in edit warring. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You did, I warned you for edit warring on these articles. Check your talk page. And don't try to delete it now, it would be too obvious. Also, you did not even respond to it, or to the previous vandalism warning, which says a lot about your will to cooperate. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't. Check my edit history. I can't delete that. Check the time you "warned me", and check the time since then in my edit history (contributions). --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

I have only tangentially been involved with the focus of User:The Destroyer Of Nyr's editing, but I've seen enough of what happened to have some idea. From what I've seen, his main way of editing is to make changes to reflect his preferred point of view, which involves mainly removing sourced information and replacing it with information - perhaps also sourced, but not always to equally reliable sources - that suits him better. He claims he is removing unreliable sources or other incorrect information in his edit summaries, while that may certainly be up for debate. If you look at his edits since he was unblocked, the vast majority of it has been this kind of editing; since being unblocked, he has removed more content from Wikipedia than he has added. Any attempt to restore the removed content is then simply undone with "vandalism", which reveals another of his editing traits: anyone going against him must be a vandal, and therefore all means are warranted to stop it, including edit warring. To be honest, given that the admins involved in his block were very clear that they wouldn't unblock, yet he got another chance from a very lenient administrator who made it clear he was on a short leash, I'm baffled that the user has continued to display the same behaviour he was initially blocked for. Clearly, the user does not understand the reason for being blocked, or simply doesn't care and thinks his own personal goals are more important. Thus, it seems that he is not here to help Wikipedia, and I believe the block should be reinstated and no further chances given. CodeCat (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

And I believe you have nothing to do in this dispute. I do not see that you have any kind of authority to talk on this subject, especially not telling admins what to do, or calling them lenient. Please return to your own matters, not stop by and cheer for someone in a case that obviously has, not even in theory, anything to do with you. This paragraph above is a purely subjective hate-spew. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, Destroyer - you do not read your sources at all. You just paste various links around, so me and other users must read them whole just to tell you you read them wrong. I'm getting sick and tired of this. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * is an obvious edit-warrior who is not willing to cooperate. An admin gave him a last chance – he has not changed his approach. --Z oupan 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

So it seems we have an entire bandwagon here? Obviously, some people have a problem when your POV doesn't match theirs. Also, I was perhaps TOO compromising in constantly calling the user to discuss the matter on the talk page and only mildly warning them, when it seems I should have taken the step he took first. This is simply an attempt of a group of people with an obvious objective (just check their talk pages and contribs, you will find quite a link between them) to change history. Luckily, the entire world knows what happened and is happening, so nobody believes that sort of ludicrous, unsourced propaganda anymore. Also, I am getting the feeling we might need a Wikipedia arbitration on some important facts soon, because it appears that, every day you check certain pages, it seems a whole different history happened than yesterday. Somebody should seriously consider this.The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not read them wrong. This is exactly the reason I warned you - DISTORTION of content. You seem to interpret sources and texts in the way it best suits your agenda. Anyone reading your edits on Party of Democratic Action and Bosnian independence referendum, 1992 can clearly see that. Having a POV obviously is not a problem, it is natural, manipulating sources to match it, however, is. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . It's pretty clear to see that this user was blocked indefinitely for long-term edit warring, was given a "last chance" unblock, and pretty much immediately continued edit warring after being unblocked. I really don't see any other option at this point.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  02:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Haxz.999 reported by User:TheMeaningOfBlah (Result: No action)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not available

Comments:

Clear violation of WP:3RR. Also appears to be insulting other users and claiming that YouTube is a reliable source. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you guys doing over there?? While being "right" isn't an edit warring policy exemption, this content dispute is so ridiculous I'd say it mitigates the situation a bit. No, Youtube itself is not automatically considered a reliable source, but in this case the source isn't merely "Youtube", the source is a video hosted on WWE's official channel on Youtube. Ergo, it's official and can pretty safely be considered a reliable primary source of information. The user's clearly the one being insulted, and the information is being reverted with absolutely ridiculous rationales such as "not being a text resource", "need to use an official source" (ignoring the fact that it is still an official source), "YouTube isn't considered a reliable source" (but it can be), "Until it says so on WWE.com this is NOT confirmed" (according to whom??)...Here's another official source that was cited, and again reverted because it's not "WWE.com". Try to use some common sense here, guys, these are verified official social media accounts, don't you think it's possible that they might announce new information on those platforms before updating the website to reflect it? Or do you just think they're lying on their social media accounts for no reason? Which seems more likely? There's no blanket ban on using Youtube or Twitter as sources, obviously they're not ideal but they can certainly be a source of information if the accounts providing the information are verified as to be official. Again, it's a matter of common sense in situations like these, and the users who have been reverting the addition of this information have woefully failed to exercise this common sense, to the disruption and detriment of the project. I'm sure as hell not going to block this editor who was being reverted for absolutely no valid reason.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  02:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AbuRuud reported by User:Ubikwit (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:28, 12 March 2015
 * 2) 22:31, 12 March 2015
 * 3) 01:30, 13 March 2015
 * 4) 02:05, 13 March 2015

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The first two diffs are a series of edits to revert back to a previous lead. They should therefore count as one "revert." The other two are me reasserting that the material shouldn't be on the page. All the reverts had to do with:


 * Reintroducing sourced content that provided context to the lead and was originally removed by an IP editor whose apparent motivation is the make the article an attack page.
 * Getting rid of a sentence that (at best) was poorly worded and biased to the point of violating wp:BLP. This was clearly explained on the the talk page. AbuRuud (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 1 and 2 are contiguous edits, thus counting as a single edit, - thus just hitting 3RR at worst - but the edit they reverted is from an IP in any event.  Ubikwit has made two specific and separate reverts on non-IP edits here, and should be warned, as should AbuRuud as I am unsure that calling a small group  a "cult of personality" centered on one person is a contentious claim about that specific person -- if so, then such claims should be considered a BLP violation in themselves,  and anyone restoring that language would be the violator. Collect (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also notice a lack of the required warning - a minor but fatal oversight when making an edit war complaint, if I recall correctly? Collect (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy explicitly states, "A warning is not required".
 * If you're going to follow me around and suggest that I be warned for no good reason, you should at least read the policies beforehand.
 * Regarding the claim about "contiguous edits", that does not seem to be correct, either. -- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 04:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the first that I se no result, does this means that is issue boomerang back to the person who falsely report this incident?Kelvintjy (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:X1942 reported by User:Amaury (Result: three socks indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651097051 by Amaury (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Continues to remove sourced information with no explanation or elaborate explanation as to why. Amaury (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * three sock puppets indefinitely., you need to be a bit more elaborative when filing a report of this kind. On its face, it looks screwy to see one revert listed. I actually looked first at the one edit by the reported user and was still mystified. It was only when I looked at the edit history did it suddenly become clear. I also semi-protected the article for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do. Apologies, . - Amaury (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Moorrests reported by User:Sunrise (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: any version without the contentious statement in the lead - the most recent is.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (24 January)
 * 2)  (25 January)
 * 3)  (10 February)
 * 4)  (11 February)
 * 5)  (4 March)
 * 6)  (5 March)
 * 7)  (6 March)
 * 8)  (7 March)
 * 9)  (7 March)
 * 10)  (10 March)
 * 11)  (11 March)
 * 12)  (12 March)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Science. The same sources were discussed at Talk:Alhazen - some edit warring took place at Alhazen also.

Comments:

The user is edit warring against multiple other users to insert their preferred content into the lead of Science. The first few diffs are from January and February, as are the linked discussions in which they initially tried to talk. After they couldn't find a consensus for inclusion, they returned to try and force the content in, especially over the past week, trying to say that the previous discussion supported their opinion.

There is no 3RR violation, but clear edit warring. I'm not necessarily requesting a block - anything that resolves the repeated reversions would be good. Protection would not be ideal, as productive editing is continuing while this is taking place. Sunrise  (talk)  23:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There has been no actual violation of three-revert rule here though I see there is an ongoing content dispute issue, all I can see is that User:J8079s is heavily implicated and the two editors have been equally responsible for the activities these past two weeks, so perhaps that editor's actions need to be looked into as well. Note that I am not party to this debate and have not looked into the logistics or any discussions on the matter. --!BSGT! (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's very much an asymmetric situation. J8079s reverted the majority of the 12 edits I cited above, but there are three of us who have done so - several more if you count the reversions at Alhazen - and even more who have commented in the talk discussions. Nobody other than Moorrests has been attempting to add the content. Sunrise  (talk)  23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging those editors who have reverted or opposed the edits:, , , , , , and the one editor who I think is neutral. Sunrise   (talk)  00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Clear case of edit warring by the user.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  02:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hadn't realized it had been going on so long or been reverted so many times. Why do people get bees in their bonnet like this one about saying in the lead of the science article that their hero is the father of science? The right place to look to get weight for the lead in an article about science is a general book about science, not a book about the person themselves or about medieval islamic science. There's a subsection about the history and that's where things like that should go and they were told that. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:VanEman reported by User:Caseeart (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Before the first revert the user already stopped responding on the Talk Page about the dispute. The user falsely (attacked me?-)accused me of "has repeatedly deleted a section agreed upon in the talk section" despite the talk section showed otherwise. The user has been edit warring for a few months with other users. I will admit that I did revert an edit 4 times within a 66 hour period - but it was with an ongoing discussion on the talk page.


 * Addition: Just realized an active discussion on | ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseeart (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 March 2015


 * .  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  20:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by MaranoFan (talk): Discussion still in progress - consensus  majority voting. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by MaranoFan (talk): Consensus takes some time, discussion occurring, dont edit war. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Joseph Prasad (talk): There's no discussion since 2/28/15 - no consensus was sought - reverting back and please do not edit war over this. (TW)"
 * 4)  "reverting back to photo added by Angellene10 - disagree? please take it to the article talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) "Warning" given to WV


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Resolution initiatives


 * Comments:

I'm uninvolved in this so it may not be 100% edit warring I was reffering to I don't know the background of it but since WV is being super picky about everything, yes 4 reverts is a violation of 3RR, but I see 4 reverts in 24hrs.... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Amended at: 19:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't "100% edit warring"', why did you file this report. ?


 * The facts are that both User:Joseph Prasad and User:MaranoFan had just come off blocks and returned immediately to their old behaviors: Prasad reverting in a manner that equates ownership, reverting rather than discussing; Marano aggressively edit warring when there is a discussion about the disputed content already occurring. I reverted Prasad here in part because he had not used an edit summary to explain his reversion, the edit summary I supplied was, "reverting back to photo added by Angellene10 - disagree? please take it to the article talk page" (I saw nothing wrong with the photo the other editor added).  Prasad then reverted again here: with the following edit summary "It's already a discussion, and since there has been no consensus, it can't be changed since it is still an ongoing discussion".  This was untrue, there hadn't been discussion for nearly two weeks and there had been no actual consensus sought.      I then reverted here with the following edit summary, "There's no discussion since 2/28/15 - no consensus was sought - reverting back and please do not edit war over this."  MaranoFan (who has been involved in tag-team edit warring with Joseph Prasad in the past) reverted here with this edit summary: "Winkelvi, the one edit warring is YOU. When there isn't consensus, the version before the change (being discussed) is kept. Don't change the image until everyone agrees on it."  My response was to revert back to the "wrong version" because there was a discussion taking place here  with the edit summary, "Consensus takes some time, discussion occurring, dont edit war."  Marano then aggressively reverted again (despite now being aware there is a discussion about the disputed content taking place) here  and put in a completely different photo than the two being discussed - no consensus, no discussion about the new photo, no agreement that the newest photo was the one that should be added.  Marano's edit summary was thus: "The user argues on the talk page that the photo should have a guitar. Until the discussion progresses, here is a non-blurry with-guitar pic not supposed to be reverted."  And yes, because the reverting while discussion was still occurring happened again, I did revert for a 4th time (here , "Discussion still in progress - consensus majority voting."  I had placed two edit warring warnings on his talk page here  and here .  He continued, nonetheless.  Even before this report was filed, I had no intention of reverting further,  Believing that WP:ROPE might be the best solution to their continued edit warring behavior.  My actions were solely based on keeping things in order and according to discussion policy -- actual edit warring was not my intent.  Further, I have followed up at the article talk page with a comment in order to hopefully reach consensus here: .  Not trying to distract or shift any blame, but in my opinion, MaranoFan and Joseph Prasad, both released from blocks for edit warring and disruptive behavior less than 24 hours ago, still appear to have no concept of consensus, discussion, disruption, edit warring, and that WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIN are not appropriate editing mentalities and behavior.  I think their behavior right after being unblocked is evidence of such: not wanting to truly discuss/reach consensus, just warring and winning. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation but that doesn't change the bright red line of 3RR which you ran right over. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) The explanation isn't meant for you,.
 * (2) You struck out what you originally wrote, but it doesn't change that you came to the edit warring noticeboard believing "it may not be 100% edit warring". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . The original change was made without any comment or explanation, it was disputed and reverted, and the proper course of action following this would be to discuss the proposed change, not to revert multiple times to keep the new image in the article; Winkelvi violated 3rr in trying to prevent the removal of their preferred addition and has not self-reverted as of this review. Also protecting the page to prevent further disruption.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Naturalevasion reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Multiple blocks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added community forum link"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 651140688 by Fixuture (talk)"
 * 3)  "correct link check contingency links update on evo forum & reddit & dnm"
 * 4)  "2 typos + wiki link"
 * 1)  "correct link check contingency links update on evo forum & reddit & dnm"
 * 2)  "2 typos + wiki link"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Evolution (marketplace). (TW)"
 * . I've indeffed NaldusMain, Matibenbaruch, and Naturalevasion as socks (it's possible they are meat puppets). I've semi-protected the page for one week. There is one other account that I didn't touch as I'm less sure of it (it is auto-confirmed).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . I've indeffed NaldusMain, Matibenbaruch, and Naturalevasion as socks (it's possible they are meat puppets). I've semi-protected the page for one week. There is one other account that I didn't touch as I'm less sure of it (it is auto-confirmed).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kaalekauwesedariyo reported by User:Snowager (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651182241 by Flyer22 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 651222759 by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid vandalism 651291165 by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) as"
 * . Although I don't think the SPA is interested in improving the article, the section on suicides needs a lot of work.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Although I don't think the SPA is interested in improving the article, the section on suicides needs a lot of work.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:213.81.80.153 reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* International career */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kieran Sadlier. (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kieran Sadlier. (TW)"


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


 * 1)
 * Comments:

Editor claims to be the subject's father and repeatedly adds content unsupported by references. I have explained the need for reliable sources both on this talkpage and my own only for editor to revert again. Egghead06 (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * per WP:AGF and WP:BITE; perhaps rather than summarily rollbacking all of this editor's edits and telling them to read WP:RS, you can leave the non-contentious wording changes, tag the additions of information that are not at this time supported by reliable sources, and revert only the removal or alteration of something that is already sourced. Perhaps this is an editor you should attempt to help rather than attempt to shut out; our reliable sources policy is not an outright ban on someone making a change to incorrect information on an article about a family member.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  21:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks but your view goes against WP:COIADVICE which specifically asks that they add reliable sources.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

121.220.98.113 reported by AcidSnow (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 08:34, 13 March 2015
 * 2) Latest revision as of 12:22, 14 March 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk page link

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

Comments:

This IP has violated 1R by reverting twice on the Template:Arab Capital of Culture. Also, where does someone go once they receive a death threat? Him and another individual have also been calling me "A MUSLIM TERRORIST", an "Arab nationalist vandal", a "CUNT", and that I poses an "extremist Arab POV". AcidSnow (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Can't confirm the other IP is the same person but I've blocked them for two weeks for similar but less severe violations.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  18:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I greatly appreciate your help. AcidSnow (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Sarderzahidrahman111 reported by User:Nath1991 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removing file deletion tags on Sarder Majibar Rahman. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removing file deletion tags on Sarder Majibar Rahman. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* March 2015 */"


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


 * Comments:

Has created a page (Sarder Majibar Rahman) which appears to be about him/her. Continues to remove deletion tags, and has been warned a dozen times about doing so, in addition to other Wikipedia editors re-applying for deletion of said page without possibly being aware of the fact that the page has been up for deletion for a week, and the user in question has been warned multiple times for deleting the deletion tags on the page. Nath1991 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support deleting the page and banning the user. They are clearly only here for self-promotion, not to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Even after having discussed in the previous Editwar Notice[] this user ignored my request to have discussion and reverted the tag consequently.[]Rukn950 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

Though his reverts are not 3rrr but summichum immediatly started to revert even after being requested by Admin in the Notice boardRukn950 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"'No violation. The proper course of action when someone adds something you disagree with is not to edit war over it, but to discuss it on the talk page. Since you've already jumped to the conclusion that the tag is referring to you, whether you like it or not, it's not appropriate for you to be removing it. If no consensus forms to support the tag being there, it can be removed. However you're both accusing each other of having a COI, so I certainly don't see the tag as being inappropriate. Swarm... —X— 2:19 am, 10 March 2015, last Tuesday (5 days ago) (UTC+3)'"


 * While I could certainly block this user, I think it would be more productive if you both proceeded to WP:COIN and sought out some additional feedback, as you're obviously at an impasse, accusing each other of COI, and you're not getting sufficient feedback on the talk page. You'll have a week off of the article to attempt to sort this out through discussion.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  18:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Swarm cc:User:Bjelleklang Do check my talk page where I have given proof that this user ruqn has close connection with the subject, and is infact a clergy of this group, I have no connection whatsoever with either of the claimants nor do I support any. Hence I request editors to not just look at claims but also evidences for the same, this user was reported for clear 3rr violations twice and yet due to his false claims action was deferred , later an admin asked for proof for COI accusation which I duly provided yet the action on my 3rr report remains. ALso you clearly said " If no consensus forms to support the tag being there, it can be removed. However you're both accusing each other of having a COI". Summichum (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi - Drake Bell (Result: page protected; editors blocked for another article)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651410252 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Again, I provided a source for record producer. Stop ignoring your talk page, and learn how to discuss instead of edit warring."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 651409661 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I have provided sources. Stop Edit Warring and removing sourced info."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 651408406 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Stop ignoring me, and stop edit warring before I report us both and get us both blocked."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 651407975 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) stop ignoring my message on your talk page"
 * 5)  "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Find a guideline telling you this. And his net worth in the negatives now. . (TW)"
 * 6)  "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Actually, videos can be used. Refer to User talk:SNUGGUMS. And it is from his real account. (TW)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 651406147 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Again, I have explained my edits. Take it to the talk page before making edits like this."
 * 8)  "Provided ref to already obvious fact."
 * 9)  "No, he has produced his EP A Reminder as well, under his own label. And other people such as Jennette McCurdy, are taken as comedians as well. Discuss on the talk page before you make a change."
 * 10)  "Undid revision 651403676 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) He is a comedian, having worked on multiple sitcoms, and he produced his first album Telegraph, and his EP A Reminder."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651406147 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Again, I have explained my edits. Take it to the talk page before making edits like this."
 * 2)  "Provided ref to already obvious fact."
 * 3)  "No, he has produced his EP A Reminder as well, under his own label. And other people such as Jennette McCurdy, are taken as comedians as well. Discuss on the talk page before you make a change."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 651403676 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) He is a comedian, having worked on multiple sitcoms, and he produced his first album Telegraph, and his EP A Reminder."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651403676 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) He is a comedian, having worked on multiple sitcoms, and he produced his first album Telegraph, and his EP A Reminder."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* March 2015 */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

WAY over 3RR. Was just released from a 48-hour edit warring block a couple of days ago (see here: ). -- WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor I am reverting is removing sourced information and ignoring the message I left on his talk page. He's over 3RR as well, why is he not being reported? This really is starting to seem like a personal problem. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that Atomic has a history of edit warring accusations also (talk page), and is also warring over what seems to be a reasonable and constructive edit on the page A Reminder. Furthermore, Atomic has refused to respond to discussion opened by Prasad, both on article and user talk pages. If a certain punishment is found wanting for Prasad, should Atomic not be liable for the same? -- Jhill270 (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The revert JP was making looks reasonable to me. I think it should be thoroughly observed that the claim JP kept adding did have a source. I don't know what is done in such cases. I would hope that seeing the situation, and not just the number of edits, JP is not blocked in this situation. MaRAno '' FAN 06:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User continues to revert A Reminder page without finding a reliable source.(Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
 * Tells one to provide source. Others tell him to do the same on other pages. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At least I find reliable sources like Entertainment weekly, Hollywood Reporter, etc. you put unknown sites. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

I had already protected the article and left messages for both editors before seeing this report. If another admin chooses to block one or another of the editors, I won't object. In the absence of such a block, I will continue to monitor the discussion (and I've already had some discussion at User talk:Joseph Prasad.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ditinili reported by User:Fakirbakir (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

a link to a version from before all the reverting took place:

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

Comments:

Same issue as above (this is my second report about this user). He started a discussion about a map yesterday (he mentioned this matter a couple of days ago but it was an "off-topic discussion", here: ),  and now he says that the issue has been "already discussed on different place". However the discussion is still ongoing. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and trouting the nominator for going to three reverts before reporting.Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ditinili reported by User:Fakirbakir (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

a link to a version from before all the reverting took place:

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

Comments:

He started a discussion about a map yesterday (he mentioned this matter a couple of days ago but it was an "off-topic discussion", here: ),  and now he says that the issue has been "already discussed on different place". However the discussion is still ongoing. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See the report below.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi - A Reminder (Result: both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Undid revision 651451025 by Atomic Meltdown (talk): at the end, label name in vid.)
 * 2)  Undid revision 651450784 by Atomic Meltdown (talk): these links are irrelevant, as I said, the label in the music videos.
 * 3)  again, Wiki's all about discussion. YOU don't know how to do it. And I have said stop reverting and give me time, but you won't. Oh, well. We're both getting blocked purely for 3RR.
 * 4)  Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown (talk): I have explained myself multiple times. Maybe if you learned to actually DISCUSS. (TW)
 * 5)  Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown (talk). (TW)
 * 6)  Undid revision 651448331 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) per my previous edit summary. I'm getting blocked anyway, why not?
 * 7)  Undid revision 651448187 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) That would be original research, nothing more reliable than what I'm doing here.
 * 8)  Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown: Don't assist in reporting me then revert. It is under his name, he produced it. Actually, you didn't on that Billy Crystal thing. (TW)
 * 9)  Undid revision 651446943 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Telling me to find one when you have been warned for original research, unsourced info. Kinda hypocritical.
 * 10)  "Ugh... how many times have I told you, that doesn't matter? Me and other editor have tried to discuss, you simply ignore. Maybe start there. Like I said, do you want me just to snitch to an admin and get us both blocked?"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 651446094 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) As it is under Drake Bell Entertainment, it does not need to be."
 * 12)  "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Sources provided. I have been told that the source for the label is enough. (TW)"
 * 13)  "No. You're the one who wants the change. You're the one to do it. And you've ignored me trying to discuss with you, showing you're doing this on pages I frequently edit to be disruptive."
 * 14)  "How bout instead of reverting, YOU TAKE IT TO THE TALK. unless you don't know how wiki works."
 * 15)  "/* Lawsuit */"
 * 16)  "we were almost blocked. You brought it up, you take it to the talk page, heck, I could use a break, I can just go snitch to an admin."
 * 17)  "Undid revision 651444082 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) per my previous summary."
 * 18)  "corrected italics."
 * 19)  "Undid revision 651444156 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I can find other sources."
 * 20)  "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): I have REPEATEDLY told you I left a message and to take it to the talk page. Why do you refuse? (TW)"
 * 21)  "Source provided"
 * 22)  "Undid revision 651410380 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) He doesn't need to be as it is under his name. Stop the edit war."
 * 23)  "Undid revision 651409945 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I actually am. Stop. Do you wanna get reported? Learn how to discuss on Talk Pages."
 * 24)  "Undid revision 651409166 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) stop edit warring before I report both of us"
 * 25)  "Undid revision 651408263 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) It is enough that it is under a label dubbed with his own name."
 * 26)  "Undid revision 651407718 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) it is under his own label, so it is obvious. Stop stalking the pages I edit, as you weren't on these ever before."
 * 1)  "Source provided"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 651410380 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) He doesn't need to be as it is under his name. Stop the edit war."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 651409945 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I actually am. Stop. Do you wanna get reported? Learn how to discuss on Talk Pages."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 651409166 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) stop edit warring before I report both of us"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 651408263 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) It is enough that it is under a label dubbed with his own name."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 651407718 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) it is under his own label, so it is obvious. Stop stalking the pages I edit, as you weren't on these ever before."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651407718 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) it is under his own label, so it is obvious. Stop stalking the pages I edit, as you weren't on these ever before."


 * 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:

Second edit warring report filed in the same day. See above. -- <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;">✉ ✓ 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: His comments on his talk page regarding the edit warring are: "I'm not giving a crap at the moment. Granted, editing Wikipedia has been the only thing I do, if that editor doesn't at least get blocked too, I'm going to get pissed. Really, all the info is there. He just started editing those articles after I proved him wrong on 84th Academy Awards, as the Drake Bell articles are among the main ones I edit." (found here ).  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  07:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you worry nothing of the other editor, and I have tried to make a discussion, continued ignorance. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are going to block me, you have to take some action against as well. That just wouldn't be right, I tried to discuss on his talk, I'm getting singled out here. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why me? I'm the one who's telling you to find a reliable source and keep putting unsourced material. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
 * You, just started on these articles because the Drake Bell articles are among the main ones I focus on. You're doing this to deliberately be disruptive. If you were really in good faith, you would make an attempt to find sources, instead of just removing over and over again, or at least tagging the info, you doing this just cause I proved you wrong at the 84th Academy Awards article. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And The only reason "I'm not giving a crap" is because I will be blocked regardless, and know it. And I have been agitated to no end. And again, nothing on the other ediotr. WOW. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I'm telling you to find a reliable source and ignore me. This guy needs to be blocked for reverting unsourced material. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
 * I had to revert you for the same reason. And seriously, again, don't know how to discuss on talk pages. If you did, none of this would be happening. You just ignore everything. It wasn't anything better than what you were doing, yet you thought you were in the right. And if the label is under his name, he produced it. No sourcing needed, as I have been told, by DISCUSSING. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You see what I have been through yesterday. This kid needs a source. A source and he refused to find a reliable one. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC))


 * Comment from uninvolved editor: I doubt this needs to be said, but this is a true and classic edit war in the most brilliant sense of the word. Atomic Meltdown is also a heavy participant. They were both warned sternly for the last incident, but that doesn't seem to have effected a change. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 07:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also notable: they're STILL at it even after the posting of this 3RR discussion. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 08:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Both need blocking IMO. Joseph Prasad has just come off a 48hr block only five days ago for, guess what, edit-warring.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Sorry, it's just too much. Both were edit warring to the point of having another article locked, then took the dispute here and continued to edit war after warnings. I've blocked Atomic Meltdown for 24 hours for a first offense, and Prasad for one week as this is his third consecutive block for this and is just coming back from a block. Kuru   (talk)  14:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Danny.rudolph5 reported by User:Snowager (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Toy Story 4 (2017) */"
 * 2)  "Fixed Everything"
 * 1)  "Fixed Everything"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * This edit makes it clear that this is all simple vandalism. I've blocked the account. Kuru   (talk)  14:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on IP User:77.238.218.96 for pseudoscientific OR.
The IP has already gone beyond 3 edits at Dimensionless physical constant and appears to be on the same tare at Gravitational constant. User:Quondum and I are trying to stem this IP's likely self-promotional edits. Thanks. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Amortias (T)(C) 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Clibenfoart reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24 hours)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (previous consensus on this matter and further responses to Clibenfoart)

Comments:

Unfortunately the film does not provide the roles of the supporting cast, so these have been added to the article using the the descriptions at the American Film Institute. User:Clibenfoart has started linking to still and screencaps on non-reliable websites and adding his own cast descriptions. This has been discussed on the talk page where three editors are against using editor formulated descriptions and have a preference for using the credits as presented in reliable sources, such as the American Film Institute and New York Times. The editor has not violated 3RR but he is aware of the consensus and clearly chooses to violate it. It is clearly disruptive behavior. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . I disagree on the 3RR assessment. I see reverts around the "at jail" comment (specifically) back in January; notably 1/11/05 @ 14:27. In the last 24 hours, I see reverts of the same descriptor @ 14:19, 14:45, 22:29, and 22:45. There is also clear consensus on the article's talk page not to use the OR descriptors.  For the record, Betty is one revert out of a 3RR as well; please slow down.  Kuru   (talk)  02:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting it out, and given the previous disruption in January you are right I probably shouldn't have reverted so many times today. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Josephlalrinhlua786, User:4TheWynne reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: )
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:

Edit warring. Not even sure who's right as far as content at this point. But both users have very much exceeded 3RR. --<font color="#111111">‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health  ‖ 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Hypnotica26 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result:Blocked for 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651652071 by Joseph2302 (talk)Check the facts yourself, the page was outdated, I know the SS admin personally."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 651651340 by Joseph2302 (talk)Hi there is no SS website now, the label was never WB and the info is incorrect, you are stating incorrect info"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 651650675 by Ericorbit (talk)I know the SS admin personally, the info on the page you revert to is wrong."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 651623477 by Ericorbit (talk)FAO Ericorbit I have updated the page to accuracy, the page you rudely reverted it back to is outdated."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shakespears Sister. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Shakespears Sister. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user is replacing sourced content with unsourced content. It has been explained to them multiple times that their information needs to have reliable sources, but they continue to ignore, claiming that they know best as an alleged friend. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The user has reverted again here, along with a personal attack (calling me an idiot). I cannot reverse this last change, else I go over 3RR, and risk trouble, even though my reversions have been inline with Wikipedia policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mehmeett21 reported by User:Gligan (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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:Mehmeett21 was warned to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, which he repeatedly refused

Comments:

Since 10 March 2015 User:Mehmeett21 has made 10 disruptive edits on the article for the First Bulgarian Empire and has repeatedly refused to discuss his changes of the established text of the article. That user has been previously warned for disruptive edits on 12 March but has since cleared his talk page. In order not to break the 3RR rule myself, I still haven't reverted his last disruptive edit. Hopefully, the admins would do so. Regards, Gligan (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

first bulgarian empire hade tengrism which is turkic and called khanate and first ruler a khan and i have one refernce but he dont acept,Check out the reference and tell us what you think it thanksMehmeett21 https://books.google.se/books?id=-h5Z8CEA5bkC&pg=PA308&lpg=PA308&dq=old+great+bulgaria+turkic&source=bl&ots=XsbYbELPTZ&sig=3f_9bbDyx3qaXrIhRZFV2Y9YQeE&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=8zkHVdS-Do2UaqPsgvAM&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBzgo#v=onepage&q=old%20great%20bulgaria%20turkic&f=false Mehmeett21 20:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:88.159.237.227 reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651654981 by Chasewc91 (talk) look at source idiot  it said EP"
 * 2)  "/* Extended plays */ digital or not its an extended play, its released through itunes so official"
 * 3)  "/* Promotional singles */ jealous remixes is an official ep and released through itunes so legit"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 651529353 by Ross Lynch Lovers (talk)look on teacher page for release"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651529353 by Ross Lynch Lovers (talk)look on teacher page for release"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Combined with personal attacks. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  22:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Infoantg1 reported by User:Beatpoet (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Infoantg1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Infoantg1

Comments:

Has made pointless unsourced edits to the page and when I revert them, he puts his edits back. Beatpoet (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this not being acted on? Beatpoet (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User:80.111.174.103 reported by User:IPadPerson (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651655340 by Carlos Rojas77 (talk) Undid unexplained edit."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 651657234 by Carlos Rojas77 (talk) Her nationality is British."
 * 3)  "England isn't a country. It's part of the UK."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 651696441 by IPadPerson (talk) No I won't stop. She's British."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 651696441 by IPadPerson (talk)"
 * 1)  "England isn't a country. It's part of the UK."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 651696441 by IPadPerson (talk) No I won't stop. She's British."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 651696441 by IPadPerson (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651696441 by IPadPerson (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

This user is continuously edit warring on the article by adding that she is an actress when it is not sourced and tampering with the nationality in the lead when repeatedly asked to knock it off. A 3RR warning was then given, but the user did not bother to discontinue. IPadPerson (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Niroshaka reported by User:Noren (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: was the version upon which semiprotection was applied, which included no claims to a date of birth or age of the subject.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  02:35, 17 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
 * 2)  01:41, 17 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
 * 3)  08:12, 16 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
 * 4)  11:10, 13 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
 * 5)  10:48, 13 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
 * 6)  10:36, 13 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
 * 7)  10:23, 13 March 2015 Adds unsourced date of birth
 * 8)  17:01, 1 March 2015 Add alleged date of birth sourced to a blog post along with a page blanking
 * 9)  16:59, 1 March 2015 Add alleged date of birth sourced to a blog post along with a page blanking

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning Niroshaka was warned by Arjayay

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Talk:Thesara_Jayawardane

 Comments: 

There were also a number of other problematic edits made to this article by this user early in March not directly involving the birth date issue, but I thought a more focused report would be clearer. User:Niroshaka brought this up on Jimbo's talk page with an incorrect spelling of the name of the subject, which is where I saw the issue. --Noren (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User:KombuchaBoy reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed typo"
 * 2)  "Fixed typo"
 * 3)  "Better information."
 * 4)  "Improved information."
 * 5)  "Better information."
 * 6)  "Better information."
 * 7)  "Added new information."
 * 1)  "Better information."
 * 2)  "Added new information."


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


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


 * Comments:

User:GeorgeLouis reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: )
Pages: &

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Template
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff
 * Article
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff (occurred since the 3RR report was filed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: User has been engaged in an edit war with me, User:Purplebackpack89 over a Los Angeles City Attorney article and corresponding template. At issue is primarily formatting: GeorgeLouis is wedded to the article and template being alphabetical, while Purplebackpack89 favors the chronological organization employed by countless articles and templates pertaining to elected officials. We recently solicited a third opinion on the matter; this brought User:AHeneen into the fray. AHeneen has also dissented from GeorgeLouis' point-of-view; generally agreeing with Purplebackpack89 that both template and article should be arranged chronologically. I had thought this had been put to bed after a lengthy discussion at Talk:Los Angeles City Attorney where four editors favored the chronological organization and only GeorgeLouis favored alphabetical, but GeorgeLouis began reverting (both Purplebackpack89 and AHeneen) on the template yesterday, and continued today. GeorgeLouis keeps clamoring for "consensus", even though such consensus exists, and it's not in his favor. p b  p  22:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above user may be correct in his count; I haven't really checked. If so, I shan't do any more reverting but will continue to seek WP:Consensus. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Despite three editors supporting the inclusion of a sortable table (only the problem editor and one other, who simply made a brief comment, were also involved), GeorgeLouis made the table unsortable alphabetically (diff) less than 20 minutes after making the above remark about trying "to seek WP:Consensus." AHeneen (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * GeorgeLouis seems to have a funny way of interpreting consensus...no matter how many people disagree with him, it's still not consensus unless he gets some or all of what he wants. p  b  p  14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User:77.238.218.96 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: 24 hr block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651500691 by Quondum (talk) relative to the rest of the article (also not discussed in talk) this was the well made part"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 651528401 by 166.184.170.35 (talk) primary sources are OK in lack of secondary ones, besides this is just a comparison of 2 numbers (1 peer-reviewed, 1arxiv time-stamped)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 651535495 by 166.184.170.35 (talk) that's exactly the starting point of the guy who had theoretical value of G right. so what's your point again, if any?"
 * 4)  "(Undid revision 651541777 by 166.184.170.35 (talk) actually, you're already in violation)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring against 166.184.170.35 <b style="color: red">Toon</b><b style="color: blue">Lucas</b><b style="color: red">22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 21:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There seems to just be an content dispute here, I'd recommend dispute resolution, or just talking it out. 166.184.170.35 is also involved in the edit warring as well, to the same extent as the other IP.  Kharkiv07 Talk  21:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the citation, the person and the IP. Sums it up pretty clearly. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One additional comment: "166.184.170.35 is also involved in the edit warring as well, to the same extent as the other IP." NOT to the same extent. The Bosnian IP first took on User:Quondum, reverting his/her edits (which were reverting the Bosnian IP's edits).  This is clearly a crank's OR. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * lol The only crank here is you. I explained everything in my talk and edit summaries. 77.238.218.96 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have reverted 3 times and no more. 77 has reverted 4 times. 166.184.170.35 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, anonymous editors are welcome to insert uncontentious facts but should not become the champions of disputed issues. WP:SCRUTINY entitles us to review your record if you want to make edits that ignite disputes and use up the time of administrators at admin boards. Either party is welcome to create an account. If you choose not to do so, I recommend that semiprotection be considered for the two articles on physical constants that are in dispute: Gravitational constant and Dimensionless physical constant. It can't be ruled out that the 77.* IP from Sarajevo is the author of one of the papers being reverted in and out at Dimensionless physical constant, for example in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=651503254 this edit]. If you are in fact the author, you can come forth, declare yourself and we'll talk. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Vsmith (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems to be active as 217.197.137.140 now. --mfb (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 77.238.216.206 appeared today, continuing the edit-war. I'm not familiar with the pages related to vandalism and edit-wars here, should I open a new topic somewhere else? --mfb (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Pjstar35 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - 23 hours and 37 minutes after the first.  Would've ignored it if it weren't for other behavior.
 * 1)  - 23 hours and 37 minutes after the first.  Would've ignored it if it weren't for other behavior.
 * 1)  - 23 hours and 37 minutes after the first.  Would've ignored it if it weren't for other behavior.
 * 1)  - 23 hours and 37 minutes after the first.  Would've ignored it if it weren't for other behavior.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Constantine_(TV_series).

Comments:

User got out of a block for nearly identical behavior almost a week ago. I say "nearly identical" because there's an increased hostile assumption of bad-faith by Pjstar35 (leading to personal attacks). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * is a brand new edit. Issues with a previous edit, being discussed on the talk page, was that it was one professionals speculation so I adjusted the brand new edit to cite multiple sources. and  are good-faith reverts as I had thought my new edits would be acceptable and discussion on the talk page had ceased which I erroneously took as a good sign.  is an unrelated edit that does not contain any speculations and only uses direct quotes from NBC staff.  I felt this was a much better addition to the article in that it provides useful information and does not include any speculation as to not incite another debate about the interpretation of WP:BALL.  I'm trying to cooperate here to make my edits acceptable.  I feel that I may have portrayed having "hostile assumption of bad-faith" once false accusations of Sock Puppetry were made but I'm really trying to let that go.  Let's be honest, no one likes to be falsely accused of anything.  As a fairly new editor to Wikipedia I understand that there are things I will learn as I go but it is situations like this that make Wikipedia uninviting for new editors.  As it says in WP:ROWN "Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion." I feel like if the guidelines of essays such as WP:ROWN were adopted by more editors, editing Wikipedia would be a much more pleasant experience for everyone.Pjstar35 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that it was a different edit. I had just woken up, saw that there was material about the show's future again, and based on past behavior jumped the gun.  My apologies. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your admission of mistake and I accept your apology. I truly hope we can work past all of these prior issues and continue to contribute productively to the content here on Wikipedia.Pjstar35 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Inorout reported by User:Mfb (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/651546457

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/651554797
 * 2) Special:Diff/651623325
 * 3) Special:Diff/651624827
 * 4) Special:Diff/651631255

Additional edit war ongoing at Dimensionless physical constant, same content. Yesterday an IP was blocked for edit warring, adding exactly the same content to the articles.

Tried to discuss it on his user page, no success. --mfb (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

You used awfully uncivil language and I-own-WP tone in my Talk, so I don't think there is anything to discuss with you. Inorout (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Like the two IPs mentioned in a report above, User:Inorout is helping to publicize the work of Mensur Omerbashich. A Google for that name brings up some online reputation. There is also personal website at sites.google.com/site/omerbashich that may be instructive. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian/Archive, a case which will appear as a search result if you search SPI for Omerbashich. Bosnipedian has been quite active in 2015. One option is to add Inorout and the various IPs to the Bosnipedian sock case. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just adding insults, to me personally and to someone behind another user name. Is civility not required in this case? Can we all run wild? Inorout (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Appears that this Inorout editor is socked by another similar Bosnian-based IP. And another sock. 73.16.37.124 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hooo-boy!! I had just now explored a little about this Inorout or Mensur Omerbashich character:  http://wiki.royalfamily.ba/wiki/Mensur_Omerbashich .  Apparently, he fancies himself the King of Bosnia.  And he has the mailing address: Bosnian Royal Family, PO Box 1, Sarajevo, Bosnia www.royalfamily.ba to show for it.  This might explain Inorout's (and the IP's) sense of entitlement to publish whatever-the-hell-he-wants in Wikipedia. 73.16.37.124 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Clear 3RR violation. The reason doesn't really matter. Read WP:3RR for the bright line rule. Four reverts in less than 24 hours. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Nishidani reported by User:Bkalafut (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

This is not yet a 3RR case, unless users Nishidani and Zero0000 are sock puppets of each other. User RebSmith has been adding sourced content to Islam and antisemitism, which while somewhat problematic in style could immediately be fixed by refinement, and Nishidani has blanked the entirety of it twice. On the talk page he is arguing pure POV while claiming the edits are a violation of NPOV. I came on this while looking at just-ins and delivered an informal warning on the talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: I don't have a dog in this fight, so some of the template doesn't really apply.

This is not a 3RR complaint but an edit warring complaint. User Nishidani and a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet are wildly blanking one user's constructive and sourced edits in an apparent attempt to keep mention of mainstream scholarship (with citations) off of a certain article, for reasons of undue weight or fringe POV. In particular, it appears to be material relying on sources which argue that Islam is antisemitic that is setting Nishidani off. Bkalafut (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been working on improving the article Islam and antisemitism, particularly the section on The Quran. Previously in this section, the only sources were academics trained in the Western tradition with no mention of modern-day Muslim scholars. I decided to begin including content from modern-day clerics. To begin, I focused on the antisemitic stances of some Muslim scholars. I also put in a list of verses considered "antisemitic" by both scholars and commentators and used by some of these modern-day clerics in their antisemitic remarks. The clerics I have included are not fringe. Many of them are trained at Al-Ahzar University. One was a member of their fatwa committee. A couple were clerics in the Hamas leadership, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and represents a large contingent of the Palestinian population and is respected by other Muslim governments. Before I had time to put in Muslim sources that contest the antisemitic stances, such as Hamza Yusuf and Ahmadi Muslim scholars, much of the content I contributed began to be deleted. The reasons included that my sources weren't scholarly enough, that I included a source that some consider "right-wing", that I was "cherry picking" out fringe opinions, that I was only included one point-of-view. I made every attempt to explain the reasons for my edits, to collaborate with them in an effort to bring balance to the article, but I just get rebuked and my content deleted. RebSmith (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC) — RebSmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Nishidani, Zero0000 (not socks of each other lol) have both argued that the material in question is a straightforward violation of multiple policies, the users returning the material, ignoring WP:BURDEN, have yet to address the pertinent points raised regarding compliance with these policies, and instead have simply stood up and said no. Admin review of the talk page and its participants would certainly be a good thing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what is called "gaslighting". Contributions are from scholarly secondary sources, either academics or clerics, yet User:Nableezy and other disruptive blankers bring up WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR.Bkalafut (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it "funny" that Bkalafut canvassed RebSmith to comment here. It's also "funny" that Bkalafut thought it was appropriate to insinuate (twice) that Nishidani and Zero0000 are sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Perhaps Bkalafut ought to reflect on his/her own role in the edit-warring at Islam and antisemitism, which is not insignificant. I recommend that the recently added trash be removed from the article and that the article be fully protected for a reasonable period, during which RebSmith and Bkalafut can familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me how adding the views of Muslim clerics to an article on Islam is adding "trash". RebSmith (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOR and WP:IRS. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How are the published views of Muslim clerics WP:OR and not WP:RS? RebSmith (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to discuss the subject of original research with somebody who obviously hasn't read the policy. Where are the "reliable, published sources"? Why the over-reliance on primary sources? Why all the synthesis? Instead, you prefer to denigrate "academics trained in the Western tradition" (or reliable sources, as we call them on Wikipedia) in favor of fringe sources like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. I stand by my characterization of your addition as trash. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:fringe, WP:Undue. You could make an hilarious/tragic mess of pages on Judaism and Christianity by cherrypicking Christian or Jewish fringe voices (see the net, there's a superabundance of ranters in all three) and attributing their pronouncements qua Christians, Jews, and Muslims to Christianity, Judaism and Islam. For every Muhsen Abu 'Ita Memri picks up from the lunatic periphery, we have our Terry Joneses. For every Yunis Al Astal we have our Shalom Lewises.


 * Technically, neither of you appear to know what you are 'messing' with: I gave on my page one instance of the damage this kind of credulous copyandpasting from websites creates. What you guys are doing is using dubious websites run up by islamophobes to contaminate an article that is already abusive of NPOV from notes 124-215. You should not be editing the pages, because you have no familiarity, evidently, with the scholarly literature, which can be severe on Islamic fundamentalism, and yet not pointy. It's a serious topic, not to be quilted with the ranting cascades of ill-digested griping swobbed off websites like that of Pamela Geller or the screeds of Robert Spencer. For once I agree with Abraham Foxman, who dismisses such people you guys are citing as as Muslim-hating mirrors of anti-Semitism. Such 'stuff' has no place on Wikipedia. Neither editor should be touching these pages.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pamela Geller was but one source used in the 17 kilobytes you are blanking. Spencer is arguably an RS.  But WP is not strictly about scholarship and the popular commentary has a place, too, as I've learned the hard way editing BLPs and econ articles.  It sounds uncivil to say so here, but you are being dishonest about what you are removing.  RebSmith's contributions are not copy-pasted and are broadly based in both academic and clerical scholarly literature.  That you are making this false accusation strengthens the case for a block, once a neutral admin shows up.  The "no place on WP" bit is an admission of POV on your part.  If there are sources you want to add, add them.  Cease blanking 17 KB if you object to 200 bytes and take your objections up constructively on the talk page.Bkalafut (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe you are compromised in this discussion. You call RebSmith's contributions "recently added trash" even though they are appropriately sourced pursuant to WP:BURDEN.  The objection appears to be to the content.  Perhaps this is one for ArbCom?Bkalafut (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend 24 or even 72 hour protection of the page at this point. Disruptive reverters are now flocking in as though invited with a purpose.Bkalafut (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not causing disruption, or anything of the sort. So please don't make things up. I and all other users are free to edit any article. Nobody on Wikipedia WP:OWNs an article. AcidSnow (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not free to blank 18 kilobytes of an article, most or perhaps all of which clearly has reliable sources and is not original research, and claim in the summary that it was "OR trash"--certainly not without discussing it on the talk page. Everyone is free to edit any article, but we cannot make the George Bush article all about Taco Bell or blank out portions of articles about our favorite politicians which cover their time in prison, etc.  Please read WP:NOR and WP:NOT, for starters. Bkalafut (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am free to remove text that violate Wikipedias policies since it was already determined as such by multiple other editors and uninvolved admins. Despite this, you still claim that it doesn't? It's shocking that you still don't recognize the problem, as well how you advise me to read the same polices which you fail to grasp. Also, I removed 17.3 kilobytes, so if your going to round it then round it down not up. AcidSnow (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You continue gaslighting. Nobody "determined" that the 17.3 KB you removed (why so hurt that I said "18"?) was OR.  At most the sourcing style was under legitimate dispute, call it X, and you removed WXY to get rid of X.  That you can keep up this kind of dishonest act is shocking.  You should have discussed whether or not removal instead of changing sourcing style was appropriate.  Bkalafut (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Disruptive reverters"? Pot, meet kettle. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverting what amounts to vandalism is not the same as vandalism.Bkalafut (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see. Bkalafut thinks Nishidani should be sanctioned for two reverts more than 48 hours apart, while Bkalafut's reverts  only three hours apart (in an article arguably covered by WP:ARBPIA's 1RR rule) are apparently just fine. This is a transparent abuse of an administrative page by Bkalafut in an attempt to gain an editing advantage. Anyone can look at the article to see what a disgusting travesty of Wikipedia principles it is. Zerotalk 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see. Bkalafut thinks Nishidani should be sanctioned for two reverts blanking constructive contributions to the page.  Posts this request.  Then non-puppets start repeating the deletions in dispute.  And you try to hold it against me that I speedily undo the disruptive edits.  Your dishonesty is transparent.  Get a clue.Bkalafut (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article fully protected for one week. Please try to reach consensus on the talk page. If necessary use WP:RSN to get a verdict on the usability of the disputed sources, such as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (author). Since the changes in dispute were very large, I restored the article to a version from 18 February that is prior to the current edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hadraa reported by AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 01:44, 18 March 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 02:17, 18 March 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 02:21, 18 March 2015
 * 4) Latest revision as of 02:35, 18 March 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Users talk page

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

Comments:

Hello. AcidSnow (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir reported by User:Galestar (Result: Filer already blocked per WP:AE)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) Revision as of 20:06, March 17, 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 20:08, March 17, 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 22:56, March 17, 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) User talk page
 * 2) User talk page

Comments:
 * I notice Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: is missing... wonder why... It's because I'm the one who started it . Anyway, I didn't violate 3RR. The reporter, on the other hand, has been warned by myself,, and about their editing behavior and have an WP:AE request filed against them by .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS - I was never notified of this AN3. Just saw it in Galestar's contribs.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You started a discussion **after** violating 3RR. I warned you twice about your behavior on your talk page and each time it was deleted with comments such as "WP:DENY" and "rm spa crap".  In other words you do not take warnings about your own disruptive behavior seriously.  Similar to our conversation on talk, you believe in one set of rules for you and one set of rules for everyone else. Galestar (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please show where I made a 4th revert? Also, fixing disruption is not itself disruption. I removed your templates because they were nonsense (and because of WP:DTTR).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My edits were not disruptive. I am attempting to bring a NPOV to an article that has been tagged with "undue weight" for over a year.  You have been very active on this article and others in the same space, so I can see why you have a personal attachment to their content.  Remember though: you do not own this article or any others. Galestar (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Filer is already blocked 48 hours per a complaint at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Marc87 reported by User:Hirolovesswords (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:Marc87 has repeatedly removed a referenced category from Nancy Walton Laurie and added a category that the article gives no clear indication for inclusion. User:Zigzig20s attempted to resolve this conflict on Marc87's page, but was unsuccessful. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Justinw303 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Mixtapes */"
 * 2)  "/* Studio albums */"
 * 3)  "/* Studio albums */"
 * 4)  "Corrected Discography"
 * 1)  "/* Studio albums */"
 * 2)  "Corrected Discography"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

So this is happening again. Justinw303 reverting User:Drizzy010's edits at the Drake Discography article. They were both blocked by for edit warring three days ago, blocks were lifted today and both editors went right back to the same behavior. -- <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;">✉ ✓ 03:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Today is Tuesday. The ban was lifted Saturday. I corrected the page (the current listing is incorrect) and Drizzy continues to revert the page to an incorrect version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinw303 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * – 1 week, for resumption of previous war. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Drizzy010 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Mixtapes */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 651783794 by Justinw303 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Guest appearances */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651783794 by Justinw303 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Guest appearances */"
 * 1)  "/* Guest appearances */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

So this is happening again. Drizzy010 reverting User:Justinw303's edits at the Drake Discography article. They were both blocked by for edit warring three days ago, blocks were lifted today and both editors went right back to the same behavior. -- <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;">✉ ✓ 03:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * – 1 week, for resumption of previous war. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Harari234 reported by AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 23:28, 17 March 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 00:51, 18 March 2015
 * 3) Latest revision as of 03:13, 18 March 2015
 * 4) Latest revision as of 03:48, 18 March 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Users Talk Page

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

Comments:

For the past few weeks (almost a month now), Harari234 has conestantly broken WP:CONSENSUS on multiple articles. These articles include:the Walashma Dynasty (see here: ), the Adal Sultanate (see here: ) the Ifat Sultanate (see here: ), the city of Harar (see here: and the Harari People (see here:. Despite mine and others attempts to reason with him he doesn't care. He simply waits for 24 hours to pass and then reverts again in an attempt to avoid 3RR. However, this time he slipped up. AcidSnow (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Clear 3RR violation from an editor who just came off a block a week ago. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * – 4 days for continued warring. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

180.215.124.88 reported by User:Akhilan (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: 180.215.124.88

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Article semiprotected one month. Multiple IPs have been warring. User:Akhilan, if you disagree with these changes please explain the issue on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User:129.59.79.123 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Semi-protection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651924713 by North Shoreman (talk)The NY Times says this is a myth hence it is in dispute.  Discuss in talk BEFORE undoing this change again!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 651930929 by Gobonobo (talk) AGAIN MOVE TO TALK BEFORE UNDOING CHANGE AGAIN!!!!  Why should we believe the original biased NYT article vs the later one?"
 * 3)  "Added link to opening paragraph showing the facts are in dispute.  Removed claim that does not support SS hypothesis."
 * 1)  "Added link to opening paragraph showing the facts are in dispute.  Removed claim that does not support SS hypothesis."

Warning given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:129.59.79.123
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Weak intro, maybe even a one-sided slant */"


 * Comments:

A 2nd IP from the same geographical area has also made two reverts -- I have also requested page protectionTom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * for 10 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The ones guilty of the edit war are those who are trying to remove a New York Times article that adds some balance to the article. Additionally the user in question is removing a POV tag. A review of the history of the article shows that a number of editors have questioned the neutrality of the article. What we are seeing is a few people goal tending to avoid creating a balanced article.--129.59.79.123 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't matter who's "right" or who's "wrong" – everybody thinks they're right. Edit-warring is forbidden for all. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But why are they allowed to undo my edit with out justifying or anything else? I'm not the one undoing.  They are the ones undoing MY edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.79.123 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If several people are reverting you, then you might contemplate if you could be wrong. They often leave clues in their edit summaries, or on the article's talkpage. Try to discuss the matter with them on the article's talkpage. Edit-warring isn't the solution. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a classic case of political bias in the editors who have taken an interest in the article. I've tried to engage them on the talk page but they didn't bother to discuss before reverting edits.  The history of the edits of this article show that many people have tried to add some balance but they don't have the patience to deal with a few of the editors who have their own biased point of view.  When an editor says the New York Times isn't at least credible enough to be included as an opposing view you have to assume that editor is probably not credible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.79.123 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a classic case of accusing other editors of one's own shortcomings. When POV editors are reverted, they often accuse others of POV. Classic pattern. Please read WP:BRD. The acronym means Bold, Revert, Discuss. You Boldly add something, someone Reverts it, you start the Discussion. Please note that there is only one R in WP:BRD. That is, you don't revert back, and then start to discuss – or demand that others start the discussion. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked by another admin for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow reported by Harari234 (Result: nominator blocked 4 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 19:18, 15 March 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 05:30, 16 March 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 05:18, 16 March 2015
 * 4) Latest revision as of 00:09,18 March 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:User Talk Page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Acidsnow has broken the WP:CONSENSUS on these articles:Walashma Dynasty (see here: ), the Adal Sultanate (see here: ) the Ifat Sultanate (see here: ), the city of Harar (see here: and the Harari People (see here:. I clearly don't know why his breaking consensus. For the page of the Adal Sultanate I kept adding what was their long before, but he kept removing it. I just wonder whats up with that guy, he doesn't listen. He also argues with other members too. He stays on his computer and keeps reverting.
 * I never broke consensus and those edits are three days apart. AcidSnow (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AcidSnow made valid points and there indeed was no consensus. One can probably be worked out with Harari234, though; he seems like a sincere, good faith editor. This is just a misunderstanding. Middayexpress (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * by another admin -- slakr \ talk / 02:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User:69.172.85.34 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Creationism
 * 1)  "Undid revision 652012773 by EoRdE6 (talk) sources exist, vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 652019552 by Mann jess (talk) all content is available on wikipedia with links"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 652021271 by Mann jess (talk) vandalism"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 652021806 by Apokryltaros (talk) vandalism"
 * 5)  "Hinduism"


 * Hindu views on evolution
 * 1) Undid revision 651917134 by Kapil.xerox (talk) does not need source
 * 2) Undid revision 651917134 by Kapil.xerox (talk) source added
 * 3) Hindu cosmological view of creation


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


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


 * Comments:

No violation of 3rr. User is adding unsourced content to a variety of articles, edit warring on several, including Creationism and Hindu views on evolution, among others. Will not provide sources, or go to talk. IP appears to be static, and this disruption has persisted for the last week. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . User violated 3rr despite warnings and just getting off a block for the very same issue, refused to communicate and accused other editors of bad faith, despite their very reasonable rationales for their reversions.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Zekenyan reported by AcidSnow (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 02:55, 19 March 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 02:57, 19 March 2015
 * 3) Latest revision as of 03:04, 19 March 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on Talk Page

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

Comments:

Although it's only 3 Reverts there's much more underneath it. Zekenyan has learned nothing from his pervious 24 hour block (see here:) administrated by admin Swarm. Since his arrival he has deliberately and consistently violated numerous policies. Such as: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:PERSONATTACK, WP:ORGINALRESEARCH, WP.FRINGE, and WP:EDITWAR. Despite being well aware that he is breaking consensus on numerous articles, he don't care even the slightest. These articles include the Walashma Dynasty, the Harari people, and the city of Harar. He has even opted to run a way from discussions like he did at Talk:Walashma dynasty and Talk:Harari people, as well as denying the existence of sources that have already been presented by multiple editors. For the sources see here: presented on Talk:Walashma dynasty, Talk:Harar and the ANI Noticeboard (here: ).

Zekenyan has even made numerous attacks against users involved in the dispute. Such as claiming that I never discussed the despite it being far from the case. As well as insulting my English skills, accusing me of original research,, that if am supposedly spamming the noticeboard, that I have some how insulted you, and that I am not cooperating. Ironically, he demands that others respect him. As anyone can see, Zekenyan is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but rather just to cause disruption; of which numerous users have already concluded: Midday, Abdi, and I. AcidSnow (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC) ′
 * . Got pinged when you posted this to ANI and I remember this situation. After reviewing everything I've gone ahead and reblocked the user as I find their behavior to be obviously disruptive. Also agree with the WP:NOTHERE sentiment, and if this doesn't prove to be sufficient, the next block may need to be indefinite.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User:173.16.82.136 reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is a case of low intensity edit warring. As you can see from the diff, there is also another IP involved here, User:198.40.228.43. The info which I removed is unsourced, and as it is clear from the history and the talk page, I have been asking five times for a reliable source, but in vain. After that, I asked for half protection of the article, but instead of that the article was full protected three days because of this content dispute. During this time, the IP(s) did not answer to my thread in the talk page.


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Revert war by IP-hopping editor who geolocates to Middletown, NY. The IP is trying to insert an unsourced name for the church. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Westkennedy reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Two editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notice (note this was after they violated 3RR and I notified them about edit warring, they have continued to edit war)

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

Comments:

I have not been involved in the case, but noticed a ridiculous number of reverts. They are replacing sourced content with unsourced, or poorly sourced content. The edit summaries of other users have been clear in noting the problems with these edits. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Cantucove and User:Garden Mixer for starting and propagating an unnecessary edit war. Looking at the page history, this user clearly claimed to be attempting to update old and outdated information&mdash;including obviously noncontentious updates&mdash;and acknowledged that they were going to put sources, and yet these two users kept reverting their all of their edits while WK was still in the process of making their update. Yes, if they had fundamentally changed the article and didn't add sources and clearly weren't going to, that's one thing, but it's completely inappropriate and extremely disruptive to simply revert a user before they're even given a chance to finish what they're trying to do and ask questions later. Of course, I will talk to WK about their role in this but at some point you have to give people a break when they're dealing with completely bad faith and disruptive editing such as this and don't exactly know how to handle it.   S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ryantheravensfan1 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: Protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&oldid=651469396

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=652064750
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=652064149
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=652027429
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=652017659
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=652014730
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=651469396 is not a revert, but the original removal of cited text without explanation.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARyantheravensfan1&action=historysubmit&diff=652063515&oldid=652018565

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

Comments:

I may find myself facing a block too; well, fair enough. It takes two to tango, although I'm not the only editor reverting. I'll participate in a talk page discussion, but I lack the will to open one about a straight-up removal of a cited section for an article.


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Tunisia&diff=prev&oldid=615782487
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moroccan_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=615876097
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Tunisia&diff=prev&oldid=616125549
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moroccan_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=616128109
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moroccan_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=616645609
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Tunisia&diff=prev&oldid=616646467
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chadic_languages&diff=prev&oldid=620068033

... and frankly, this user may be perfectly good on football-related pages, but as far as I can see all they do beside that is strip out large sections of cited material without discussion, often misusing the minor edit facility. I don't know if I'm edit warring, or reverting vandalism. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Full protection for 3 days - settle the issue on article talk. Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought 3RR violation was a bright-line rule? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is, however with more than one editor in violation and no discussion on the talk page, I thought protection the better option. Go there and talk... Vsmith (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No other editor has violated 3RR (even if they have not covered themselves in glory), not least because every other editor with eyes on the page appears to agree that stripping out a section without discussion is unhelpful. The reported user has never shown any indication to engage at article talk pages. They have a total of *zero* edits to article talk pages, having used Wikipedia for two years. Why exactly do you suppose this is going to change, given that from their point of view, their existing approach has been entirely successful and that the only effect of reporting them for edit warring has been that their preferred version is locked in for three days?


 * I'm not saying you are wrong to protect the page. I've read WP:WRONG, and I'm not saying you should lock in my preferred version. However, I am saying that you are sending a clear message to a 3RR-violating editor that the only consequences for doing so is to get what they want. Hand me a block, fine; but I would appreciate it if you would actually follow what is supposedly a non-negotiable rule.


 * Put another way, to engage on a talk page with the reported editor will be tricky when I have no reason to suppose they'll even read it - let alone reply. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Which other editor apart from Ryantheravensfan1 is in violation of 3RR? Ryantheravensfan1 has repeatedly removed sourced data from the article without any attempt to communicate on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I see multiple users involved and reverting and no discussion on the article talk page. Wrong version protected? Sorry 'bout that. So, go ye to article talk and discuss. Vsmith (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So what happened firstly to the idea that 3RR is a bright line and secondly to the idea that the onus was on someone wanting to remove sourced information to discuss that removal? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:David Biddulph, if you discuss on the talk page and the other party doesn't then the outcome of the next 3RR case may be different. The dispute about Riffian people appears to depend mostly on the use of Carleton S. Coon as a source. It's fair to say he is not the ideal source to use on a question about race. There do appear to be other disputes, though, that do not involve Coon. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So if someone believes that Carleton S. Coon is an unreliable source they can say so on the article talk page, or they can add something sourced onto the article to say that there are alternative views. Which of the 7 exemptions at WP:3RRNO do you believe justifies Ryantheravensfan1's repeated reversions? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one of or  would be so kind as to make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring regarding the idea that policy should change so that 3RR is a guideline at best - although if it doesn't apply to an editor who in two years has never touched an article talk page, who continued to revert after being warned at their own talk page, who is willing to revert multiple other editors in quick succession, and essentially whose entire approach to any content dispute is, and has always been, to bludgeon their way through with repeated reverts (mixed with spurious threats and equally spurious accusations of vandalism), it's not clear to me who it would apply to.


 * In the mean time, would *someone* please enforce the quote bright-line rule unquote? Because I really don't have a lot of faith that is going to suffer a Damascene conversion after being shown that they can violate 3RR with impunity. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * However blocks are not punishment. Hmm these two policies contradict each other a bit, especially if the user is willing to participate in a good natured discussion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The latter policy is not described as a bright-line rule.


 * Furthermore, I'm not suggesting it as punishment. is sufficiently sporadic an editor that I doubt it would inconvenience them in the slightest. I'm suggesting it because it seems desirable to change their mode of interaction and that presently what is being done is to send a clear message that their existing mode of interaction gets exactly what they want. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Sniffdafanny reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Crest */"
 * 2)  "Revert. Original Latin translation"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 651105255 by WikiDan61 (talk). Already explained"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 651105620 by WikiDan61 (talk). Already explained"
 * 5)  "I added some new information"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * This isn't edit warring, it's just persistent vandalism. It's not like the user has a different opinion about the topic. He is changing the translation of the team's motto (Nihil satis nisi optimum) from "Nothing but the best" to "No goals this season". That's just vandalism. And it has been repeatedly reverted. The user is currently reported at WP:AIV for vandalism past a level 4 warning, as well as spam (two article creations that were clearly promotional) and an offensive user name. I think the AIV people will resolve the issue and no action need be taken here. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

See also, , ,. So if I breached then so did Wikidan! Sniffdafanny (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR clearly states an exemption for reverting obvious vandalism, which this was. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * SDF, it's not going to help your case by acting immaturely. While I also believe your edits to be disruptive, if you truly believe your version is correct, you should bring it up on the talk page first rather than edit war. - Amaury (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * – for vandalism. Also, repeated creation of spam articles and offensive user name. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Alansohn reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have had an issue with this editor and edit warring in the past. Please see here.

I enjoy editing articles about New Jersey, and have created many new articles about the state. I have also added hundreds of photos to articles about the United States via my Commons account. Unfortunately, I have again and again been frustrated by this one editor. I feel my edits to Battin High School were positive ones, and I tried to discuss my concern about inaccuracies in the article on the talk page. I'm sorry to have to keep coming here, but I'm not sure what I could have done differently, and this editor simply will not stop.

As for "Wikistalking"; it would be difficult to edit any New Jersey article without bumping into Alansohn.

Thank you again for any help you may give. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Magnolia677 is up to his usual abuse of process. He doesn't edit school articles. He has never edited any of the four or five articles that link to Battin High School; The article had been created hours before and was not linked into the network of articles about the state, as he claims; He had to go out of his way to find it. As is his rather bad habit, he has persistently engaged in WP:WIKISTALKING, trying to manufacture conflicts so that he can run off to claim that I have done something terrible. Four previous failed trips to WP:ANI by Magnolia677 and one previous case (here, just a few weeks ago), and we're back again.


 * Magnolia677 fails to understand WP:BRD and insists that his version must stand over any other, subject to him deciding that another editor's edit meets his standards. I have pointed to a source that explicitly states that the school was constructed in the year stated, and cited that source both in the article and in the edit summary. If he can provide alternative sources, I look forward to changing and expanding the article, but the article is based on several sources that cite the 1913 date.


 * There is no legitimate issue here. This is sadly someone who just is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and I don't know why anyone should have to put up with his bullshit. Can anyone tell Magnolia677 to get over his vendetta and move on? Even a block of a few days or weeks might help tone down the levels of crap here. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that I wanted to try a less formal method to resolve this, but have not had luck with that either. Last January I tried "Third Opinion" with this edit.  Despite the instructions at third opinion--in bold--that "no discussion of the issue should take place here", Alansohn "somehow" noticed I had left a message there, and added his own comment to mine 18 minutes later.  Again, thank you for your assistance. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . This is the wrong forum for the allegations by the filer.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Barth&oldid=650265217]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Barth&diff=651343590&oldid=650265217]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Barth&diff=651380522&oldid=651362543]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Barth&diff=651405409&oldid=651384312]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Barth&diff=651619874&oldid=651572309]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Barth&diff=651709952&oldid=651665531]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Barth&diff=651719240&oldid=651715987]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7]

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

Comments:

2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 doesn't seem to understand, or simply won't abide by, WP:VERIFY, WP:USERGENERATED, WP:ONUS or WP:EDITWAR. 2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 persists on adding Vassar College to Jessica Barth's Education section of the article's Infobox, even though the only source provided (after repeated requests) is her own website. Contributor321 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously self-published sources are generally not the best because anyone can say anything about anything. We all get that. However, when the content in question is something like a non-contentious bit of information about a school someone went to, that doesn't mean we have to outright ban its inclusion because the source given is the subject's personal website. A personal website can still be used as a primary source of information. Obviously we prefer secondary sources, but that doesn't mean it's okay to edit war because someone's adding something backed by a primary source. As with everything, common sense applies, and it seems like you're Wikilawyering rather than contesting the content for a good reason. Please discuss the issue.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  20:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:MICHAEL JIMMY ATQ reported by User:Barek (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



Comments:

User edit warring over advertising mention of a restaurant, sometimes adding linkspam to the restaurant Facebook page. The user's only posts to talk pages have been to say he knows much about what's notable and what tourists want to find in his city. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Longer than usual block due to the promotional nature of their edits. Not entirely convinced this user's an advertising-only account and is not acting in good faith, but they're certainly skirting close to that territory.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Newspring1 reported by User:Cfd954 (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=651102323]

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&diff=prev&oldid=652773980]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=652768848]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=652768595]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=652422059]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=652417644]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=652405417]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=652403541]
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=652360394]
 * 8) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=652357452]
 * 9) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=651425191]
 * 10) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=651424467]
 * 11) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=651424467]
 * 12) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=651423750]
 * 13) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewSpring_Church&oldid=651423274]

Initial Warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newspring1&oldid=652400440] Page Blanked after warning by Newspring1: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newspring1&oldid=652425941] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newspring1&oldid=652498752]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Cfd954 (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * as being in violation of username policy.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  21:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please let us know if this editor returns with a different account and continues disrupting the page.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Tomruen reported by User:Ad Orientem (Result: page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reply on talk. Do not delete without discussion. Undid revision 652774442 by Ad Orientem (talk)"
 * 2)  "You're going to have to explain better. Undid revision 652776412 by Ad Orientem (talk)"
 * 3)  "Hiding material you don't like won't help anything except your ego. Undid revision 652782215 by MrX (talk)"
 * 4)  "deleting content while discussing is rude Undid revision 652783903 by John Carter (talk)"
 * 5)  "How is deleting content helping discussion?! Undid revision 652786416 by John Carter (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "re"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* March 2015 */ Please revert your addition of unsourced material. If you refuse I may have to request intervention from an Admin. Thank you."
 * 4)   "/* March 2015 */ re"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Redirecting */ WP:V requires reliable sources for all material in articles."
 * 2)   "/* Redirecting */ Please do not continue to add unsourced material."


 * Comments:

Edit warring and persistent re-addition of unsourced material depsite repeated efforts to discuss and reason both on the user's talk page and the article talk page. Numerous warnings also issued. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Comment I note that report was just filed above (edit conflict). Feel free to merge or delete this as appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (see above)  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  22:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Tomruen reported by User:John Carter (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: full discussion here

Comments:

It is worth noting that the article is currently facing the prospect of speedy deletion based on lack of any notability established in its years of existence. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also note the apparent redundancy of this report, and feel free to merge or ignore. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do I have 3 reports here? Why the need for a "speedy delete"? Someone is in a hurry and it is not me. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tom, it should be obvious why you have 3 reports here... it's because you have been engaged in edit warring. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (see above)  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  22:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Tomruen reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Tomruen is trying to restore unsourced text and continues to edit war it in after multiple editors have reverted them. Now seven Six reverts with 24 hours is pretty blatant, and Tomruen appears intent to continue edit warring. Ad Orientem, the other primarily involved editor, technically crossed the 3RR line as well (might have just misunderstood their first edit counted as a revert), but made it clear they do not want to edit war any further. An immediate block for Tomruen looks pretty warranted here, and maybe for a longer period than 24 hours given how far past the 3RR line Tomruen has gone. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The article deserves attention. It is rude to me to delete material under discussion. If the article is notable, it deserves a summary, which someone has provided, good or not. If its not notable, then perhaps a subset can be moved to the author's bio page? Whatever is done, hiding content is unhelpful. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need three reports (!) but this editor needs to be blocked. He didn'tt heed warnings from several editors, and he is willfully ignoring the verifiability policy.- MrX 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I guess we were all thinking the same thing. Strange behavior for someone who apparently has a fair number of edits under their belt. I could have sworn this would be a completely new editor or something. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And if notability of the article cannot be established, and I think that is fairly obviously the case, it might make sense for the page to be both deleted and locked to prevent recreation. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. I think this might be the most consensus I've seen on wiki in a LONG time! -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I reluctantly concur. The user seems completely impervious to reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * While a block may be warranted for each user involved in this dispute, I think this can just as easily be resolved by protecting the page in order to allow dispute resolution to progress in some form. The page has sat there in this state for years. It has been accepted by at least a silent consensus for quite some time. There's no sudden hurry to unilaterally wipe the article without discussion just because it's unsourced. You should all know about WP:BRD by now. The original change was disputed, thus it should've proceeded to dispute resolution, rather than this ridiculous edit war. Not saying Tom was in the right himself, but the multiple editors on the other side were certainly not in the right in their actions either. Now, I don't particularly see this as a promotion piece, but the argument for deletion or redirection based on WP:NOTE may have substance. However the correct thing to do when this is under dispute is to proceed to the proper venue&mdash;WP:AFD&mdash;and start a discussion there, where you'll be able to get additional input from the community and a definitive evaluation of community consensus by an uninvolved administrator. Please work together and edit responsibly. Regards,  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  22:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Unsourced material can be deleted by any editor and WP:BRD is an essay. Obviously there was overwhelming consensus to delete the original research. Page protection is appropriate when there are multiple parties reverting and multiple parties restoring. There was one disruptive editor who should have been blocked. I do agree that the article should not simply be deleted though. The subject is likely notable. - MrX 22:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I must add my own respectful but strenuous disagreement with the above summary by . It completely ignores 3RR V CITE and CONSENSUS. Frankly I find it shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * MrX, BRD is a widely accepted means of dispute resolution. A few editors agreeing does not mean there's an overwhelming consensus. And it also does not excuse anyone from edit warring. I'm glad to see there's discussion going on now, but it's unlikely that constructive discussion would be ongoing if both sides of the edit war had been blocked. It takes two sides to edit war, and had I blocked Tom, I would be obligated to block the users on the opposite side of the edit war as well. Blocking is not a punishment, it's a tool to halt disruption. Page protection is an acceptable alternative to blocking. And in this case, it was clearly the superior choice as it allowed for all involved to immediately continue discussing the issue. We could've avoided a lot of unnecessary drama had everyone simply allowed some time for discussion rather than declaring "CONSENSUS" and edit warring. So, while I'm sorry I didn't block your edit warring opponent, I'm fairly confident I'm doing you all and the project more of a favor than some other administrators who see an edit war and automatically start dishing out blocks.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  23:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:41.84.141.46 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Guntur. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

False claim as Guntur is not a Metropolis. Vin09 (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. Long-term warring by IP to add unsourced claim about the population of Guntur. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

User:John Davis, BA, JD, LLM reported by User:Fyddlestix (Result: 24 hour block )
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:

New user very determined to add some POV content to Sexism that there's a strong consensus against adding - not sure if I should have reported this here, let me know if this was the wrong approach. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"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."John Davis, BA, JD, LLM (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody said you were doing vandalism. But you *are* edit warring, and going against the consensus of numerous other users on the Sexism talk page. 24 hour 3RR block imposed. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Correctingsection0062 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651933021 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Leave it how it was and if you wanna alter something so significant, please visit the discussion page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 652779760 by Weegeerunner (talk) Reviewers are not the "valid" source you claimed them to be. Check out, WP:Biased."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 652785477 by Aria1561 (talk) Why are you not following the guidelines? Check WP:BIASED,  WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RSOPINION. Seriously, that's an author's opinion, not a fact."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 652786326 by Aria1561 (talk) Again, leave it how it was and I was the first one that told you to go to the talk page. Seriously, why are you standing by over an author's opinion?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 652787915 by Weegeerunner (talk) Deeply sorry for reverting it back, but prior to discussing in the talk page. The article should be kept in its original state."
 * 6)  "Unreliable source which I stated already. Also, see WP:BIASED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RSOPINION"
 * 1)  "Unreliable source which I stated already. Also, see WP:BIASED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RSOPINION"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Miracle (Of Joey Ramone). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Discussion started at Talk:The Miracle (Of Joey Ramone) Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Saladin1987 reported by User:Krzyhorse22 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Saladin1987 is a pro-Pakistani/anti-Afghanistan POV pushing vandal who as his editing policy must always remove "Afghan" and "Afghanistan" from pages. ,, , , I avoid people who have negative energy circling around them but this one had to be reported at this time because he's destroying well written articles.

To me Saladin1987 is one of the most disruptive editors who hasn't been detected by admins since his last 1 month block. He appearantly hasn't learned his lesson. In addition to his extreme anti-Afghanistan pov pushing and vandalizing pages, I'm almost 100% certain that he is another sock puppet of User:Mar4d. They are both Pakistani ultra-nationalists editing from Australia (likely "Brisbane"), making identical edits  on the same articles and showing the same racist attitude toward Afghans and Indians.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not make accusations against other users that they are socks. If you are so certain, then open an WP:SPI. You have been warned about this before.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, this report is obviously about Saladin1987 violating 3rr, vandalizing major articles      and pov pushing as you know him for. I see no logical reason for you concentrating on me instead of him. I'm making constructive edits only to improve articles and help build Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source. Do you see anyone having any problems with my edits? Is there anyone reporting me for any bad behavior? I hate to say this but you seem to be under Saladin's influence or something because you're trying to act like his lawyer in trying to legitimize his actions now. Please stop this behavior and show respect to a fellow editor who is helping the project. Wikipedia is based in USA so the principle of Double jeopardy must be applied here, especially among Americans like you and me. That is the sock charge was dismissed (whatever the reason was) so it should not be brought again unless I violate the rule or something. Thank you for understanding.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

i have thrice asked User:Krzyhorse22 to reach a concensus before adding anything in the article. He has deliberately added content without having a discussion on talk page which i have started in the talk page. If i am wrong anybody can have a look at the talk page which clearly states that lets reach concensus before added disputed information. He has reported me but himself has broken 3 revert rule Saladin1987 17:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The links he has mentioned has no sense as Afghan in modern sense relates to Afghanistan and not to Pashtuns anymore. He seems to live in 16th century who wants the articles according to 16th century identities. if the poet is born on Pakistani side, pakistan is going to be added. Similarly there was no Afghanistan before 1800s but there are articles which User:Krzyhorse22 has added Afghanistan to although the articles belong to people born far before than that. But as he has reported me for the article Pashtun people, i should stay with this article. I have many times left comments on talk page and edit page that we should have a concensus before proceeding but he seems to push his own opinions neglecting the opinions of millions of pashtuns of Pakistan. If i am found guilty and wrong, i surely should be blocked but i would appreciate the admins to have a look at the edit history and talk page before making any decision. thankyouSaladin1987 18:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

i even asked assistance here but you can see his reply on the talk page. he is making baseless accusations against me being anti indian. [] Saladin1987 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I left several message in talk not to remove certain content but he did it anyway and laughed. This guy doesn't care about Wikipedia rules or anything, he just wants to promote Punjabis/Pakistan and put down Pashtuns/Afghanistan, and he doesn't care about being blocked (indication he is a sock, notice the main account is not coming here to deny the sock charge). His lenghthy nonsense regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his wild (unsourced) claims everywhere are very disruptive. Most of all, he is targetting a specific group and country (Afghan people / Afghanistan) and he isn't even shy to admit this. He defines an ethnic group by language and wants to force this view in Wikipedia on everyone.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have figured a little bit. Check Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am myself, i am not any other user as suggested by Krzyhorse22. I am in Pakistan not in Brisbane as suggested by the person who is tagging me with baseless accusations.


 * I provided information that shows you're likely editing from Australia, where the other person claimed to be, this is supported by the fact that you call others "mate"    (which is commonly used in Australia and never in Pakistan). In Pakistan they use "yar" or "yaar". In addition, the things you write about Afghans/Pashtuns in talk pages is clearly showing to me that you're in Australia because in that country there are more ethnic Hazaras and Tajiks (Persians) than Pashtuns and this is reflected in your personal opinions.  Do you get what I'm saying? If you didn't actually live in Australia how would you known all of this? The last thing Pakistanis living in Pakistan would want to know about which Afghan ethnic group is higher in Western countries. Finally, I have caught that other guy who always thinks like you and appears where you appear   for abusing multiple accounts in another site and he got blocked after a CU confirmed it. He was using this IP (from Brisbane ) and showing anti-Indian sentiment the same way you show it (e.g., removing images of Indian Pashtuns from major articles  and writing nonsense to justify this ). This edit by that same Brisbane IP made an edit right after his additional account User:Drspaz. That same Brisbane IP once wrote this message and just the other day you wrote this message. They both appear to be very much the same. You may try to act like Yosemite Sam all you want but the fact is you aren't in Pakistan, unless you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)