Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive266

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Techimo reported by User:HelloThereMinions (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
ResellerRatings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Techimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 08:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC) to 08:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. 08:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638328106 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Online merchant added biased POV text about merchant ratings site."
    2. 08:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638328053 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Online merchant added biased POV text about merchant ratings site."
    3. 08:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638328007 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Online merchant added biased POV text about merchant ratings site."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 19:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) to 19:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. 19:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638389059 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Undid edit by online merchant introducing biased POV into article about merchant-website. I am not a company employee."
    2. 19:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638388998 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Undid edit by online merchant introducing biased POV into article about merchant-website. I am not a company employee."
    3. 19:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638388931 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Undid edit by online merchant introducing biased POV into article about merchant-website. I am not a company employee."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 20:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC) to 20:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. 20:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638398203 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
    2. 20:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638398154 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
    3. 20:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638398099 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 21:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC) to 21:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. 21:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638401685 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) New text is being introduced from an online merchant with biased POV."
    2. 21:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638401637 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) New text is being introduced from an online merchant with biased POV."
    3. 21:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638401606 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) New text is being introduced from an online merchant with biased POV."
  5. Consecutive edits made from 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC) to 23:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638418807 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
    2. 23:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638418765 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
    3. 23:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638418741 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
  6. 20:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638545045 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
  7. 20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638546351 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Restored original text that was altered by IP vandal / online merchant."
  8. 21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638547958 by 71.235.154.73 (talk) Revert to original text due to IP vandal."
  9. 21:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638548303 by 71.235.154.73 (talk)"
  10. 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638548721 by NotTechimo (talk) See talk page."
  11. 22:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638557594 by NotTechimo (talk) See talk page."
  12. 23:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638564495 by NotTechimo (talk)"
  13. 00:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638574049 by NotTechimo (talk)"
  14. 01:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638576921 by NotTechimo (talk) Reverting IP vandalism. See talk page."
  15. 01:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638577824 by NotTechimo (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

07:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on ResellerRatings. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See talk page, there are many diffs.

Comments:

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

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

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected till the end of this year. Wifione Message 17:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Laurencejwolf reported by User:Materialscientist (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comment: Unfortunate... You've reverted the editor. If the editor reverts you this time, I'll block. I've left another warning on the editor's talk page. Let's hope this newbie learns (although I think this is going towards a block). I'll keep this report open for now. Wifione Message 08:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Materialscientist, if the disruption happens again, please post another report with reference to this report. The editor will be blocked then. Currently, the editor seems to have backed off. Wifione Message 17:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:23 editor reported by User:Let's keep it neutral (Result: Page deleted)[edit]

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

1st
2nd
3rd

Looks never-ending to me, I ask admins to note that a discussion is under way at Talk:Peć whereby the consensus is that have the page moved to Peja. Let's keep it neutral (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked. The page(s) in question have been deleted, at least one directly by me. Please come back if there is disruption on any other article/page. Wifione Message 17:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:188.126.90.35 reported by User:Dinkytown (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Feathered dinosaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
188.126.90.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 16:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC) to 16:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. 16:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 16:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 16:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638796776 by Manul (talk)"
  4. 16:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638796939 by Dinkytown (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Feathered dinosaur. using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  • Refused to comply
Comments:

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

  • The user is either not serious or not competent, warring while leaving messages on my talk page about "suppressing the truth". User has not been given a 3RR warning until after this report. I don't know if it's vandalism or weirdness. Manul 17:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Following up with Manul. User also left message on my talk page: "...WHY DO YOU CHOOSE TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH, YOU JEW!?!" Concurring with Manul. Dinkytown talk 17:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 day. east718 | talk | 19:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwerty786 reported by User:IJA (Result: Blocked Qwerty786 and PjeterPeter)[edit]

Page: Kosovo at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qwerty786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Normally one would show each of the reverts, but in this incidence I really cannot be bothered as there are soooooooo many. Instead I will just show the revision history [5]. I mean just look at the revision history, it is ridiculous. I am aware that two other editors were involved in this edit war, however I fairly warned all users on the article talk page and tried to resolve this dispute on the talk page instead [6]. After I warned them, one editor told me "Don't be ignorant" before continuing to edit war. I find this behaviour completely unacceptable and disruptive to Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is a better off without an editor like this. Also this user has unilaterally moved the article title without consensus an with the proper WP:RM procedure. Whilst other editors may have violated Wikipedia policy, I think this particular editor deserves a more severe punishment. Kind regards IJA (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 reported by User:FrJosephSuaiden (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescetarianism
User being reported: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [7]
  2. [8]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

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

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

FrJosephSuaiden (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Admins and Father Deacon Suaiden: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suaiden. Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined FrJosephSuaiden, I don't see any egregious edit warring from Elizium23. I'm declining this report as of now. Wifione Message 00:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page
Sagarika Ghose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Teja srinivas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638528623 by Blackguard SF (talk)"
  2. 18:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638477528 by Ugog Nizdast (talk)"
  3. 08:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638466898 by Sarvajna (talk)"
  4. 13:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. 19:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "Done by user:Teja srinivas"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sagarika Ghose. (TW)"
  2. 23:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sagarika Ghose. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[9]

Comments:

For diffs 4 and 5 the user manually added contested content and edited while logged out, totalling five reverts. Blackguard 20:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned I know Tejas has been warned earlier; still, I've warned him once more. But he's on the talk page of the article and has not reverted after his edit was reverted. If the disruption continues, please do come back. Wifione Message 00:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Heuh0 reported by User:TMDrew (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
B-Theory of time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Heuh0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638702256 by TMDrew (talk) Assuming good faith. Craig is not a respected philosopher, and a religious fundamentalist, his religious-guided views do not belong on a scientific article."
  2. 03:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638711094 by TMDrew (talk) You are now removing scientific information from a scientific page and adding religious beliefs. THIS IS VANDALISM."
  3. 03:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "removing irrelevant information, adding information, moving some info to A and B theory page, and improving reading experience of article."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "/* When are objections by philosophers and when are they by William Lane Craig */"
  2. 00:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "/* When are objections by philosophers and when are they by William Lane Craig */"
  3. 00:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "/* When are objections by philosophers and when are they by William Lane Craig */"
Comments:

This user has run roughshod over the B-theory of time page, using the talk page very minimally, with no attempt for any type of compromise. This user refuses to listen to arguments on the talk page. Recommend a ban from this page. TMD Talk Page. 21:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned The user is new. I've warned the user. Come back if the disruption restarts. Wifione Message 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

User:TMDrew had continuously reverted these edits, time and time again, he was also responsible, I believe, for putting the Craig information in, in the first place. Despite me giving reasons for removing the content, User:TMDrew continuously undid my edits. It was then I noticed that User:TMDrew is a Christian, and I do believe he may have some sort of personal conflict or personal agenda with the article.

After continuously undoing edits, and after me giving reasons, and warning him, on the edit description, talk page AND his user page, he has continued. He is continuously adding information (Craig's ranting) onto the page that does not belong, he has worded it in ways that mislead the reader into thinking they were facts supported by the community, and in his most recent edit HE REMOVED THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC PARAGRAPH on the page. The page was left them with a bunch of information A-theory and ranting by Craig written in a misleading way. Hence my reason for issuing said warning.

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

(oh and also that final'Diffs of the user's reverts' at 3:41am wasn't a revert, but an edit)

Thanks Heuh (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Use dispute resolution in case talk page discussions fail. Do not edit war or cross 3RR. If disruption continues, come back here to report. But do not edit war. Read the policy page to understand what is edit warring. Thanks. Wifione Message 00:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:JudeccaXIII reported by User:ReformedArsenal (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page
God the Son (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
JudeccaXIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638573844 by ReformedArsenal (talk)RfC support/reverting POV pusher"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on God the Son. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "/* RfC: Statements regarding term "God the Son" not existing in the Bible */"
  2. 04:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "/* RfC: Statements regarding term "God the Son" not existing in the Bible */"
Comments:

Editor insists on adding improper sources to substantiate unsourced claim in article, despite an active RFC that has not reached consensus. He has now accused me of PoV pushing so I do not believe that this is something that can be resolved through non-admin channels ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not been edit warring with ReformedArsenal, ReformedArsenal has been edit warring with everyone in the article/discussion. I have not edit the article since November 21 [10] as I reverted a IP then unitil now: [11] This was my first time reverting ReformedArsenal with the edit summary: RfC support/reverting POV pusher. ReformedArsenal is the only one actually reverting multiple editors in the article God the Son: Revision history: [12]. I and In ictu oculi have been arguing with ReformedArsenal in the discussion as all disputes go about proper sources which was provided. ReformedArsenal did not approve of anything we offered, so ReformedArsenal requested RfC on November 24: [13]. Majority RfC volunteers suggested sources were required, which the main argument of the discussion was sources provided. It wasn't until editor Elmmapleoakpine tried to place sources in the article that support my side of the argument today: [14]. ReformedArsenal reverted. That is when my revert came in via RfC support/reverting POV pusher. Like always in the article, ReformedArsenal revered me back today: [15], then reported me here to AN3. In my opinion through the edit history of the article and discussion, through the multiple reverts done in the article by ReformedArsenal, the arguments against some of the RfC volunteers by ReformedArsenal, and now me on AN3, I believe ReformedArsenal is trying to avoid general consensus via WP:GAME. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this could WP:BOOMERANG. Does WP:ANI really need notifying of a consensus of editors retaining "Paris is the capital of France" style blindingly obvious content because not many modern sources state the blindingly obvious. Reformed Arsenal (well named, apparently) is taking not taking issue with the truthfulness of longstanding content in the article (namely that the Latin formula Deus Filius "God the Son" is a term from the Athanasian Creed etc rather than the Bible) but merely with the 19th century sources that bother to state what was in the 19th century still a surprise to some people. Reformed Arsenals RFC was already timewasting enough. As before, let Reformed Arsenal indicate which of dozens 19th Century source he accepts for the ref he demands for the article content he accepts is truthful factual and obvious, but which he was challened, and close this waste of ANI time with a trout. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
To clarify this false report, I have not violated WP:3RR nor the 2RR rule: [16]. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Mcepeci reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Jonathan Pollard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mcepeci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns */"
  2. 20:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638817629 by SantiLak (talk)"
  3. 19:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638741933 by SantiLak (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 05:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC) to 05:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. 05:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns */"
    2. 05:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns */"
  5. 05:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns */"
  6. 08:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [17].
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Petition */ new section"
Comments:

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

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Wifione Message 01:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:175.110.139.126 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.110.139.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Edit Warring on ISIL infobox

  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  5. [23] same edit - made After this report.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24] I suspect this IP to be related to User:Wheels of steel0 or User:Anasaitis but at any rate they are edit warring and over the 1RR community sanctions on this article.

Comments:

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

User:FelixRosch reported by User:76.31.249.221 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Metropolitan (1990 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FelixRosch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments: User is attempting to restore an incomplete plot synopsis simply because a complete, concise synopsis was put in its' place without being discussed on the talk page. Prior to the changes made, the article had not been edited for a significant period of time and the poorly written, incomplete synopsis was left in place without any due attention.76.31.249.221 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Uninvolved editor's comment; FelixRosch has not violated 3RR. They have only reverted three times over the last couple of days, with the previous revert being on the 15th. Your diffs are also not correct, since some of them point to your own reverts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • IP editor has edited from what appears to be a single purpose account. The IP editor was not answering any Talk requests or BRD requests and I left a message inviting the IP editor to open an account and stop reverting without Talk. I tried to restore the text to the original version from November as being more accurate. Eventual one message was left by the IP editor, and then another editor contacted my Talk page apparently to support the IP editor. If reviewing Administrator feels that the single purpose IP account edit is justified then it can stand as is, otherwise someone else can have it restored to the previous November version. I can be reached on my Talk page for further information as required. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Rahulmdinesh reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: Socks indeffed)[edit]

Page: National Centre for Excellence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rahulmdinesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [32] (Best appeared version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [33] 10:53, 17 December 2014
  2. [34] 17:10, 17 December 2014
  3. [35] 14:36, 18 December 2014‎
  4. [36] 18:02, 19 December 2014‎
  5. [37] 03:41, 20 December 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

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

Comments:

  1. [39] 16:35, 16 December 2014
  2. [40] 14:36, 18 December 2014
Primefac (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
One more sock and I will open a sock puppet investigation. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Indefinitely Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked the two named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:49.195.38.6 reported by User:ChamithN (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
2014 Sydney hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
49.195.38.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638867883 by Jeffro77 (talk)"
  2. 05:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638870977 by Nick-D (talk)"
  3. 05:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638871433 by ChamithN (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. (TW)"
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. There are actually five reverts, and they are only edits made by the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page
2014 Sydney hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Yezohtz2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Kindfully request to discuss your objections to the source on the talk page. Please seek consensus if you don't want certain developments to be added. Undid revision 638343624 by Luxure (talk)"
  2. 11:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Please see source: "(he demaned) public declaration from the government that his was an act of terror committed on behalf of Islamic State". Undid revision 638343049 by Luxure (talk)"
  3. 11:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Motive is what an attacker reasons for his actions. It does NOT matter what the Austrialian authorities call it. His motive is quoted by hostages in the source.Undid revision 638342746 by Luxure (talk)"
  4. 11:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "HIS motive is quoted as: "He screamed at them that he was a representative of Islamic State and that this was a terrorist attack." Undid revision 638342069 by Luxure (talk)"
  5. 11:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Please see source for the motive he describes before editing. Discuss your objections on the talk page. Undid revision 638341709 by Luxure (talk)"
  6. 11:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Motive desribed in attackers own words: "He screamed at them that he was a representative of Islamic State and that this was a terrorist attack.""
  7. 11:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638341388 by Melcous (talk) See source: "... this was an act of terror committed on behalf of Islamic State" he stated as his MOTIVE."
  8. 11:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Added motive the attacker stated: "He screamed at them that he was a representative of Islamic State and that this was a terrorist attack.""
  9. 09:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Yes, it is. Why are you defending terrorism? Undid revision 638179779 by Sroc (talk)"
  10. 09:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC) "Updated motive and source."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. (TW)"
  2. 12:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* December 2014 */"
  3. 12:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. (TW)"
  4. 12:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* December 2014 */"
  5. 12:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* December 2014 */"
  6. 12:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* December 2014 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 11:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Motive */ new section"
  2. 12:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Motive */"
Comments:

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

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours It is clear that User:Luxure is well aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, but has nevertheless continually edit-warred. (Apart from anything else, this report demonstrates awareness of the policy.) On the other hand, User:Yezohtz2 has never been warned about edit warring (the edits linked above under "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" mention "unconstructive edits", "edits that appear disruptive", "reports that ... are UNCONFIRMED by law agencies", "remains unconfirmed", etc etc, but not edit warring) and I therefore would have merely warned Yezohtz2 had it not been for this edit in which he or she indicates an awareness of the fact that edit warring is unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
JamesBWatson (talk) thank you for overseeing this complaint and I profusely apologise for any inconvience User:Luxure and I caused by this silly, trivial (I'm a maths guy too!) matter. We should have known better but it escalated quickly. Yezohtz2 (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)4
@JamesBWatson: Do you see how this editor is being uncivil and insults me? He accuses me of being a Jihadi (both [here] and on my talk page, saying that it is his business that I state my religion and nationality. I think (I'm not entirely sure) Wikipedia has a policy about good faith and no personal attacks. The editor has also been uncivil in the past. The user is also anti-Islamic. In 2 weeks it will be 2015. There is no place in today's world for people like this. I have had past experiences with editors like this before, even though it says on my userpage that I am Australian, I was accused of being a completely different ethnicity because I believed that the addition of one word made the paragraph POV. This escalated into a full edit war of personal attacks (in this instance I stopped after 3, I was a wary new editor.) If you really want to see what it escalated to, [here]. Please note, it takes a while to load (Australian Internet). I was first accused of being a sockpuppet of another editor because I agreed with them, then another editor came and I was the puppeteer, and then I got reported to ArbCom for a technical mistake, and the editor who reported me didn't even consult me! I do not like to be insulted like this, and I can see this editor in the previous editors, claiming things with no evidence at all. Sorry for the rant, but you may want to consider what the user has said. Luxure Σ 00:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I love being ignored. Luxure Σ 01:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Luxure: Luxure Σ I am neither pro-Islam or anti. I care about reliable sources and updating articles. Do you also? Or you are dictated in your editing by a pro-Islamic agenda? Refute the claim then. If you are not a Jihadi, why don't you refute the claim? You have had ample opportunity now to do so. And I withdrew calling you a Jihadi (see edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=638511719&oldid=638510067) after consulting with Wikipedia's community and valuing the need for civil conversation. But personally, you have demonstrated a clear pro-Mohammedan agenda. Even after your nation of Australia was ruthlessly attacked by Islamic State, you have the nerve to demand pro-Islamism??? It can be argued that you have blood on your hands for whitewashing the Islamic terrorist 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. Yezohtz2 π 20:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Yezohtz2:You are delusional, if you truly think that. I don't want to know what gremlins hide under your bed. Also, thanks for copying my signature! You even included my particular affinity for Hellenic lettering. At least you like the signature of an apparent (to you) Jihadi! Luxure Σ 11:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:NBAkid reported by User:Xuxo (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: White Brazilian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NBAkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [42]
  2. [43]
  3. [44]
  4. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

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

almost every, if not every ethnic/race page has an unsourced gallery with pictures of individuals belonging to that group in it. i think this issue is him/her cherry picking particular articles and editing/blanking it with malicious intent. NBAkid (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@NBAkid: Yesterday, I reviewed your editing at this and other articles, as well as your history, and you have a disturbing pattern of aggression and edit warring. Comments like "malicious intent" don't help. The only reason I didn't block you was because you didn't breach WP:3RR, although you came close and you don't have to breach 3RR to be blocked. You also appear to have stopped battling, at least for the moment. Nonetheless, you are Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned that if you edit-war at this or any other article (you seem to distribute your battles), you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page
List of active Indian military aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AVENVATGEOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Comments:

Similar behavior at HAL Tejas despite many warnings. The editor has engaged in excessive edit wars in these two articles for the past ~2 weeks, with unsourced or OR material. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The user's recent activity breached WP:3RR. The edits to Hal Tejas, which were about a week ago, were vandalism. Antiochus the Great, please follow the instructions at the top of this page about creating a report. You must provide diffs of the reverts by the reported user. In this instance, the problem was so obvious once I looked at the history that I did your work for you, but I could have simply marked this report as malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Meghan Trainor discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

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

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

User:Rourlme reported by User:Avono (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
The Pirate Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rourlme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 23:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 23:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC) ""
  5. 23:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC) ""
  6. 23:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Pirate Bay. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

continues edit warning against consensus after edit warning block Avono (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Could any links to the pirate bay maybe be blacklisted (i.e thepiratebay.*)? We had around 4 SPA's trying to push unofficial websites, this continues even after I made a wiki comment next to the url in the infobox :( Avono (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what the guidelines are but a blacklist request should be made at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit war reported by User:Twofortnights (Result:Decline; semi-protected)[edit]

The filer's railing is misguided, and the article is now semi-protected. Nothing more can be accomplished here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Visa policy of the United Arab Emirates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

There is an edit war by several users going on at Visa policy of the United Arab Emirates, so I guess it should be protected. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined The report here is malformed. You might want to go to WP:RFPP to request page protection. only (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Even if the request is malformed you can't decline it for what is a purely technical issue because the edit warring is taking place there and this IS a noticeboard for edit warring - diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff - all in 24 hours. If you think protecting this page will take too much of your free time then just ignore this notice, don't decline it.
    • Also I see a few decisions on this page saying "page protected" so I don't think you are right that such a decision can't be made here. Is this a typical bureaucratic sending off of a good Samaritan to another window? I mean why don't you go to WP:RFPP and report it there? Or at least move my request to the appropriate place? Because I only noticed it, I didn't take part in it, so I am as obliged to go around Wikipedia chasing the right bureaucratic window as you are.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Anyway, thanks User:Bbb23 for protecting the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Twofortnights, you created a report here without following the instructions. You didn't report a particular user. You didn't include diffs until after the fact, and then you lash out at the admin for not doing your work for you. Yes, nothing obliges you to report this, but if you're going to report it, then do it right. Some leeway may be given for malformed reports, but that is up to the administrator evaluating the report, and in this instance the administrator's decision was completely in process. In any event, I've semi-protected the article for 10 days because more than one IP is involved in the battle. I'm also closing this report to further comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
          • You criticize me for "lashing out" by literally lashing out at me? And then closing the discussion you've just started? Anyway - my work? How exactly is it my work? I didn't have any obligation whatsoever. Aren't we supposed to always have our actions here directed at improving Wikipedia? How exactly does it serve Wikipedia to ignore a serious ongoing issue because the report wasn't filed the right way per whatever bureaucratic rule? In my book, even if the report was filed in a completely wrong place it should be addressed, and this was like calling the police by accident and telling them about a heart attack and them coldly saying "The number you have dialed is of the police service. Please dial 123 for the emergency medical service". How can respect for the procedure take precedent over the respect for the purpose of those procedures? All these bureaucratic procedures are in place to make functioning easier, but if they sometimes slow it all down or make it harder, then they should be ignored.
          • Anyway, all rhetoric questions above, as you've closed the discussion, but please, I really beg you to read this - [54] so you can find out why this attitude is not appreciated to the extent it is destroying Wikipedia. I know I am not conveying the message, I am not good at it at all, I've had many issues before with people who would take offense, but that above is a piece by a professional journalist, so please ignore me, and read that. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fleetham reported by User:Wuerzele (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Talk:Bitcoin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fleetham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts: 20 December 2014

  1. [56] removing discussion
  2. [57]removing discussion
  3. [58]removing discussion
  4. [59]removing discussion

on 17 December 2014

  1. [60]638560143 removing discussion
  2. [61]638562696
  3. [62]638563043
  4. [63]638563669
  5. [64]638567776
  6. [65]638568974
  7. [66]638568552
  8. [67]638568974

on 16 December 2014:

  1. [68]638334298
  2. [69]638415381
  3. [70]638489648

on 9 December 2014

  1. [71]637301643
  2. [72]637308036
  3. [73]637387020

Edit war warnings: [74] [75]

on 30 November 2014:

  1. [76] 636012427
  2. [77] 636012830
  3. [78]
  4. [79]636014925
  5. [80]636085219
  6. [81] 636085598


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. [83]
  2. [84]
  3. [85]
  4. [86]

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

This is a warning related to November 30 edit warring: [87]
The current problem worth noting also is that since 9 December 2014 there is an ongoing NPOV dispute related to the lead section of the Bitcoin article, during which User:Fleetham made several edits to the lead section.
As an example, take [88]. This edit is particularly interesting in that it disrespects the consensus built in Talk:Bitcoin#Synthesis in the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Note also that the editwarring is observable at both the Talk:Bitcoin page as well as at the Bitcoin page. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. If Fleetham were edit warring in the article, that would be different, but he's reverting inclusion of material that is, in my view, unnecessarily personally attacking. If you want to complain about resolution of the content dispute, Wuerzele, you can do so without your history of Fleetham's "disruption"; indeed, in one part you even called it vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23, I dont understand why you say "If Fleetham were edit warring in the article, that would be different". Fleetham is edit warring on Bitcoin per the diffs from 16 Dec, 10 Dec, 30 Nov. He had been warned by admin EdJohnston in the December ANI that he was editwarring, and yet he did it again.
I am sorry to involve you in a situation that is quite multilayered and protracted, but I chose this the 3RR noticeboard, because 3RR seems the most straightforward to prove to someone, who is not participating on the Bitcoin page and seeing the dynamics day to day.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:VandVictory reported by User:Justice007 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Battle of Chawinda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VandVictory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [89]
  2. [90]
  3. [91]
  4. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

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

Comments:
Following no rules.

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


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

  • 5 edits [94] by VandVictory. Maybe new reference need more debate other references are part of RFC dispute why is he not discussion in RFC why is he tagwarring. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Justice has also made 5 edits and made false edit summaries, his intention was to remove tags so that these sources may sound real. RFC is not about the sources, it is about the validity of result. Discussion is there and you have equally failed to provide any explanations. VandVictory (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Justice has not done 5 revisions. You are making revision edits my friend. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
He is just edit warring without signing in. VandVictory (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Who? There are much IP and account users on this topic. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I asked user to undo revision [95] but he has revised even more. I move that this user be stopped from editing for some time. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I am curious about this edit, must have been used by any one of the experienced editor who knew how to remove maintenance tags efficiently. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 6 revision [96]. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 8 of Justice, and he is still using fake edit summaries. VandVictory (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is unbelievable editwar VaV is into with the IP and three editors; having done 15 reverts (he has also reverted my singleton restore of pre-edit war stable version). Blatantly against WP:EW... discussing or not, he and the IP have crossed all limits. FYI, justice did only two reverts and an unrelated new addition (not rv) and does not even live in Pakistan for the IP to be his.. atleast do some homework. I also suggest that VaV's version be plain out reverted before locking the page under IAR just to not give him the satisfaction of getting his version locked in (an obvious thing to happen with so many editors involved), though a block of VaV and the IP will make an equal, perhaps better, argument. To note further in favour of the latter option, the article wasn't under editwar anymore even with contentious disagreement rather an RFC was being pursued now, and VaV's silly tag editwar tends to disrupt the process by stirring things up likely even creating hostility between editors engaged in discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Block becomes unnecessary if the page is going to be protected. It is less of a matter that how many people have edit warred for removing maintenance templates. URLs of blogspots are particularly removed on sight. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 02:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment I'm keeping this report open for some time more. The protection has been lifted. I'm watching the page to start blocking anybody and everybody who edit wars. The levels of edit warring are shocking on the page. Wifione Message 17:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I "wondered" whether the IP 223.29.225.35 was actually a logged out but involved editor... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Can't tell. But I've blocked one two editors already out there. Watching further and keeping this open. Wifione Message 00:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
223.29.225.35 was also TheSawTooth. Because his last one[97] removed issue tags just like he did with the IP all the time. Now he is not able to abuse that ip because he is blocked now. VandVictory (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to make allegations and connect IPs to real users. If you have issues about socking, take it to SPI. Other than that, you are close to getting blocked yourself, given the history of your edit warring. Do be careful and stop reverting. I don't want to invoke sanctions on the page unless the edit warring again gets over the top. Wifione Message 11:03, 20