Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:38, 7 January 2015

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

Page: User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Diff 4 is unrelated. The user is harassing me, to try and get me blocked. WP:BOOMERANG time? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Still a revert. Doesn't have to be related, just a revert added to the others within a 24 hour period. Seems weird that alot of users are trying to "harrass" you and "get you blocked". Perhaps it isn't them, but it's you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

And,

Page: User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not try to discuss the dispute on the article talk page, neither did Igor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a user talk page... Can we get that block reinstated already? Hes threatening to release thousands of draft articles now. Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous and so melodramatic. I was discussing the principles of new users making new articles on Wales' talk page, is all. Sheesh, get a grip. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac has been here since 2007, I've been here since 2006, you have been here since yesterday. You are the new user, not us. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue for this discussion, so I will disengage. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Riiiight, like you were going to disengage on Jimbo's talk page and on ANI. Believe it when I see it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Page: PEGIDA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:8108:8140:1108:38DD:A186:44E:9D27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

Yaan (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

User received uw-3rr warnings , . Please protect the page. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yaan tries to bring his disinformation (about the trigger) into the article by edit-war. -- See history -- I hope, it's ok to restore the valid sourced information. It seems, Yaan dislikes the sources. --2A02:8108:8140:1108:255F:622F:E4B7:FD9A (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The part the ip claims to be the reason for the reverts was PEGIDA was founded in Dresden by a twelve-member group in response to plans to build new refugee centres in Dresden, which I based on the sentence Mr Bachmann started PEGIDA in October to protest plans to add 14 centres for roughly 2000 refugees in Dresden. from this source, which was used in the article before I ever edited it. Not sure about why the ip did have to revert other parts of said article.

Now that the user has started communicating, I think a page protection might be a bit premature - that is, unless she/he keeps on edit warring Yaan (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

The Pinkprint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Contributor82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "Not vandalism! There is no policy against aggregate score in the score box."
2. 06:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "Unexplained removal."
3. 01:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "To make sure I'm not going against any wiki guidelines relating to this matter, please cite/link me to that guideline."
4. 23:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "There is no final rule as to how this issue should be done so I don't see why you have a problem."
5. 23:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "If an album has an excess amount of producers then there's nothing wrong with creating a space for the execs. It looks less clustered. This format was allowed on I Am Not a Human Being II."
6. 23:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on The Pinkprint. (TW)"
2. 23:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Pinkprint. (TW)"
3. 01:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Pinkprint. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has reverted other users, without ensuing discussion, on The Pinkprint numerous times within 24-hours and has been warned against said edits. They're also acting in force of owning the article as it is the primary article they've edited since joining the site days ago. User was warned, with attempt to discuss within warnings; user ignored warnings, instead, removing them from their talk page. livelikemusic 01:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

First observations:

1. Removing warnings isn't ignoring them. In fact, removing warnings is not only allowed, but it is prima facie evidence that the user in question has seen those warnings.
2. It's odd that you would bring this report up to AN3 when the last edit on the page was 16 hours ago.

The above being said, I don't deny that there may be a real problem here. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

3. Isn't it a tad hypocritical for you to complain that this user is removing warnings from their talkpage when they asked you to link them to a policy on your talkpage, and you removed it without answering the question? Jsharpminor (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. The article has been fully protected for a week by NativeForeigner.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: True, I did it as a bit of a stopgap. Take any action you see fit on top of this (or if my action was adequate, go ahead). I just noted the general edit warring atmosphere between 3-4 parties over hte last fwe days. NativeForeigner 03:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm a little late in coming back to this. Contributor82, you are Warned that if you revert again at The Pinkprint after the lock expires, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

B-theory of time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Heuh0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC) "weird error in intro"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Support by physics */"

Comments:

User has been site blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. User has been warned ] User has been blocked ] As soon as the block expired, user is now back on the page, reverting against consensus, and still calling me a vandal. TMD Talk Page. 04:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I don't see the name-calling, but the edit warring is clear. I suggest you be careful, though, TMDrew, as another user's misconduct doesn't entitle you to edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Understood. I fear that this issue will come up again as soon as the block expires. Banning the user from the B-theory of time page might be a more permanent solution.--TMD Talk Page. 18:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • And the name calling is on the talk page of the article.--TMD Talk Page. 00:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:01, 27 December 2014 (Undid revision 639759051 by MtBell (talk) I used the previous consensus. Thank you)
2. 06:57, 27 December 2014 (Undid revision 639775355 by CurtisNaito (talk) how many oppose? how many agree with?)
3. 08:08, 27 December 2014 (Undid revision 639784764 by CurtisNaito (talk) 3:2 can be considered as "majority" ? In that 2 month discussion, we have 6:1 and still be required to convince the last one who disagree.)
4. 21:31, 27 December 2014 (I don't know how old it is, If you see the edition history. The old version is more closed to my version but user cn rewrote this article in June after previously discussion and changed it. However, this will be my last edition like thi)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

Thank you very much for the explanation. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All editors involved are hereby warned that any further contentious edits to the disputed sections, without reaching consensus on the talk page, may result in immediate blocks with no notice. Please, continue the discussion on the talk page and do not perform any further reverts. This does not mean that no blocks will be given for behavior already exhibited; that is up to administrator discretion. Involved editors include, but are not limited to, Miracle dream, MtBell, Curtis Naito, and TH1980. Other editors may face the same sanctions if they come to participate in the warring. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am very confused here. 10 months ago, we have a long discussion which involved more than 10 users. At last, we spent 2 months to reach the consensus. Now someone want to change the article, then we need to discuss again? Hence, it made previous consensus become totally useless by this theory. Then after 10 months, many users in that discussion left wiki. It is unfair to those users who joined the discussion before.Miracle dream (talk)

You and Curtis Naito are the primary two actors in this edit war; as you have both cooperated I doubt very highly that either will be blocked in the immediate future. Curtis's post below seems to contradict the statement that a consensus was ever reached. If you could link to that discussion where a consensus was reached 10 months ago, that would be helpful. In any case, there's apparently a discussion to be had, so let's have it on the talk page. We can move forward from there. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the discussionTalk:Nanking Massacre/Archive 8#Japan's official position or the completed version Talk:Nanking Massacre/Archive 8. User: Banzaiblitz had been blocked because of sock-puppet. User: Kamakatsu is one of the sock puppet of Banzaiblitz Miracle dream (talk)

• Warned — Both editors have been warned not to make contentious edits or risk immediate blocking. Both are responsive and actively participating in the talk page; blocking seems unlikely and punitive at this point. Closing as warned. Will repoen if the issue comes up again. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Miracle dream is warned for breaking WP:3RR, though several others participated in the edit war. All parties are advised to get consensus for any further changes to the death toll. The talk page discussion is not well organized. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment, and offering specific wording for review. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:CurtisNaito reported by User:Miracle dream (Result: Miracle dream warned)

Previous version reverted to: Page: Battle of Nanking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CurtisNaito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:30, 27 December 2014 (Most users deny that a consensus exists on these figures. In the talk page a majority are opposed.)
2. 07:55, 27 December 2014 (I count three users concurring and two opposed)
3. 08:08, 27 December 2014 (no consensus for this change)

The same thing happened in 15 December 2014

1. 06:56, 15 December 2014 (WAY too many sources for the purposes of this article. Eventually though I think we should create another article on the Nanking Garrison Force including all these estimates and more.)
2. 07:15, 15 December 2014 (Discuss this change in the talk page before restoring the material)
3. 07:44, 15 December 2014 (Could we talk about this on the talk page first?)
4. 21:29, 15 December 2014 (No consensus to re-add this)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Comment: This and the above report are the same thing. Both reports are correct. Miracle Dream and Curtis Naito are both edit warring here. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All editors involved are hereby warned that any further contentious edits to the disputed sections, without reaching consensus on the talk page, may result in immediate blocks with no notice. Please, continue the discussion on the talk page and do not perform any further reverts. This does not mean that no blocks will be given for behavior already exhibited; that is up to administrator discretion. Involved editors include, but are not limited to, Miracle dream, MtBell, Curtis Naito, and TH1980. Other editors may face the same sanctions if they come to participate in the warring. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The information in the article had been stable for many months and at the time I thought it was inappropriate that contentious edits be added to the article when three of the five participants in the talk page were clearly opposed. In the talk page of the article, only two people agreed that a consensus among Misplaced Pages users had ever been reached which should appropriately have been applied to this article. Most were against the change and even those who remained neutral disagreed that any previous consensus had ever been reached. It seems I did go over three reverts once over a week ago on 15 December 2014, but that was before the talk page discussion had started and I stopped reverting after receiving a warning on my talk page on 27 December 2014‎.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You and Miracle Dream are the primary two actors in this edit war; as you have both cooperated I doubt very highly that either will be blocked in the immediate future. Apparently there's a discussion to be had, so let's have it on the talk page. We can move forward from there. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Warned — Both editors have been warned not to make contentious edits or risk immediate blocking. Both are responsive and actively participating in the talk page; blocking seems unlikely and punitive at this point. Closing as warned. Will repoen if the issue comes up again. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Miracle dream is warned for breaking WP:3RR as detailed in an earlier report on this noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 23:04, 22 December 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:01, 28 December 2014 (→‎Adverse effects)
2. 15:26, 28 December 2014 (→‎Adverse effects)
3. 15:37, 28 December 2014 (→‎Adverse effects)
4. 15:58, 28 December 2014 (→‎Adverse effects)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 28 December 2014 (Warning: Edit warring on Circumcision. (TW))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 01:56, 29 December 2014 (→‎User Doc James has just started an edit warring)

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

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

Page

Armenian Genocide denial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "Australia does not view the events as genocide. This is explicitly stated by Australia's FM Julie Bishop in 2014 as sourced."
2. 20:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639968291 by MarshallBagramyan (talk)"
3. 17:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "Added Australia"
4. 22:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Terminology */ Rearranged the order of the text. Comparing it in the first line with the Holocaust is a Godwin and has a psychological effect that affects the objectivity. Placed it in the second paragraph."
5. 21:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "The fact that the point of view of rejection of the Armenian Genocide is ALSO supported by scholarship needs to be clarified, it is insane how much effort needs to be made for this to be done"
6. 21:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC) ""
7. 20:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Armenian Genocide denial is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:AA2 */ new section"
2. 21:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Armenian Genocide denial . (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Evidence? Please show us, the sources are not direct sources */ (Personal attack removed) per WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, all of which were not observed in this instance"

Comments:

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

Remark from user: Every single addition, or even request for reference gets removed. For example: the position of Australia on this case is clear, as can be seen in: link Yet upon adding it to the article it gets removed with the reason "Disingenous remarks - please do not lump Australia's government together with the blatantly denialist countries like Turkey and Azerbaijan. In Australia there are genocide memorials and commemorations that gov. officials take part in each year" The position of the government of Australia is clear, and properly sourced in the Misplaced Pages article. You should not blame me for an edit war, but ask the user removing it why such properly sourced information is removed.--Behzat (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to block Behzat for 60 hours for edit warring (the material is under a 1R restriction), and will impose a topic ban for one year on editing articles related to Armenia and the Armenian genocide, broadly speaking. I'll allow them to contribute to talk pages, as long as they keep their cool. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Grand jury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Matthew J Falkner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "Based primarily on "The security of Englishmen's lives, or, The trust, power and duty of the grand juries of England" by "
2. 04:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "/* United States */"
3. 23:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Grand jury. (TW)"
2. 04:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Grand jury. (TW)"
3. 23:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Making legal threats on User talk:Loriendrew. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Making legal threats pushed the limits on this one. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked Nick (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Toplessness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/640153028

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/640160700
2. Special:Diff/640161157

Comments:

I have provided several clear explanations in my edit summaries. There has been no explanation at all on Beyond My Ken's side, the first revert even lacked a revert indication in its edit summary. As this is not a content dispute (matter of taste), but de facto just rollback abuse, I don't think there is need for a talkpage discussion at this point.    FDMS  4    00:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• BMK reverted twice. Is this page under 1RR? If not, this report is utterly frivolous. Also, I disagree that it wasn't an improvement; collapsing a large template is a good idea, and having the more conventional link to a commons category, with some decent formatting to boot, seems like a good idea - and even if it isn't, it is worth discussing. It is also possible that BMK hit rollback instead of undo (easy enough mistake to make), and since you've not bothered to contact him to discuss the reasons, you are also breaching WP:AGF. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that 2 < 3, which is why I didn't report it as a 3RR violation. The situation would be entirely different if someone else reverted me, even without any edit summary. I don't think that a user with a long history of good- as well as bad-faith editing (judging by his contribs and block log) accidentally undos without providing a reason and then accidentally rollbacks. There is nothing really to discuss on the article talkpage here, both versions are fine, but replacing one with another is just an invalid edit. The situation would also be entirely different if one party believes that one version is a wrong version, but as I provided a link to WP:LAY this should not be the case.    FDMS  4    00:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. FDMS4, you reverted twice as well, and three reverts does not violate WP:3RR; four does. Your other arguments have no merit at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Ancient Macedonian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two users being reported

• IP sock 74.5.159.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• Sockmaster TheIndependentMind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see also

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TheIndependentMind

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 640039532 by Dr.K. (talk)"
2. 04:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 640030786 by Dr.K. (talk)"
3. 01:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 640005460 by Dr.K)" - revert performed by the master
4. 21:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639936169 by Taivo)" - revert performed by the master

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning for IP

1. 04:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "{{IPsock|TheIndependentMind}}"
2. 04:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW★TW)"

Diffs for the master

• For brevity's sake please see associated 3RR, third-level unsourced, ARBMAC DS, and SPI warnings on talkpage of master.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP is sockpuppet of TheIndependentMind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Continues edit-warring for the past day or so adding unsourced OR about the Slavic cognates of the Ancient Macedonian language. Δρ.Κ.  04:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Mike V as a result of SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Edition Peters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 640193134 by Dl2000 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) to 05:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 640193640 by Josh3580 (talk)"
   2. 05:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 05:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 640194583 by Dl2000 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
2. 05:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Edition Peters. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I reverted one pending change which Winkelvi reverted but that was my only recent edit to this page. I'm otherwise uninvolved. Msnicki (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. I do see a lot of reverts, but it seems to me that at least some (maybe many) of them are good-faith attempts to undo unexplained edits that may not be vandalism, necessarily, but at least borderline-disruptive, such as this one. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Having watched the Robin Williams article, I have to say it gets a lot of vandalism or otherwise problematic edits. The best solution may be protecting it again. -- Calidum 04:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've also notified the user in question, since the filer didn't. -- Calidum 04:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I did warn him about edit warring, here, but he quickly removed it. I had not yet warned him of this discussion. Msnicki (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

He also reverted two time ips correction on Sargun Mehta, 1, 2. Himanshugarg06 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Not one of your reverts to Robin Williams is exempt as a revert of "'obvious vandalism" (emphasis in the original) as required by WP:3RRNO. You're not allowed an exemption because you think you're merely enforcing what you think is the consensus or because you think someone else is edit-warring. Content disputes are not exempt.

Two of your reverts to Robin Williams, numbers 1 and 3, were to revert edits back from "active" → "years_active" in the Template:Infobox comedian. But you were wrong both times. The correct name of the field is "active", not "years_active".

Every other revert, numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, was clearly over a content dispute not involving vandalism. In two of the reverts, number 4 and 8, you were restoring an "influenced" field in the infobox based on claim of talk page consensus that, having looked at it more closely this morning, seems questionable.

I haven't gone through each of the edits to those other articles but brought them to the discussion to point up what appears to be a pattern where an inordinate number of your edits are reverts. Other editors experience that as chilling, as if you've set yourself up as the gatekeeper for the article. That's unhelpful and I think you should change your behavior. Msnicki (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment This simply looks like @Winkelvi: is doing something most of us should be doing - reverting vandalism. I don't see any immediate issue. It certainly doesn't look like he's trying to push a POV or anything, he's simply reverting common vandalism. I'd urge him to not try to communicate in edit summaries and ensure that he's reporting the vandals. Otherwise, perhaps we should move on. Dusti 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the IP editors most active at the Robin Williams article has been 70.190.229.97 (talk · contribs). They've only been here for the last seven days, but in that amount of time they have chosen to clear their talk page five times. This is one of the people that Winkelvi was reverting. I suggest that User:Msnicki should study the last 100 edits at Robin Williams more carefully, and consider the wisdom of withdrawing this complaint. Certainly an admin would give some consideration to semiprotecting the article, given that so few of the recent IP edits have been helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I count 5 of the 9 reverts as reverts of 70.190.229.97 (talk · contribs). But two of the reverts were simply wrong, reverting "active" back to "years_active" in the infobox. The other were clearly content disputes not protected by WP:3RRNO. If the IP editor is being disruptive, the answer is not to edit war him, it's to take it to the talk page to establish consensus or bring it here. You don't get to revert edits because someone made other edits you didn't like or because you think they're more active than you like or because they clear their talk page. They're allowed to do that. Msnicki (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I count zero reverts of vandalism in that list. Which of those revert(s) I listed do you believe should be exempt under WP:3RRNO? Msnicki (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

On his talk page, User:Winkelvi has now agreed to take a one-month break from the Robin Williams article and its talk page. I suggest that an admin could close the 3RR complaint without a block on that basis, since that ensures that the war reported here won't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding Shema Yisrael, an anon SPA 86.174.88.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) showed up favoring "G_d" over "God" in a brief edit-war spurt of a few minutes. This could, technically, be viewed as a "content dispute" or something similar, but the consensus on such issues is so well-established, and frankly, so well-known, that the SPA really should be viewed as a vandal, especially considering his only explanation has been the repeated deliberately misleading "Fixed typo" Edit Summary. Choor monster (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected. The article has been locked for two days by HJ Mitchell.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Page

Terry Bean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Truthspeaker33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 07:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC) to 07:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 07:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 07:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC) to 07:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 06:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 07:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 06:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 06:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""
7. 06:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Materialscientist (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Template:Syrian Civil War infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.101.157.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: (1RR rules apply, newest first)

1. undid User:EkoGraf's and 2nd reversion within 24 hrs
2. changed again, reverted by EkoGraf
3. reverted by User:EkoGraf

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

2. This has long been in the infobox: <--DO NOT ADD ISRAEL. PER Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive215#User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: See below), ANYONE WHO ADDS ISRAEL WILL IMMEDIATELY BE BLOCKED. -->

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

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

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

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

• Result: The IP editor is warned that this template is under WP:1RR per the Syrian Civil war sanctions. Any changes to the template need to have consensus, especially if they mention Israel. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Occurrences of numerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

Page

Constitución, Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

User being reported

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

User being reported

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) to 05:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 05:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "RAMAL from spanish"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Constitución, Chile. (TW)"
2. 05:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Constitución, Chile. (TW)"
3. 06:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on User talk:Winkelvi. (TW)"
4. 06:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "/* December 2014 */ Aléjate de mi página de discusión"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

•  ???? This is without evidence, please provide references. You are making assumptions without evidence, the very thing that you criticize others for. I guess you wouldnt like it if someone deleted your post, because you would feel its true and well researched. You would feel that they should discuss it with you first? I think you should learn to justify you accusations before making wild and slanderous claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.75.91 (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected. At least one of the four IPs is User:Bosnipedian. The other three IPs are from different continents which may just indicate the evasion prowess of Bosnipedian. So instead of blocking Winkelvi for going overboard, I'm applying two months of semi. Winkelvi is advised not to keep this up indefinitely, since breaking 3RR causes a lot of bells to ring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

User being reported

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

Edit warring on multiple pages.

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

Page: Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. 09:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Pvpoodle, LOL at you mere indian internet trolls !! Keep trying, and try harder !! hehe."
2. 08:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 06:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Pvpoodle go spank your monkey some where else !"
4. 08:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "Go spank your monkey some where else !"

Page: Shenyang WS-10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. 09:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Pvpoodle, LOL at you mere indian internet trolls !! Keep trying, and try harder !! hehe."
2. 08:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Pvpoodle, I now see that you are a mere indian student living in NZ and you got OWNED by someone on the internet ? lol, BTW, your did not get me, I did not read your message, just simply see that huge paragraph you wrote is enough of a hint, try harder !"
3. 06:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Pvpoodle, go spank your monkey some where else !"
4. 08:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 03:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Page: Shenyang J-31 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. 09:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "lol, actually, I am not Chinese. Therefore, no matter how hard you try, it will not affect me. LOL"
2. 08:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Pvpoodle, I now see that you are a mere indian student living in NZ and you got OWNED by someone on the internet ? lol, BTW, your did not get me, I did not read your message, just simply see that huge paragraph you wrote is enough of a hint, try harder !"
3. 06:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) "Pvpoodle, you are the one need to learn English ! You and you indian speak English with your silly accent, and it is not even your language, it was force onto you Indians ! Why don't you Indians speak your own language then ?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC) to 08:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 08:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "Removal of Sourced Content"
   2. 08:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "remove older source and replacing it with update and more reliable source. The source clearly stated that there are two prototypes !"

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

previously reported on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang and just now also reported on WP:ANI. He edits china military related pages with his own sino centric viewpoint without any references or sources and removes sourced information that contradicts his POV. Anyone who disagrees with him are constantly badgered by Personal attacks. My Talk page and user page are under long term page protection due to his incessant racially motivated personal attacks which have been going on for the last 6 Months!!

Pages he has been edit warring on may require temporary page protection as he is not going to stop after the ban. (the SPI case archives should be proof enough of this) Pvpoodle (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: IP already blocked 24 hours by User:Edgar181. There are too many articles to easily semiprotect them all. If any followup is needed (semiprotections or rangeblock) it's better to request them in the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:51, 30 December 2014‎ - No explanation
2. 18:01, 30 December 2014‎ - False allegation of vandalism
3. 18:16, 30 December 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

• Inclusion of hoax as well, see Malasana#Additional Notes. Bladesmulti (talk)

What was restored was the version of the page that includes both opinions, while bladesmulti has been removing differing opinions which is disruptive. Technically vandalism was the wrong word for it since his edits seems sincere if not well thought over. He is doing the same thing on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/Alvars Bladesmulti has been contributing POVs from his (presumably) Vaishnav Hindu background and erasing things he disagrees with without engaging in any debate. This is the case on multiple pages. His revisions have been destructive to several pages and have required reverting. He has a history of pushing this POV in at least one other article as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hinduism_and_Judaism The erasing of verifiable material to push an agenda or worldview is antithetical to wikipedia's purpose. This is why bladesmulti has already been reported at least once for Misplaced Pages:TE. Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Those three reverts clearly seems to have been made under 24 hours, and in fact 2 hours. It is also obvious that you are going to revert again if your POV version has been reverted. Show me where I haven't discussed? None of your above irrelevant nonsense has anything to do with your disruptive editing on Malasana, I have not erased any verifiable material, yet you are not only removing references but also removing category, image, etc. because you don't like them. Have I mentioned your deliberate incompetence that you don't even know what is the meaning of vandalism. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The section you had added, Malasana#Additional Notes, it looks like a hoax. Are you here for promoting false information and hoax? Bladesmulti (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Look up the pose in any traditional yoga book (Light on Yoga, Yoga Mala, Dharma Mittra's book, Srivatsa Ramaswami's book, etc.)and you will see that the picture was of upavesasana since mālāsana (traditionally) has the big toes together. The pose name also appears in the Sritattvanidhi from the Mysore Palace and is spelled with long ā meaning garland, not poop. The use of James Mallinson was a place holder because there is apparently no serious academic discussion proposing the poop theory. Not to mention anything named asana had to be usable for ashtanga yoga. No other 'asana' is for anything other than asana practice. These points are all made on malasana's talk page, which you haven't been participating in. The page already included both opinions the way it was. Your reversion to restore a picture completely removed months of work.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that you have gained your hoax through the "private emails" from James Mallinson is not helpful, it cannot be considered as a citation. Doesn't matter how long it took you to create your crackpot theories, since it seems disruptive and hasn't improved the page, but only removed reliable citations, category, image, and promoted hoax. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. There are not enough reverts to violate 3RR. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page. If either party continues to revert it may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti is now attempting to change the malasana page from another profile User:TheRedPenOfDoom to avoid being reported. I'm afraid to revert changes. Help please. Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You have reached three reverts. If you revert again, you may be blocked. It's up to you to persuade other editors, using the reliable sources. If you can't make any progress, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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