Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:16, 20 December 2014

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Spshu reported by User:75.162.212.197 (Result: Declined; filer blocked)

Page: One Magnificent Morning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

spshu Adds and continues to readd false so-called "source" materials, which are false because even though several Saturday morning cartoons did sadly disappear from TV when One Magnificent Morning started, not all of them did. Ones that were specifically only on cable TV and satellite TV didn't disappear, and even if this were only about commercial broadcast TV, then even those didn't disappear completely. There are still some cartoons on NBC Kids (by Sprout Network), for example. It's not all a cartoon block, but cartoons are still there on Saturday mornings. But the false sources make inaccurate claims like "Saturday morning cartoons are no more" and "R.I.P., Saturday morning cartoons." So, even with edit-warring aside, this would still be a report about posting inaccurate "sources."

75.162.212.197 (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Declined No violation. Dear IP, the article is protected. Get an account, get autoconfirmed, then use verifiable and reliable sources to place your statement within the article WITH a neutral point of view. If you have a content issue, try dispute resolution. Thanks. Wifione 10:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wifione: I understand that the article is protected, but that's not the point. An autoconfirmed user already *has* tried removing those inaccurate sources from the article. But look at all the reverts that spshu made, yet he's not being accused of edit-warring even though the other editors were. Why not? So are you saying that it's "not edit-warring" if you, the admin., agree with what was repeatedly added to or otherwise repeatedly reverted in the article? Why should it only be considered "edit-warring" for one editor rather than both (according to you), even though the edit-warring warning even says something about "even if you are correct," and other admins even say things like "it doesn't matter if you're correct or not; it's still edit-warring"?

75.162.212.197 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Dear ip, the auto-confirmed user was blocked because the said auto-confirmed user was not discussing changes on the talk page of the article. My suggestion would be, try discussing the content issue on the talk page of the article as Spshu is the one who is following an appropriate WP:BRD cycle. Spshu has been awaiting responses on the talk page of the article since the start of this month. Proceed to the talk page and discuss the issue there, rather than repeatedly reverting. If discussions don't lead to resolution, follow dispute resolution. Wifione 11:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, user:Wifione, for your response. Well you're saying that spshu has been doing BRD--a while back, anyway. I can see that. But not now, though. Even so, he's been edit-warring too. If someone is doing BRD but still keeps on reverting and reverting, does that not still count as edit-warring? So if a writer posts a comment to the talk page and then reverts, that's "not edit-warring"? How about when he keeps reverting while not still discussing? Doesn't that then still become edit-warring for him? If not, then why not? And if I were the i.p. who had been discussing with spshu before, but then kept reverting and reverting like he is, would I also get a pass from being accused of edit-warring just because I had been discussing in the past, or would there be some difference? And if so, then what would that supposed "difference" have been?

75.162.212.197 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've Blocked the filer for two weeks for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:194.54.154.139 reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: Blocked )

Page: Eric Carmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.54.154.139 (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:

Another IP address, also originating from Crimea, reverted again at . Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Both IPs Blocked – for a period of 120 hours Ks0stm 22:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if there is a sockpuppet in the form of User:GATW. See . Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Add User:77.35.8.175 from Russia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Due to the possible socking, I've semiprotected Eric Carmen for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User:VediKboy reported by User:TopGun (Result: Blocked)

Page: Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VediKboy (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: The user is not discussing in anyway and reverts only inspite of my attempt to persuade him to discuss. Instead of using the article talkpage, I went on to start a discussion on his user talk so as to give him notifications of my each message but my posts are all unreplied. He's made six reverts by now and possibly violated 3RR... though it was a slow editwar anyway. I have also notified the user of WP:ARBIPA but he has shown no intention of stopping; he has reverted 3 users in total and has reverted twice after the final warning. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• 81.156.250.214 is Nangparbat. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP just made 3 edits / 1 effective edit, all here, so I have no idea how you reached that conclusion but if it is, it wouldn't affect the spirit of this report and hardly the letter of it as it would still be 5 reverts by VediKboy with clear intention to revert more and discuss nothing after the final warning and infact be non responsive on talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yet another revert adding personal commentary by changing the word 'declaration' (affidavit as per source) to 'hearsay' and no discussion, though he left me a WP:BATTLE message to stop being an abpara bot . --lTopGunl (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Waited to see if there would be any discussion, but still no response by the user. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• New (8th?) revert . --lTopGunl (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. VediKboy has continued to make similar changes to the article while this report was open (often using the word 'conspiracy'), while making no effort to participate on the talk page as advised on 15 December. This post to TopGun suggesting he was 'filled with hatred' helped to tip the balance toward an admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

2014 Sydney hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Yezohtz2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours It is clear that User:Luxure is well aware of Misplaced Pages'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 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) Misplaced Pages 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, . 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/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=638511719&oldid=638510067) after consulting with Misplaced Pages'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)

Solo12gaug reported by User:24.226.133.134 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Saleen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solo12gauge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: original undoing

Diffs of the user's reverts:

user keep trying to remove this section: transaction with a publicly traded shell company owned by David Weiner, a marijuana pennystock financer.

This is factual information that provides some background as to how Saleen went public. The user has done dozen of edit on Saleen related pages and he seems to be only doing these with user Murdock7.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

When trying to talk the issue out on the user talk page he removed it. User can't provide any reason why he is removing the comment other than "it is irrelevant", but he can't explain why it would be irrelevant. It is clear that the user is trying to protect Saleen's reputation. David Weiner and his W-Net fund are behind Saleen going public as per Saleen S1 SEC filling: http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=7747636 and he is a marijuana pennystock financier as confirmed by the citations I provided which keep getting removed.

Comments:

• Page has been fully-protected and a discussion (of sorts) is underway on the talkpage. If 3RR blocks are being given out, then all of the involved parties will probably need blocking, since I'm fairly sure they all violated the rule (in the filer's case, I think their revert count has actually exceeded the double figure mark...) The IP above is giving quite a poor representation of the topic, as they are deliberately misrepresenting Solo12gauge's position. The IPs trying to edit-war the information in haven't ever actually provided a source that verifies their claims, are clearly pushing agendas in their edit summaries (even a drunken toad could see that), and Solo12gauge clearly has elaborated on the "irrelevant" comment in the edit summaries at the very least. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Should also note that the filer was blocked. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-18/legal-pot-sets-off-penny-stock-frenzy.html
2. http://nypost.com/2014/12/12/sec-weed-wackers-sparked-growlife-fears/

• Result: Filer 24.226.133.134 (talk · contribs) has been blocked 60 hours by User:Ks0stm for violation of 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ramiericson reported by User:Summichum (Result: Calmer waters)

Page

Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "removed Pointy content by Summichum. Qwetyus previously agreed on removing this content from the page. Because there is already a main page for this."

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=636868233

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=636855122

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=636854836

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

the user has resumed in removing well cited content instantly after coming from a ban, the ban was also placed due to these activities. Now again doing the same removal of content which is related to the subjectSummichum (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not well-cited material. This is Summichum cherrypicking from a single source and ignoring another source that contradicts it, and Ramiericson doing the same but with the sources swapped. Talk:53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)#Survey + NPOV violation has some discussion of the underlying content dispute. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked Summichum, I'm closing this report right now. If you feel disruption is ongoing, come back and open another report. Qwertyus, thanks for the note. Will take a deeper look if disruption resumes. Wifione 16:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Dj Biswas reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked)

Page: Gauri Pradhan Tejwani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dj Biswas (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: User_talk:Dj_Biswas#December_2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gauri Pradhan Tejwani#Indic scripts

Comments:
User is essentially WP:SPA, editing this article and that of the subject's husband. Discussed with Ponyo here because of initial concerns that this was more of the disruption that led her to imposed semi-protection. There are numerous policy and guideline issues with their reverts, of which WP:BLPNAME was perhaps the most egregious at first, although WP:RS is becoming an issue also. Other breaches include of BLP with regard to caste identity that lacks self-identification, WP:INDICSCRIPT, MOS:ITALICS, MOS:BOLD etc. They are showing no sign of wanting to talk. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked till DJ Biswas confirms they completely understand our BLP and edit warring policies. Wifione 17:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Battle of Chawinda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VandVictory (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:
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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

• 5 edits by VandVictory. Maybe new reference need more debate other references are part of RFC dispute why is he not discussion in RFC why is he tagwarring. ---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 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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• 6 revision . ---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 (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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 17:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I "wondered" whether the IP 223.29.225.35 was actually a logged out but involved editor... _Fortuna 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 00:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

ResellerRatings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Techimo (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 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 03:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Page: Superconductivity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Laurencejwolf (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:
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 08:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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 17:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

• User being reported: 23 editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Pejë railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

• 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 17:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Matt 20123 reported by User:Areaseven (Result: Warned)

Page

Spectre (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Matt 20123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 12:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "its not going to happen."
3. 12:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "leave it like it was in the beginning."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Spectre (2015 film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

• Warned I've warned Matt. Relatively new user. Matt's crossed 3RR. So have you Lugnuts. Please be careful and do not revert again. Wifione 00:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

God the Son (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JudeccaXIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 as I reverted a IP then unitil now: This was my first time reverting ReformedArsenal with the edit summary: RfC support/reverting POV pusher. ReformedArsenal is the only one actually reverting multiple editors in the article God the Son: Revision history: . I and In ictu oculi have been arguing with ReformedArsenal in the discussion as all disputes go about proper sources which was provided. ReformedArsenal did not approve of anything we offered, so ReformedArsenal requested RfC on November 24: . Majority RfC volunteers suggested sources were required, which the main argument of the discussion was sources provided. It wasn't until editor Elmmapleoakpine tried to place sources in the article that support my side of the argument today: . ReformedArsenal reverted. That is when my revert came in via RfC support/reverting POV pusher. Like always in the article, ReformedArsenal revered me back today: , then reported me here to AN3. In my opinion through the edit history of the article and discussion, through the multiple reverts done in the article by ReformedArsenal, the arguments against some of the RfC volunteers by ReformedArsenal, and now me on AN3, I believe ReformedArsenal is trying to avoid general consensus via WP:GAME. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment this could WP:BOOMERANG. Does WP:ANI really need notifying of a consensus of editors retaining "Paris is the capital of France" style blindingly obvious content because not many modern sources state the blindingly obvious. Reformed Arsenal (well named, apparently) is taking not taking issue with the truthfulness of longstanding content in the article (namely that the Latin formula Deus Filius "God the Son" is a term from the Athanasian Creed etc rather than the Bible) but merely with the 19th century sources that bother to state what was in the 19th century still a surprise to some people. Reformed Arsenals RFC was already timewasting enough. As before, let Reformed Arsenal indicate which of dozens 19th Century source he accepts for the ref he demands for the article content he accepts is truthful factual and obvious, but which he was challened, and close this waste of ANI time with a trout. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify this false report, I have not violated WP:3RR nor the 2RR rule: . — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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 · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

5. same edit - made After this report.

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

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

Comments:

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: )

Page: Metropolitan (1990 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FelixRosch (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: 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)

• No violation – To reach a conclusion on what plot summary to use, consider the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Sagarika Ghose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Teja srinivas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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

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)

• 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 00:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:StePAhi reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: No action, taken to AfD, warned about AGF )

Page

Katja Glieson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "Just because the subject has been in the news lately doesn't mean the subject is notable."
2. 22:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "Only covered for one insignificant event. Not notable enough to be on wikipedia"
3. 22:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC) "This is obvious bullying."
4. 01:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 638716567 by Loriendrew (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Katja Glieson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User warned on their talk page, replacing contested PROD numerous times. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly bullying. StePAhi (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note No, it's not bullying: you were edit-warring about the deletion, but since you eventually worked it through, there will be no sanction. Please do not do that again, and please assume good faith: your AfD rationale is a bit lacking in that area as well. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Feathered dinosaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

188.126.90.35 (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 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)
• 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)

Page: Kosovo at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qwerty786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 . I mean just look at the revision history, it is ridiculous. I am aware that two other editors were involved in this edit war, however I fairly warned all users on the article talk page and tried to resolve this dispute on the talk page instead . After I warned them, one editor told me "Don't be ignorant" before continuing to edit war. I find this behaviour completely unacceptable and disruptive to Misplaced Pages. I think Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy, I think this particular editor deserves a more severe punishment. Kind regards IJA (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/Pescetarianism
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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: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 Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Suaiden. Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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. 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)

• Warned The user is new. I've warned the user. Come back if the disruption restarts. Wifione 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 00:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Jonathan Pollard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mcepeci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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. .

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)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Wifione 01:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Rahulmdinesh reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: (Best appeared version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

• Additional sockpuppet Rahulmdinesh1234 (talk · contribs) and IP edit reverts:

1. 16:35, 16 December 2014
2. 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)

User:NBAkids reported by User:Xuxo (Result: )

Page: White Brazilian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NBAkids (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 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 ] article

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

Page

2014 Sydney hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

49.195.38.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring