Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YMB29 (talk | contribs) at 17:34, 23 December 2014 (→User:MiGR25 reported by User:YMB29 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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.

Click here to create a new report

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

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)

223.29.225.35 was also TheSawTooth. Because his last one removed issue tags just like he did with the IP all the time. Now he is not able to abuse that ip because he is blocked now. VandVictory (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to make allegations and connect IPs to real users. If you have issues about socking, take it to SPI. Other than that, you are close to getting blocked yourself, given the history of your edit warring. Do be careful and stop reverting. I don't want to invoke sanctions on the page unless the edit warring again gets over the top. Wifione 11:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Victory You accuse Justice now me. I have "remember password" option check in my computer I do not log out. Do not accuse every one turn by turn people use IPs it is not necessary to create account. @Wifione: he revised me that I am blocked but no other reason of revision he is at 16RR revision. I was not blocked when I made edit. It is part of editwar to revise legitimate revision of blocked editor. I move that you review him. Thank you. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected by Mr. Stradivarius. Wifione 09:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Matt 20123 reported by User:Areaseven (Result: Warned & subsequently blocked)

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)

Relatively new user? You're kidding me. Look at his contribution history. Lugnuts 10:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts. If he reverts again without discussing, just ping me and I'll block. Thanks. Wifione 10:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wifione. First edit back and reverts the edits and then blanks his talkpage. Still no explination for removing the use dmy and Use Australian English tags. Lugnuts 13:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wifione, Ditto on Spectre again. Looks like the warning isn't enough here. - SchroCat (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Come back if the behaviour continues. The subsequent blocks will be scaled up in case the editor refuses to acknowledge the issue and refuses to discuss changes. Wifione 09:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks. I'm sure either I or Lugnuts will ping if he continues after his return. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Wifione. Lugnuts 10:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Fleetham reported by User:Wuerzele (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 20 December 2014

1. removing discussion
2. removing discussion
3. removing discussion
4. removing discussion

on 17 December 2014

1. 638560143 removing discussion
2. 638562696
3. 638563043
4. 638563669
5. 638567776
6. 638568974
7. 638568552
8. 638568974

on 16 December 2014:

1. 638334298
2. 638415381
3. 638489648

on 9 December 2014

1. 637301643
2. 637308036
3. 637387020

Edit war warnings:

on 30 November 2014:

1. 636012427
2. 636012830
4. 636014925
5. 636085219
6. 636085598

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

This is a warning related to November 30 edit warring:

The current problem worth noting also is that since 9 December 2014 there is an ongoing NPOV dispute related to the lead section of the Bitcoin article, during which User:Fleetham made several edits to the lead section.

As an example, take . This edit is particularly interesting in that it disrespects the consensus built in Talk:Bitcoin#Synthesis in the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Note also that the editwarring is observable at both the Talk:Bitcoin page as well as at the Bitcoin page. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. If Fleetham were edit warring in the article, that would be different, but he's reverting inclusion of material that is, in my view, unnecessarily personally attacking. If you want to complain about resolution of the content dispute, Wuerzele, you can do so without your history of Fleetham's "disruption"; indeed, in one part you even called it vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I dont understand why you say "If Fleetham were edit warring in the article, that would be different". Fleetham is edit warring on Bitcoin per the diffs from 16 Dec, 10 Dec, 30 Nov. He had been warned by admin EdJohnston in the December ANI that he was editwarring, and yet he did it again.

I am sorry to involve you in a situation that is quite multilayered and protracted, but I chose this the 3RR noticeboard, because 3RR seems the most straightforward to prove to someone, who is not participating on the Bitcoin page and seeing the dynamics day to day.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User:Raducanandreea reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: Locked)

Page: Prostitution in South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raducanandreea (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:

See also ongoing SPI involving this user at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinese-proti‎.

• Page protected (full) for 10 days. I reverted the reported user because the material is a copyright violation (copied from other wikis and perhaps other pages, not sure). I can't block the user for edit warring as you, Benlisquare, responded tit for tat. Meanwhile, the SPI will run its course.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Racudanandreea has now been indef blocked by User:Callanecc for abusing multiple accounts. I'll ask User:Bbb23 if the protection of the article can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

174.95.71.196 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: 24h)

Page: Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.95.71.196 (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: *none

Comments: This user continues to add content that has no relevance to the article and show. It keeps reverting edits of revert by me and another user. Though, I have not tried to resolve the issue via the article's talk page, I felt it would be useless if the IP address has never responded to our edit summaries messages and their talk page. UPDATE: the editor has returned, ignoring ALL warnings, including from another user whom is currently reverting them. (I added the difference as proof) Callmemirela (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr 09:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Victor Victoria reported by User:Helpsome (Result: 31h)

Where's the beef?: Where's the beef? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Victor Victoria: Victor Victoria (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:
I have not been involved in this but found it via recent changes. It appears that nobody editing the article wants this information that Victor Victoria continues to add and it has been explained on the talk page. After I gave the edit war warning, Victor Victoria blanked it and then continued edit warring. Helpsome (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 09:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Thinkmaths reported by User:Vigyani (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Saffron terror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639157544 by Bladesmulti (talk)"
2. 08:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639157262 by Bladesmulti (talk)"
3. 08:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 07:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "/* See also */"
5. 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "/* See also */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Apart from pointing WP:BRD using edit summary, I had warned the editor against edit-warring which they responded by assuming bad-faith, terming other editors as part of a group and a tit for tat warning on my talk page.--Vigyani_talk 08:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr 09:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Vigyani, User:Sarvajna and User:Bladesmulti reported by User:Thinkmaths (Result: nominator blocked)

Page

Saffron terror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Vigyani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sarvajna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for igniting a possible edit-war.

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:15, 22 December 2014‎ (UTC)
2. 08:12, 22 December 2014‎ (UTC)
3. 08:00, 22 December 2014‎ (UTC)
4. 06:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute logically and rationally on the article talk page

Comments

Thinkmaths has breached 3RR and shows battleground mentality. --AmritasyaPutra 09:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr 09:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Totocol reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: No action)

Page

Satyananda Saraswati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:51, 20 December 2014‎
2. 05:15, 21 December 2014
3. 01:59, 22 December 2014‎
4. 08:03, 22 December 2014
5. 08:53, 22 December 2014

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

He opened RFC, yet he is edit warring, Talk:Satyananda_Saraswati#Request for comment. Bladesmulti (talk)

Comments:

Result: No action, since User:Totocol has agreed to abstain from updating the article again until January 15. See this comment. It is unclear whether any material should be added to the article based only on a primary source -- the proceedings of a Royal Commission in Australia. User:Totocol, you should consider getting an opinion at WP:RSN before making any further attempt to restore this material. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 22 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)

Continuation of ]

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. talk:B-theory of time/* Reasons for removal of William Craig content */"
2. user talk:TMDrew 20:00, 22 December 2014

Comments:

This user has been warned by administrators before regarding precisely this page. The user continues to edit contrary to consensus, continues to harass and now accuses me of sockpuppetry. Previous issue handled by Wifione TMD Talk Page. 11:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You are persistently vandalising, I have reported you, but until you are blocked, you will continue to remove content and vandalise the page, hence my need for reverting your edits. There is no war as there is no dispute. DocHeuh (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Full story & full examples of persistent vandalism:

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 (read it yourself). 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, for putting the Craig information in, in the first place.

I have given reason for said edits on his talk page, the B-thoery of time talk page, and on edit 'reasons'. I placed a vandalism warning on his page which he then took to an admin board, which I then had to explain his vandalisation there (admittedly I was wrong, and somewhat guilty in entering an edit war).

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. 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 (here's the kicker) in his one of his most recent edit HE REMOVED THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC PARAGRAPH on the page. Leaving only ranting by a religious philosopher and a small section on A-thoery. This is obvious vandalism and he is clearly serving a personal agenda. After the vandalisation warning it had seemed to have solved itself, however, a short while ago, an IP address, undid the edits changing the page back to its original form, removing scientific content, adding religious babble, and portraying Craig's views a the consensus and sometimes stated as facts. It should be noted the IP address immediately commented on the conversation on the talk page between myself (Heuh) and User:TMDrew, commenting in a fashion and opinion extremely similar to TMDrew, he undid the edits in a very similar way to TMDrew, and his contribution list also records only the edit we are talking about now. It is clear this is TMDrew trying to appear as a third opinion. This is clearly disruptive behaviour.

Since this happened I have considerably tidied up the article and creating an article of a quality much higher than it was before. However, TMDrew keeps returning the article to its original state containing only babble about A-theory and religious and aggressive rants from Craig. Despite the fact that Craig's material doesn't belong, it demonstrates this users obvious vandalism, as a productive (but still wrong) user would edit the page to include Craig's views instead of reverting days of work entirely. I have since tried to edit the page to include some of Craig's views, though worded correctly, as quoted opinions, and not including the obvious religious rants about why Buddhism philosophies of time are inferior to the Christian version.

You merely need to read the version that user:TMDrew put in on Craig, to understand how awful it really is (be sure to notice the deliberate degrading of the rest of the article aswell). There is no dispute going on here, just someone vandalising, and someone trying there best to keep the vandalisation under control.

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, removing the physics information behind the theory, telling the reader that the theory wasn't supported by physics when it was. User:Mojowiha also had problems with User:TMDrew's editing in regards to Craig, and has to post vandalisation warning on his page (from the looks of it, User:Mojowiha from desperation. From what I have seen User:TMDrew is serving personal agenda.

To get a grasp of what kind of user User:TMDrew is, he regularly wipes his talk page to not show his conitnous vandalisation warnings and seeming obsession over Craig. He has fraudulently awarded himself a Barnstar of Diligence (you can see this by viewing his user page edit history), posing as a user named 'Bobby' (obviously with no linked profile). The reason I am telling you all of this is because I want to demonstrate that this is obvious vandalism. He has also (in this same argument) logged out to appear as his IP address, and I believe operates an alternate account User:Apologeticsaurus Rex. The reason or which is User:TMDrew awarded User:Apologeticsaurus Rex with a barnstar BEFORE HE MADE A SINGLE EDIT. THIS is the type of user you are dealing with here.

I realise this is not a page to report vandalism, but I believe the full story is needed to show you what is really going on. The report in general is ridiculous since the last report (which I will admit I was in the wrong, I should have reported him straight away, instead of edit warring), but since the last report, there has been ONE, only one revert, a revert of a case of obvious vandalism (adding opinions as fact, highly bias POV (removing information showing majority support for B-theory), removing some scientific information, and degrading quality of article in other areas.) There simply HASN'T BEEN AN EDIT WAR. Thanks. DocHeuh (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:HyperspaceCloud reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked)

Page

Elite: Dangerous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC) "The concensus was to keep all the offline stuff in development section"
2. 22:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC) "Merged offline to development section"
3. 09:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639160398 by McGeddon (talk) The offline mode was a backer request, it was never the original plan and should be in the dev section. I also just supplied the evidence."
4. 11:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639168631 by McGeddon (talk) I stated other reasons for not having that section which shouldn't be ignored"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Reverting other editors */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Single player offline mode / refunds

Comments:

Edit warring a section merge with false claims of consensus, offering no contribution to the talk thread on the subject beyond some bad-faith/paranoia about Reddit and Misplaced Pages users who "deliberately want to sabotage the game by blowing this offline thing out of proportion". Editor has a history of flat reverting rather than discussing, on this article. McGeddon (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Deku-shrub reported by User:CorporateM (Result: no action)

Page: Digital Citizens Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deku-shrub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has continually added content I believe to be non-neutral and poorly-sourced since the article's creation in September. A look at the edit-history shows large deletions of his content first by user:Schematica, then user:Wikidemon, then myself, but in each case similar content is restored shortly afterwards. I've asked the editor repeatedly to discuss their edits first, especially given a history of them being removed by myself and others, but the editor has continued posting similar content using guest blogs, forums, primary sources and sites with sketchy RS/NPOV and an edit-war seems to be emerging between the two of us.

I think it would be useful if the page was protected, so that consensus can be established before further edits are made to prevent the emerging edit-war (I was about to revert again, but I think we're probably verging on a 3RR type situation). CorporateM (Talk) 12:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a new tier of Wiki-bureaucracy than I'm used to. Obviously you know what my goal is and I suppose I'm not doing it the correct format. Did you want me to take each of your item by item edits and defend them one by one? What's the best way to approach this? Deku-shrub (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Deku-shrub: — I'd strongly recommend seeking one or more forms of dispute resolution. Repeatedly reverting the edits of others is considered edit warring and can result in your being blocked. --slakr 04:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bgwhite reported by User:VersoArts (Result:No violation)

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

Page: Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bgwhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Movement_for_the_Survival_of_the_Ogoni_People&oldid=639016932

User:BGWhite will NOT talk on article page. Only has discussions on his personal page. But with me he does not answer period. He doesn't make any reference to changes he makes. I thought I was making mistakes in editing. All of a sudden I'm attacked early this morning about everything.

Comments:Only has discussions on his personal page. But with me he does not answer period. He doesn't make any reference to changes he makes. These things just disappear. Or the formatting is deleted. And this is a major restructuring. I thought I was making mistakes in editing. All of a sudden I'm attacked verbally early this morning about everything. He does this with others to get them blocked. I'm thinking it has to do with subject matter he doesn't like.
VersoArts (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition now I recall that the first time I was in TALK on the article he came along and attacked me verbally when I suggested the infobox, but has since deleted that entry. VersoArts (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly how is Bgwhite edit-warring with you? They have made a grand total of six edits to the article; four or five of which are to remove HTML formatting and replace it with wikicode, one of those edits removed an unnecessary section, and the other edit was to remove that section again. Meanwhile, you have made a mediocre article even worse in my opinion, with a huge amount of unsourced stuff being added, in a poorly formatted and unencyclopedic way. Quite why this article needs a timeline with every tiny thing on it is beyond me. It is also very poorly formatted, despite Bgwhite's efforts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't edited on the article's talk page, so I don't know how I could in TALK on the article he came along and attacked me verbally when I suggested the infobox, but has since deleted that entry. Entries can't be deleted.
• I left a discussion on VersoArts talk page (User talk:VersoArts#Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People) before they filed this ANI report. Message was on why I reverted. Not sure how that means I'm not talking. I also don't know what they are trying to say in their response to my message.
• They left six message on my talk page after I left a message on their talk page. The six message came within a two hour time period. The last one states, Again you chose to make the edits without responding. And I see that you get into warring positions outside of any involvement you have with articles. This may be done for blocking editors from articles you don't prefer. I am making a request for mediation before you entrap. Sigh, I guess if I'm sleeping I must respond or I'll entrap them. Bgwhite (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you a mediator??? User:Lukeno94 VersoArts (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"In your OPINION"? Are you an experienced mediator? User:Lukeno94 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VersoArts (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Lukeno94Let's start from your added conflicts. What are the areas of "huge amount of unsourced stuff" as you say. What "stuff" is unsourced? VersoArts (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• No violation Bgwhite isn't edit warring here as Lukeno94 pointed out. Just because he's making edits you disagree with doesn't mean he's edit warring with you. Also, you write "In addition now I recall that the first time I was in TALK on the article he came along and attacked me verbally when I suggested the infobox, but has since deleted that entry" but I don't see where this occurred at all in the talk page's history. only (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Whoever entered the last comment of "No Violation" above should SIGN it.VersoArts (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Bgwhite Lukeno94
  • ....I did. only (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I didn't say that he's making edits I don't agree with. He's making edits that are based on his limited knowledge of what's allowed on Wiki as MarkUp. And he's making COI a part of an edit on content. Also as me being a newbie, he's stepping on the toes of policy in Wiki about behavior. This is what he does. Goes and picks on newbies on Wiki as an administrator/editor making the issue muddled. He has no right to state he won't talk on Article TALK pages so he can be abusive on people's personal pages. VersoArts (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @(only Who was this person "User:Lukeno94"? Is an unknown biased third person allowed in mediation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VersoArts (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:MiGR25 reported by User:YMB29 (Result: )

Page: Rape during the occupation of Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Soviet war crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MiGR25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
Article #1:

Article #2:

1. (IP user, but most likely it is MiGR25)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user was just created and its only activity is the removal of sourced text from two articles.
The arguments from the revert summaries are on the level of "I don't like it." There was no attempt to initiate any discussion.
I warned MiGR25 about 3RR and suggested to start a discussion before reverting. MiGR25's response was to copy and paste my warning word for word on my talk page (not only the template, but the comments I added after).
The use of links to wiki policies in revert summaries indicates that this is not a genuinely new user who is not aware of the rules.
So the user is highly disruptive and it looks like someone created a SPA to remove specific text from the two articles. -YMB29 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

"There was no attempt to initiate any discussion"

There was a dissucsion:Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#Need_to_obtain_actual_consensus_for_controversial_edits yet, you still continuing to widespreed the contested source to the webpages: Soviet_war_crimes, Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany; Berlin:_The_Downfall_1945 without any acknowledge to the consensus of an WP:NPOV just because (you) I don't like it

• YMB29, please stop bickering about process. You have been edit-warring to insert your preferred text but it is disputed by every other editor who has commented or acted to revert it. You have no consensus to make the changes you want to make. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• ou have implied Beevor is the only one by your edit. I have stated valid reasons as to the problems as has PBS; it appears it is you YMB29 who "don't like it." Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am categorically opposed to statements implying that mass rape did not happen in Berlin. A ten-minute search on Google Scholar will show multiple independent historians reporting that Red Army forces committed mass rapes. The scale of the rapes is up for contention, using scholarly or academically sound sources, but YMB29, you are warned (a) not to imply that these rapes did not take place, and (b) not to edit war. I encourage anyone to report instances of WP:3RR to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (User:Buckshot06)

So MONTHS LATER when other editors are tired of your contentious, tendentious editing approach and take a break, that doesn’t mean you’ve suddenly “won.” Even after another editor who is also an admin. told you to disengage, you’re still at it using the same tired m.o.

It’s really time to add a few additional strings to the instrument you’re playing. And a good way would be to familiarize yourself with the WP policies that have been cited to you seemingly ad infinitum to no effect. "Outlasting" other editors who tire of your behavior does not mean you’ve suddenly arrived at consensus. On the contrary. Another suggestion would be to read Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing, an IMO excellent essay that, although it is not black-letter WP policy, has a lot of valuable info.

MiGR25 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Digging up an old discussion (a lot has changed since) from another article, where you did not even participate, does not count as an attempt at discussion on your part.

For a completely new user, you sure seem to know a lot about my history... -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The above is also mostly a copy-paste from a post on a talk page made in May. -YMB29 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• This report is ironic given YMB29 (talk · contribs) own propensity in engaging in slow burn edit wars to push dubious viewpoints while attempting to exhaust opponents with long intractable discussion on the article talk pages. For example, recently in the article Winter War (with discussion on Talk:Winter_War#Changes_to_intro):

• 20:14, 4 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,755 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Undid revision 636582381 by Gwafton (talk) This looks like a case of WP:IJDLI... Prove your argument on the talk page before reverting.)
• 21:40, 3 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,755 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Undid revision 636435465 by Gwafton (talk) Your opinion on what is largely accepted is not an excuse to revert existing text without any discussion.)
• 23:44, 2 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,746 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Restored reverted text. I recommend that you don't revert text you don't like without any agreement. I can also say that the other view is a theory not worth mentioning.)
• 21:28, 2 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,746 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Reverted. This view is just as significant as the other one. It has been in the text for over a year. No consensus to remove it.)
• 19:58, 1 December 2014‎ YMB29 . . (118,746 bytes) (+326)‎ . . (Undid revision 636149692 by 192.171.4.126 (talk) unexplained revert)

Seems WP:Boomerang would apply here. --Nug (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to switch attention from the issue here. What is wrong with my reverts above?

Are you wikistalking me? How do you explain your sudden interest in the Winter War article?

You also followed MiGR25's reverts and made a similar revert to his in the Berlin: The Downfall 1945 article (using a similar revert summary) even before MiGR25 got to the page. This leads me to think that you are working together with him/her or MiGR25 is your SPA and you signed into the wrong username to make that revert...

How am I pushing "dubious" viewpoints if the other users come in and revert well sourced text that has been in the articles for a long time? WP:BRD applies there.

The Winter War article had the same problem with a user reverting existing text that he did not like. However, he stopped reverting and decided to discuss. -YMB29 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, extremely dubious, the source you are pushing from a Russian government website claims only 72 German women were raped in total by Soviet forces in the entire campaign to conquer Germany in 1945, that's right, seventy two. Editors strongly objected back in May, just because you were able to sneak it into other articles doesn't mean the consensus against it has changed. --Nug (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sneak it in? You and others have edited the articles many times since. Users have even reworded that specific text. If something was wrong with the source, it would have been reverted by now and not by this "new" user. So are you still going to claim that you only noticed this text now, when this SPA started reverting it?

The source does not claim that "only 72 German women were raped in total." This is not mentioned in the articles, so you are just repeating MiGR25's dubious statement from a revert summary.

Anyway, you are simply trying to turn this into a content dispute and divert attention from the actions of this "new" user, whom you support. I hope that admins will note this. -YMB29 (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The source you claim is reliable states:

"Я привожу цифры, характеризующие это положение по 7 армиям нашего фронта: общее количество бесчинств со стороны военнослужащих в отношении местного населения, зафиксированных по этим 7 армиям, 124, из них: изнасилований немецких женщин – 72, грабежей -38, убийств – 3, прочих незаконных действий – 11»"

which translates to:

"I quote figures on this position for seven armies of our front: the total number of atrocities committed by the military against the local population, recorded by these 7 armies, 124 of them: rape of German women - 72, 38 robberies, murders - 3, other illegal activities - 11."

Such a bogus claim calls into question the general reliability of the source. --Nug (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The only thing bogus about that is your interpretation. She is talking about documented cases only for the 1st Belorussian Front in a two week span in Berlin.

A historian can't cite documents? Again, where were you before with your criticism? You need to stop trolling. This is off topic. -YMB29 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to belive whatever is on your distorted mind, but keep any false accusation and personal attacks WP:NPA out of the disscusion. I'm neither an alt account, nor an advanced wikiuser and definitely not a SPA. Anyone with a objective and impartially WP:NPV would acknowledge the consensus how biased and one sided Yelena Senyavskaya scathing hypothesis is. Starting with the first source give at Battle_of_Berlin and the disscuion Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#Need_to_obtain_actual_consensus_for_controversial_edits where She not only criticise Beevor, Bellamy and Grossmann studies, but giving dubious remarks. First source: The Red Army "Rape of Germany" was Invented by Goebbels I want to qoute same figure as you: "the total number of atrocities committed by the military against the local population, recorded by these 7 armies, 124 of them: rape of German women - 72, 38 robberies, murders - 3, other illegal activities - 11" and giving following date: from 22 April to 5 May 1945.

During the last days of the downfall and the weeks after, around 2,5 Million Red Army Soldiers and Personell where involved in the occupation of Berlin. How you can you receive an objective and unbiased analysis by examining solely 7 armies? For example, the 2nd Belorussian front, had 8 Armies under command filded around 319'000 mens, and a army per se, is given as a troop strenght of 50'000. Also, the same source indicates, that the approx. number of 2 million of all the raped womans during the whole conquer of Germany are just lies and invented by the Reichspropagandaminister Joseph Goebbels. The other source of Yelena Senyavskaya is not any better in the case, even when it consider a more analytical investigation: The Red Army in Europe in 1945 in the Context of Information War

You also contravened against the WP:3RR here: Berlin: The Downfall 1945: Revision history. Looks like a WP:BOOMERANG MiGR25 (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't agree with a source, use the talk page. There is no excuse for just reverting text you don't agree with.

As for your claim that you are not someone's alternate account, your actions speak for themselves. -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is not about content dispute, but edit warring and disruptive behavior by a user who just recently registered. MiGR25 and Nug are trying to switch the topic to confuse others. -YMB29 (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:J.A.R. Huygebaert reported by User:Nihonjoe (Result: no action)

Page: Brandon Sanderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (there were some other edits made in addition to the reverting)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. hasn't made the fourth one yet, but I suspect it will only be a matter of a short time since he seems to think he owns the article (based on these comments: , , (in this one he benevolently deigns to allow some of the edits I've tried to make))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1, 2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Brandon Sanderson#Reorganized bibliography (there's a discussion happening, but mostly just him saying he won't allow anyone to change things, in so many words)

Comments:

He's also reintroducing wrong information as he's cherry-picking information to include. I had corrected the type of short work on various titles (short story, novelette, novella), and that's been undone as well. Caidh participated a little in trying to keep the updates and changes I made, but his edit was reverted, too (it's one of the diffs above). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see your point of "why you had to correct the type of short work". I know what a short story and novella is, and added those to the titles like it has to be. And is a novelette not the same as a novella? By the way, all your edits on the article are present, I think, no? I don't really see the reason for all this chaos. Add whatever you want, as is your right, but do it good. Misplaced Pages makes use of references for a reason, so why include lines of text in a bibliography on a book which will only be published in like... 5 years?--J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of what to include or not goes over on the article talk page, just to keep everything together. The only thing to be discussed here is your edit warring behavior. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr 04:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimjilin reported by User:Airborne84 (Result: )

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

Although Jimjilin appears to be engaging in edit warring now at the noted article, I'm less concerned about this article and more concerned about the pattern she/he has established. I'm requesting advice specifically about that. There is a lengthy record (going back about 2 1/2 years) of reports of edit warring and blocks from the same on Jimjilin's user page. If Jimjilin doesn't understand the policies regarding edit warring and 3RR at this point, no one does. Yet Jimjilin continues to engage in edit warring. Is there a longer-term solution for this? Perhaps a longer block with a request to review Misplaced Pages's policies and a stronger warning to cease future edit warring? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Airborne84: I saw the notice about this thread on Jimjilin's talk page when I went to leave a message about removing text based only on a dead link. Looking through the talk page/edit history (and recalling past interactions at satanic ritual abuse and elsewhere), the overwhelming number of POV edits and ensuing edit wars over a period of years -- most of which stop short of 3RR violations -- suggest a pattern that may be better addressed via WP:ANI. --— Rhododendrites \\ 21:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have listed it there and don't mind if an admin closes the thread here. Airborne84 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:212.200.65.244 reported by User:Shokatz (Result: Blocked)

Page: Serbs in Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:Serbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.200.65.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On 2nd article:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I've warned him several times in my edit summaries. Did not warn him on talk page until very recently where I made clear I will report him ->

Comments:
I came upon this user late last night. He is involved in edit war on several articles. I also strongly believe, looking from the edit history on several articles that this user has at least two registered accounts -> Lackope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mitrale89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He seems to think the fact that he logs in and out of his account makes him invisible. Shokatz (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Result: 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Stevenpanameno reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: 24h)

Page

List of Jessie episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"
2. 06:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"
3. 15:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"
4. 20:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on uer's talk page

• here

Comments:

User is repeatedly changing the colors in the series overview table of the TV episode list article, without discussing such changes on the article's talk page first; several other editors have warned the user on the user's talk page regarding this matter; I have also warned the user for separate issues in the same article, more than a week ago, but this user exhibits a pattern of disruptive editing. The user has also performed similar disruptive edits (color changes) at List of Austin & Ally episodes and List of Dog with a Blog episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As explained by MPFitz1968, the user has been changing colours without explanation or discussion at multiple pages. Despite the fact that he had been given a final warning for this, I noticed that nobody had actually discussed the problem with him, which is why I posted this to his talk page. However, he chose not to discuss the matter and again changed colours at List of Jessie episodes, several hours after my post. The change may seem minor, but the editor doesn't seem to want to collaborate, insisting on his, incorrect, change. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ушкуйник reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: 31h)

Page: Cossack Hetmanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Nikolai Gogol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC) "This is typical REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. See: Magocsi, Trudy Ring, ‎Noelle Watson, ‎Paul Schellinger, Boris Florya etc."
2. 23:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC) "It is an absurd, I bring you sources and arguments, you show me nothing. See Paul Robert Magocsi and stop this circus"
3. 01:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639112103 by Boguslavmandzyuk (talk)"
4. 15:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "You may not ignore reliable sources without any another reliable sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Nikolai Gogol. (TW)"
2. 23:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC) "/* December 2014 */"
3. 00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "/* December 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Russification */"
2. 05:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Russification */ ce - clarity of point"

Comments:

The editor has been edit warring on various articles related to Ukrainian subject matter and refuses to engage in discussion on the corresponding talk pages. While he has breached 3RR on two articles, this is a slow and determined edit war.

Where he does introduce sources, they are WP:CHERRY in order to shoehorn Russification of the subject-matter. Generic volumes without peer reviews and blatantly WP:BIASED sources are not WP:RS and the editor has been reverted by various other editors insisting that his sources must be refuted (which they have been). Further discussions and warning have been left by me on his talk page for some time. Despite my request that he take the discussions of content refactoring to the relevant talk page, the user continues to treat it as a personal dispute with me in ES and challenges on his own talk page, thereby not providing an opportunity for other editors to determine and comment on what is going on. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 04:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:DonaldKronos reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)

Page: Evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DonaldKronos (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: Talk:Evolution#Regarding_recent_changes

Comments:
User is displaying issues with WP:AGF and WP:OWN, taking the reversions far too personally, and not listening to any explanations for the reversions. DonaldKronos has responded hostilely calling the multiple users who reverted him vandals. New user that everyone has tried patiently to explain things, but he clearly has no interest in cooperation or collaboration. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:DonaldKronos does seem like a man on a mission. If he continues a block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How does one reason with an editor who describes reverting, with explanations, his (contentious) edits as "an attack on humanity"?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Three days. The editor is now trying to fork Evolution over to Biological evolution though he clearly lacks consensus. It seems that an indef block is possible if he continues to apply this level of zeal to putting his own unique stamp on heavily-trafficked and long-established articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Gowtham avg reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: )

Page

Chutti TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gowtham avg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639199101 by Davey2010 (talk)"
2. 14:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639190093 by Davey2010 (talk)"
3. 04:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639054499 by Davey2010 (talk)"
4. 14:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Chutti TV. (TW)"
2. 15:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I orginally reported the user roughly a month ago but had withdrawn as he stopped, Well once again he prefers to edit war over discussing, I've twice left (admittingly not the most perfect!) edit summaries as well as left him a message which fully explains the issue but instead of discussing the issue he prefers to edit war , Looking at his talkpage I'm not the only person to have had issues with his behaviour and to some extent it seems he has some WP:OWNERSHIP with the article.

The issue is I converted the entire programme list to 3 columns as well as delinked the redlinked programmes which he's reverted 3 times without any explanation, Thanks, –Davey2010 07:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:YourLogicalFallacy reported by User:George Ho (Result: )

Page

Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

18:24, 22 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 17:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 17:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 16:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 16:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Probably one IP editor is the same person who created this username, but I'm uncertain. George Ho (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This guy twice requested changes at the talk page. --George Ho (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Drover's Wife reported by User:BT80 (Result: )

Page

BT80 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The_Drovers_Wife is re-verting my edits using a BOT called TM BT80 (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:158.106.83.18 reported by User:MadGuy7023 (Result: )

Page

• Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• An American Tail: Fievel Goes West (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

(DWTS) (AAT:FGW)

Diffs of the user's reverts (newest to oldest)

9. 15:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639345215 by MadGuy7023 (talk)"
10. 15:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639343961 by MadGuy7023 (talk)"
11. 15:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639342938 by Callmemirela (talk)"
12. 14:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 639100886 by Msalmon (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19). (using TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

*none

Comments:

I previously reported this IP here, but they have now returned with another IP. They are edit warring on two pages, which I will include every proof. Reverts will continue until this IP is stopped somehow. Callmemirela (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

1. David Glantz, When Titans Clashed
2. Steven D Mercatante, Why Germany Nearly Won

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring