Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 01:09, 22 March 2016 (→User:Viggen reported by User:Ушкуйник (Result: Both warned): Closing. Comment on WP:ARBEE). 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:Ycplaer reported by User:TaoWoAini (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&oldid=710132874

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Tao has just been confirmed for a new movie, I added the information regarding the movie in the page.

1. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710330960&oldid=710132874

But YC deleted it because the director directed more than 30 TV shows. Which I understand but I only mentioned new Shanghai Bund because because it's the only thing pertinent to the movie being announced since it's the inspiration The game changer, The game changer is an adapation of the Bund/New Shanghai Bund. And the Gao Xixi directed New Shanghai bund. This editor also deleted all references pertaining to New Shanghai Bund and The bund which are related to this project. I find YCplaer's reason for deleting my edit uncalled for and confusing.

1. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710331219&oldid=710331042

This editor also said I used Twitter as a source but I didn't the original chinese source from Sina ent news was also added by me, the twitter reference is only an english translation of the Chinese original news source for the movie.

I put back my references modified my edit to make it shorter and more concise. I added more sources from english film news site, I explained the reasons for my edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710355695&oldid=710331511 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710444100&oldid=710376105

but YCplaer deleted all and added trivial fan information instead,without explanation.

1. 3https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710545945&oldid=710489277

I reverted my edit again and asked for a talk in the talk page so we could resolve our differences ,and also added back YCplaer's edit which I had deleted when I reverted my edit to show good faith https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710547553&oldid=710545945 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710550339&oldid=710550221

In the meanwhile an Admin Drmies made a lot of revisions on the page, I understand why, they were added by others and I didn't know they didn't belong on the page or not properly sourced. now I'm working on finding proper sources for the things that I think are still valid, the first edit I started with following the purge was Tao's first solo concert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710556081&oldid=710555486

However YCplaer reverted this edit too and all of Drmies revisions. YCplaer disregarded my request to talk and Drmies comments regarding why the some things were deleted and don't belong on the page including, Ycplaer's previous edit.

1. 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710568561&oldid=710556081

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ycplaer&oldid=710606549

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710573151&oldid=710573081

Comments:
I want to continue improving the page but I can't proceed due to YCplaer's actions. I think YCplaer is edit warring and being disruptive. TaoWoAini (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ycplaer just reverted again, reinstating 12k worth of YouTube links. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: Warned. Yclplaer may be blocked if they continue to make large changes at Tao (entertainer) while failing to engage in any discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Frankie edgar 32 and User:Platonic Love reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: One user blocked)

Page: Conor McGregor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frankie edgar 32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Platonic Love (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So bad that the last 50 edits on this page contain 1 edit that is not part of this edit war. When I first came across the controversial edit, I reverted it Frankie edgar added sources. I opened a discussion on the talkpage, to which neither party has added anything. Murry1975 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason I was constantly reverting Frankie edgar 32 is because he's a single purpose account vandalizing the page. The only purpose to the creation of his account is to add incorrect info on that article. If he was sincere, he would also edit the MMA record in José Aldo's article and the UFC 194 article as well. But ever since his account creation, all he's done is vandalize Conor McGregor's page with his inaccurate insincere bias. He's been reverted by many editors such as Murry1975, Stephenmusic, Alexander Gustafsson and myself multiple times but still persists in his single-purpose account vandalism. That's the reason I ignored the 3RR but since this has finally been reported, I will cease to make any reverts or edits engaging him on the page while an admin looks into this and hopefully permanently bans Frankie edgar 32. For the record, I also was unaware that Murry1975 had began a discussion on the talkpage as I was focused on preventing Frankie edgar 32's vandalism. I apologize for that. Platonic Love (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I would have expected you to find the article talk page, before making 31 reverts(by my count). --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think anyone started a discussion. And thanks for counting, I was trying to prevent Frankie edgar 32's vandalism. I just perused the talkpage right now and noticed that numerous editors agree with me that he's distorting the article such as Marz8ar, NerdNinja9 and InedibleHulk. I definitely should have checked the talkpage, but I thought Frankie edgar 32's single purpose account was such a clear case of vandalism that I simply opted to revert and hoped he'd get the picture without going through the necessary steps of reporting him and initiating that. But obviously, he won't get the picture unless he's permanently blocked for being a single-purpose vandalising account. Platonic Love (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

FE32 adds a source, but has just after being reported, as Kansas Bear puts it, found the talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This just proves how insincere Frankie edgar 32 (FE32) really is. This so-called source is a smoke-screen excuse to justify his vandalism of Conor McGregor's page. If he had an atom's worth of sincerity, he'd also "correct" José Aldo's page and UFC 194 article, yet the only article he's ever edited since creating his account is Conor McGregor. Several editors have responded to him at length explaining why his source is insufficient yet he's ignored them and continues to vandalise the page. The reason I know this is because I checked his talkpage and elsewhere to see whether anyone has discussed this with him, because if no one did, I would have initiated a discussion with him myself and made the same explanation to him. However after investigating and confirming that numerous editors already discussed and explained to him and asked him to stop, he simply refuses, that coupled with the fact he's a clear single-purpose account, led me to conclude he's simply a troll not worthy of initiating a discussion with beyond what others have already attempted and I didn't consider checking the talkpage of the article in question as I was satisfied and convinced after seeing his talkpage and the editor's talkpages who reverted him that he was absolutely a vandal and decided to constantly revert hoping he'd go away. Next time though, it'd be worthwhile to do what Murry1975 did and just report such cases and have an admin swiftly deal with it. Platonic Love (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I corrected Aldo's page now too. I hope that clears up the inconsistencies and resolved any issues you have. Frankie edgar 32 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: Frankie edgar 32 just reverted the article in question again. As I mentioned earlier, I have committed not to make any further reverts as this has now been reported despite my sincere view that this is blatant and clear vandalism and I anticipate will be soon be resolved with FE32 being indefinitely blocked. Again, the reason I felt justified constantly reverting him earlier was due to him being a clear case of a single-purpose account with malicious intent who refused to heed any warnings/reverts/genuine discussions initiated by multiple editors which I checked beforehand. Further evidence can clearly be seen by his troll-laced response above. However, I recognize it probably would have been better to report him earlier myself then to simply revert and hope he'd disappear. That definitely seems the better remedy and strategy I intend to employ when dealing with similar future cases. Platonic Love (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not mean to upset you, my friend. I am admittedly new to Misplaced Pages and only am trying to represent the truth! I apologize if my intention was misconstrued. I do not want to see your account compromised. I hope this misunderstanding can be cleared up swiftly and justly for all parties involved. Frankie edgar 32 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Nearly TEN different editors disagree with your version of the "truth" and have posted warnings on your talkpage, reverted you over a period of months and attempted to engage in genuine discussion with you all of which you've ignored as a single-purpose account with malicious intent to vandalize Conor McGregor's page without a single edit elsewhere beyond the one you claim to be true. You haven't upset me, please drop the act my friend and avoid creating another account once this one is indefinitely blocked. Platonic Love (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

My friend, a million people could disagree with me but the only opinion that matters is that of the NSAC. I apologize for saying I upset you when that is not the case. I should have said "I did not mean to come off as attempting to upset you". I don't think either of us should need a new account after all is said and done. I hope in time we can mend this rocky start to a (hopefully) long lasting friendship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie edgar 32 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The NSAC could have reported the win as being via "submission" which doesn't make it true and doesn't conform to reality which is basically what ten different editors have tried explaining to you. The only opinion that matters is reality and the NSAC is not infallible and have made mistakes before requiring correction which editors have also explained to you. If a scientific body/authority incorrectly wrote a typo saying the colour of the sun is purple and you attempted to edit an article concerning the sun saying the sun is purple and the only opinion that matters is that of the scientific authority who made the erroneous claim, do you think your "source" or reasoning would fly? That's exactly and essentially what you've been attempting to do here over a period of months after having it explained to you over and over. The only opinion that matters is fact, whether you like it or not buddy. Platonic Love (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

- Also, I'm not worried about the status of my account which has existed without incident since 2006 as I've pledged not to make any more reverts and maintained that pledge in addition to affirming my intent to deal in the future with similar problematic editors such as yourself by reporting them promptly. The same however can't be said for you as a single-purpose account who for months haven't heeded anyone's advice and even had the audacity to make further reverts after being reported, doubling-down on your inexcusable behaviour. Platonic Love (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think a more accurate comparison in this case would be if you were disappointed with a judges decision and brought it upon yourself to change a fighter record to how you personally scored the fight. I don't know what makes you think you have any authority to overrule the atheltic commission. My friend, I'm sorry, but you do not have the authority. Frankie edgar 32 (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears your capacity for thinking is severely compromised my friend as at no time did I insinuate any of the utter non-sense you just mentioned. This reminds me of various well-known quotes about reasoning or debating with an ignorant person. Attempting to alter reality to conform to your false desires is never a successful endeavour and thinking you have such authority is simply a delusion. Either abort your futile endeavour or seek help for your illness. Platonic Love (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Platonic Love is blocked 24 hours for making personal attacks at this noticeboard: "seek help for your illness." EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 11:27, 18 March 2016
2. Revision as of 11:39, 18 March 2016
3. Revision as of 17:27, 18 March 2016
4. Revision as of 18:11, 18 March 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 18:27, 18 March 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Revision as of 16:18, 18 March 2016 - "Just because it is in The New York Times, does not make it newsworthy for an encyclopedia article"
2. Revision as of 18:05, 18 March 2016 - "do not keep adding material under discussion into the article until the issue of your contributions is fully resolved here

Comments:

Note: this contributor claims that "repairing vandalism is exempt from 3rr." CZmarlin (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree this is a clear case of edit warring. HughD has been involved in two cases of 3RR since March 2nd relating to the Ford Pinto article. , . The Pinto article was locked due to HughD's edit warring. This is part of a pattern of problematic behavior that has resulted in both HughD's previous blocks as well as his current topic ban. Greglocock expressed frustration that locking the Pinto article would not solve the issue, "Nice try, but in 24 hours recently (1000 13 march-1000 14 march) HughD made 28 edits in article space and 29 in talk space, on this article about a 40 year old car. I see no sign that he is even attempting to modify his behavior"]. It certainly appears that he was correct. I would ask for an automotive article topic ban. Springee (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• HughD's edit warring has continued. Despite an active discussion regarding the validity of the material HughD wishes to add to the article the editor has continued adding the material to the article rather than engaging in talk page discussions . The editor has also added the material to the article lead . I think any reasonable editor would see that material who's notability in the body of an article is questioned by several editors certainly does not belong in the lead.

In a related ANI admin Ricky81682 also noted HughD's recent disruptive editing. Springee (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Would an admin please review this case. HughD revenge tagged the Chrysler article. A talk page consensus did not support the claim of NPOV so the tag was removed. HughD quickly restored the tag even though he is the only editor who claims there is a NPOV issue with the article. HughD is continuing his edit warring on both the Chrysler page and the Ford Pinto article.

Section blanking of "Recalls" subsection at article Chrysler

During article improvement, the section was vandalized repeatedly by persistent section blanking, resulting in edit conflicts. Summary:

• 13 November 2014 A humble yet serviceable first draft of a "Recalls" subsection was added by STJMLCC and a few days later adequately if not artfully sourced by collaborator Thundermaker.
• 14 March 2016 First section blanking Springee; undiscussed.
• 10:13, 18 March 2016 Improve sourcing. Added multiple, well-formatted, additional mainstream media reliable source references.
• 10:15, 18 March 2016 Second section blanking Springee, 2 minutes later; again undiscussed. References deleted included The Washington Post, USA Today, and Bloomberg Businessweek; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed.
• 10:27, 18 March 2016 Undo section blanking. 1RR.
• 10:31, 18 March 2016 Third section blanking Springee, 4 minutes later; again undiscussed. Again references deleted included The Washington Post, USA Today, and Bloomberg Businessweek; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed; section blanking while colleague is actively editing results in an edit conflict
• 10:37, 18 March 2016 After section blanking 3 times in 4 days, Springee posts at article talk claiming content is "non-notable"
• 10:39, 18 March 2016 Further improve sourcing; add well-formatted citation to the The New York Times
• 15:32, 18 March 2016 Having section blanked 3 times in 4 days, and having an open behavioral report at WP:ANI, Springee solicits the complainant CZmarlin to continue at Talk:Chrysler: "If you would like to remove the brake booster per talk page consensus I would appreciate it (I've removed it twice today which is once too many)"
• 15:46, 18 March 2016 Fourth section blanking complainant CZmarlin; References deleted included The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Bloomberg Businessweek, and the International Business Times; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed; section blanking while colleague is actively editing results in an edit conflict
• 17:08, 18 March 2016 Fifth section blanking complainant CZmarlin; References deleted included The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Bloomberg Businessweek, the International Business Times, and Fortune magazine; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed; section blanking included an {{in use|section}} section hat template; section blanking while colleague is actively editing results in an another edit conflict
• 19 March 2016 Sixth and seventh section blankings Springee; section blanking includes the "Recall" and "Reception" sections; 4th and 5th section blankings in 5 days by Springee; Noteworthy reliable source references deleted included The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Bloomberg Businessweek, and the International Business Times, Reuters, the Associated Press, the Detroit Free Press, CBS News, BBC News, and CNN; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed.

Respectfully request consideration of this tendentious tag team section blanking behavior. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

All of my edits were good faith improvements to the article; all my edits involved collaborative improvements, including broadened sourcing to address expressed concerns of noteworthiness (except for the second section blanking, when collaborative improvement was immediately precluded by the rapidity of the third section blanking).

1. restore section after second section blanking; third section blanking came so quickly incremental improvement was not possible;
2. add references to The Washington Post, USA Today, and Bloomberg Businessweek to address expressed concerns regarding noteworthiness
3. edit conflict; add references to The New York Times, the International Business Times, the Detroit Free Press, Fortune (magazine), CNN, the Associated Press to address concerns of noteworthiness
4. edit conflict; add relevant excerpt from noteworthy source

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than your usual shotgun posts you need to explain why each of the edits CZMarlin diffed were acceptable. Random examples where you may have been right are not the issue. Not that i'm saying you were right. Greglocock (talk)

HughD's claims of section blanking are just more edit warring. Most of the above revolves around which automotive recalls are significant enough for inclusion on the main article of a car company. I think we all agree that something like the Toyota unintended acceleration recall is notable but a recall to fix something relatively minor, even if it affects many cars, is not. This was discussed on the automotive project page with strong consensus that only the most significant recalls would be included. HughD, likely as a form of edit warring with me, followed me to this page and reverted an edit of mine (his first "blanking" claim). My edit on the 14th was removing a 2 sentence paragraph discussing an recall that was not significant enough for inclusion. Since the two sentences were the contents of the entire section I removed the section as well. When the Pinto page was locked HughD looked at another one of my recent edits and decided to revert it. Adding more sources that reported it doesn't make it notable given the article covers a nearly 100 year old company. Per typical HughD pattern (see his block long) discussion and consensus building were bypassed in favor of rapid fire edits. I did not specifically solicit CZmarlin. HughD questioned my reading of the Recall Notability talk page discussion (linked above). I pinged all the involved editors for their opinions. CZmarlin was one of those editors. Two of the involved editors have replied thus far. If HughD feels he is in the right and the material should be included then use non-edit warring means. Certainly ignoring the concerns of now three editors and continuing to add questionable material is not the correct solution. Springee (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:HughD is disingenuous in describing the issue with the edits in question. The major problem is that the material HughD is contributing to the Chrysler article consists of a collection of referenced material that violates the WP:NOTNEWS guideline. As other editors have discussed on the Chrysler talk page, these recalls are not notable for inclusion in an article outlining the history, operations, and products of this almost 100 year-old firm. In short, there is WP:UNDUE emphasis for these recalls by Chrysler, and the entire "recall" as well as "reception" sections are presented in a way that violates WP:IMPARTIAL guidelines. Moreover, there is no basis of HughD claiming that other contributors had violated the 3RR rule, with the exception of HughD's own reverts on March 18. It is also noteworthy that HughD has redacted the numerous notices regarding their disruptive editing from the talk page (see here) on March 19. Thank you CZmarlin (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Second the above. It's telling that HughD doesn't have supporters on the various automotive pages he has edited recently. Springee (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple users reported by User:Cnbrb (Result: Malformed)

Page: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Multiple users

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: too many users involved to realistically do this.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Someone inserted a table of information into the Accolades section. Some editors want it removed, some want to retain it. An invitation to discuss on the Talk page resulted in some argument and the edit war is continuing regardless. I myself am not involved in the edit war, but attempted to encourage discussion. A bit of a storm in a teapot really, but it would be nice if someone could put a stop to it. Thanks.

Cnbrb (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Malformed. Not in the usual form for an edit warring report, and you have not notified anyone that you made a report. Consider refiling if you think one or more specific people ought to be sanctioned. You could help by improving the talk page discussion. For instance, you could post a summary of the views at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#Accolades table. It is hard for an outsider to tell who is favoring what option, and thus if there is any consensus. You could also open a formal WP:RFC which will bring in more opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• It is also hard for an insider to tell who is favouring what opinion too - which makes it difficult to single out any user as an antagonist and report them. I don't know what you mean by malformed - I filled in all the required links, so what is the usual form for an edit warring report? As for alerting users, this policy page quite clearly states "A warning is not required" - has the policy now changed? Cnbrb (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Policy remains the same. You have misinterpreted it. It says in big red letters at the top of this page that you must inform those you are reporting to this board. The not required phrase you note above refers to warnings placed on the alleged edit warrer's talk pages. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite get this. The bit in big red letters at the top - does that mean I must place a warning on the article talk page? But I am not required to post a warning on the users' talk pages? I've not used this system before and it's a bit confusing. Thanks.Cnbrb (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

An edit warring report has to be about one or more specific people who you consider to be edit warring. Then you notify them and give them a chance to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:AnonymousUsernamexoxo reported by User:SPACKlick (Result: No action)

Page: Rebecca Jane Brown (vlogger) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AnonymousUsernamexoxo (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 freely admit, this is such an obviously bad inclusion on the page that I broke 3rr before attempting to engage in discussion. This account has only ever made edits to add this one link to this page. It seems pretty clearly disruptive editing on a BLP. Wasn't sure where best to take it. SPACKlick (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action. This brand new user broke WP:3RR but may be trying to cooperate now, per what they wrote on the article Talk. Let us know If the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Lawstudent2016 reported by User:James Allison (Result: Both warned)

Page: University of California, Irvine School of Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lawstudent2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2
2. 3
3. 4
4. 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 6

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 7, 8

Comments:

James Allison, you are engaged in edit warring as well. This is a consequence of you repeatedly deleting updated information I incorporate in the UCI Law school page.

As I mentioned on the talk page, the information is outdated. People use Misplaced Pages to learn more about a certain school, how are they supposed to lean more if you have info from 2011? The rankings, employment information, faculty/student count, etc are all old. Also isn't the whole point of being able to edit wikipedia pages to improve them? I haven't deleted anything. I have just added new information.

The edits are as follow: UCI Law does not have 200-something students and 20-something faculty. This info is from 2011. The current number stands at 338 and 81, respectively. Sisk's faculty rankings have been updated in September 2015. The page needs to reflect that. The newest US News rankings have been released. UCI moved up 2 places, this needs to be stated in the page. It has also been ranked in other areas, again, this needs to be stated. UCI's placement in federal clerkships has been updated too. The data was released last year. Employment data is again, unsurprisingly, outdated. It reflects 2013 info, when the 2014 info has long been released.

If you see something that is not accurate, like a citation issue, please let me know and I'll fix it. But, please don't delete the entire updated sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstudent2016 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawstudent2016 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to reply by adding a section. Just click edit section. -- The Voidwalker 21:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to collaboratively discuss improvements to the article. However, as I stated on the talk page, once another user has objected to your edits by reverting them, the appropriate course of action is to initiate good faith discussion on the talk page to gain a consensus, not engage in edit warring and accuse other editors of "trolling". Given your repeated insistence on restoring the article to your favored version, even while engaging in discussion, I am not sure you understand that. Regards, James(/_contribs) 22:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Lawstudent2016 and User:James Allison are both warned. Though User:Lawstudent2016 seems impatient to make his updates at all costs, no good rationale has been provided on Talk as to what is wrong with his changes. If we just count reverts, there would be a case for blocking both parties. Please try to have a better quality of discussion before asking for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Opdire657 reported by User:Zoupan (Result: Both warned)

Page: Partition of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Opdire657 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

The user's first edit included changing a category and cn-tagging a WP:BLUE. All references used in the article obviously treat the article subject. The user's category is faulty as the war is ongoing and the idea (or scenario) of partition is clearly not a factual consequence. I then reverted, was reverted (with the comment "Unnecessary"), and then he added a ref to the same sentence he had earlier tagged (?) and removed an important referenced fact ("which was dismissed by the Syrian government"). I then moved his citation to external links (instead of having the other already existing references added to that same sentence, again, WP:BLUE), and returned the removed fact, and explained: "No. Unecessary is tagging a sentence and removing another. The war is ongoing, and the partition is not a factual consequence." He reverts again, I warn him, revert (again noting WP:BLUE), and was then reverted and report-warned. The user has some recent edit warring going on, as made clear by the Admin warnings seen at his talk page.--Zoupan 23:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The user counter-reported me. I will answer to his report here, as to avoid branching. @Opdire657: There is a difference between improvements and adding templates questioning claims. You never explained how the lead sentence is questionable. You falsely accused me of "removing sources", which is not an attempt to resolve a dispute. I don't see how the loss of title and year of a citation (a result of reverting) have anything to do with the problem, which is edit warring. You did indeed remove a sentence. de jure partition, which is the article subject, does not exist. The idea or scenario of partition (again, article subject) cannot be a factual consequence. I moved the source added by you, which treats exactly the same as the other five sources present (added by me earlier), to the external links, as to avoid ref-bombing the first (lead) sentence (WP:BLUE).--Zoupan 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. You've both violated the WP:1RR restriction on an article related to the Syrian Civil War, and both parties could be blocked. To avoid any future misunderstandings, I'm adding {{Syrian Civil War sanctions}} to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Zoupan reported by User:Opdire657 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Partition of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zoupan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This article touch a case that emerged recently in the midst of the civil war taking place in Syria and is part of the consequences of the war not part of the war itself. The user reverted my edits with an edit summary "have you read any of the references?". In his first revert, he removed the title and the date of a source I had filled in. Secondly, he added to he last sentence "which was dismissed by the Syrian government" and readded the title of the source but not the date. Instead he replaced it with year without any explanation. Thirdly he used a edit summary as "No. Unecessary is tagging a sentence and removing another. The war is ongoing, and the partition is not a factual consequence", however I didn't delete any sentence and the partition exists in Syria since at least 2013. He also moved the first source to the external links section without any explanation. It is clear that this user have been engaged in many edit wars in the last period.--Opdire657 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zoupan: Many of your claims above is untrue, I improved the article with providing at least two new references. Maybe I did a fault with marking the first sentence with (citation needed) but you could have cooperated instead of reverting everything. I started a discussion to resolve the conflict, however you did not continue in the talk and filed a complaint against me. This was not good faith at all. The replacement of date and title with year is pointless. Where did I remove any sentence as you are falsely claiming?--Opdire657 (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned for 1RR violation on an article under WP:GS/SCW per an earlier report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SiddharthSunny reported by User:Omni Flames (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: Islam and Sikhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Guru Arjan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SiddharthSunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past 24 hours, User:SiddharthSunny has broken 3RR on two different pages.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User:SiddharthSunny re-added content removed by User:Ms Sarah Welch on Islam and Sikhism . They began reverting each others edits, and the same thing then started Guru Arjan. User:Ms Sarah Welch attempted to resolve the issue on both talk pages . However, User:SiddharthSunny reverted her edits again, stating that she had been "proven wrong", despite a lack of consensus on the Talk page . When User:Ms Sarah Welch reverted the edits, he immediately re-reverted the edits, telling her to "stay within the rules" and "stop edit warring" . When it was once again reverted due to a 3RR violation , he said that User:Ms Sarah Welch "should be reported" and then subsequently reported her to WP:ANI . He then went on to claim that her edits to Guru Arjan were unsourced , despite the fact that a source was clearly cited in the edit . When I reverted it because of this reason , he immediately changed it back , telling me to "try to read" it. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 03:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Ian.thomson (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Scott Illini reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: )

Page

Number of guns per capita by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Scott Illini (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

1. 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User ScottIllini deleted a very well sourced statement for the third time despite my request to discuss it on the talk page. ZH8000 (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:MBlaze Lightning reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: )

Page

Kashmir conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MBlaze Lightning (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 09:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC) to 09:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 09:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Reasons behind the dispute */ added back info and URL"
   2. 09:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Indian administered Kashmir */correction."
2. 09:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "It's not about the Pakistan stance and page number! Junagadh ruler wanted an independent status, beside I'm unable to find your source in Google, provide an URL atleast"
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC) to 08:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 07:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 1999 Conflict in Kargil */ sourced content added"
   2. 08:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Indian administered Kashmir */Reverted edits by TalhaZubairButt. Case of source mispresentation. Where is the URL? And, Kashmir Media Service is no Human Right organisation. It has its roots in the neighbouring country"
   3. 08:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "reverted edits by TalhaZubairButt (talk) Apparent case of source mispresentation. please provide URL and discuss on talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has been reminded of 3PR, Discretionary Sanctions etc on his TP and still continues to engage in this long drawn out edit war. He is targeting multiple pages with his disruptive warring, this is the first of them. Other pages under attack include

1. Indian Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Pakistan Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I never violated 3RR. And FreeatlastChitchat should stop labelling other's contributions as disruption, while it's he itself who is reverting other users across multiple articles and simply labelling them disrupton and refusing to discuss at talk! I never went beyond 2RR, let me show some evidence.

• Kashmir Conflict; In my first edit, i only added sourced content can be seen here

Second edit; Because of the absence of URL in the refrence provided by the other user, it seem to me an apparent case of source mispresentation. Third edit; Reason i provided in my edit summary. I discussed the matter at talk page can be seen here While, in my next edit, i only added the info back per talk page discussion can be seen here.

I request the administrator to please look out the Edit History of the pages (Indian Army, Pakistan Army, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965) FreeatlastChitchat mentioned and their respective talk pages! I never violated 3RR nor went even close to it, I was involve in the discussion of talk pages of almost all of the articles FreeatlastChitchat mentioned. Here on my talk page, FreeatlastChitchat accused me of violating 3RR (Can be seen here) on Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War While i never went beyond 2RR and i think, he is pretty much confused b/w 2RR and 3RR. While his own talk page is filled with 3RR warning and he has been blocked by the administrator atleast 3 times to date for Edit Warring, Non-Civil behaviour while dealing with other editors and POV pushing across multiple articles. Admins are requested to see the edit history of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 here. FreeatlastChitchat refused to discuss at talk page while he blatantly reverted other editors twice continously + 1 non-revert edit. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning you seem to be warring for like a week now. Your attempts to say that you did not violate 3PR should have been made if you were reported on day one. However you have been given a long, long length of rope and have hung yourself. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest administrative action against nominator: FreeatlastChitchat is probably one of the most disruptive editors I've ever seen. Checking his block log , talk page and a quick search will show what I mean. Recently, he was verified to be guilty of violating WP:3RR. On several occasions he has shown zero tendency to participate in talk pages. In this case, I see that he's committed another edit war by reverting three times (, and ) with zero participation in the talk page. Admins please note that he had been warned many times by admins and other users and also note that he had been unblocked by Slakr provided that he keeps self adhere to 1RR. I think he have been given a long, long length of rope and have hung himself. Mhhossein (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein Don't fret my friends I will be online on wiki to remove your POV edits no matter how much you try to get me blocked. I think you have this text in a notepad file and just copy paste it everywhere right? Btw how did you arrive at this page if you are not following my edits? :P Just asking, not blaming you for following my edits of course, I think it is kinda flattering that you take time out to see my contributions list, ty for that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I want you Online on wiki but when you are polite and constructive enough. How I arrived here is not important at all and don't twist the subject please. In fact, you are expected to explain why you think you had not edit warred. Mhhossein (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment

For me also, FreeatlastChitchat is probably one of the most disruptive editor I've ever seen to date. He follow other users edit in order to demoralise them and repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. His apparent aim is just to create irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. He is following my edits since for many days, his behaviour is non-civil when dealing with other editors. For no reason, he repeatedly reverts my contributions just to get me involve in an edit war (I've always avoid an edit war) so that he can appeal here to get me block. I am a pending changes reviewer and thus i frequently patrol pages! FLCC follows my every edit and often reverts it. For example: this, this and this also. In the name of removing POV sentences, he blanks out sections of articles just to suit his own POV. Let me show few examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He follow my edits and not only revert me but also, he blanks entire sections this, and yet again in the name of POV, he blanked out entire section, full history can be seen here and when he saw himself near 3RR, he simply removed most of the sources and relevant info just to suit his own point of view (can be seen here). He also, violated 3RR yesterday on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 can be seen (here) First, Second and third, he also refused to discuss on talk page and kept reverting other editors. From past many days, he is persistently blanking out contents and reverting other users across multiple articles and refusing to discuss on talk. For ex: this a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Again, in the name of removing irrelevant and POV sentences, he blanked out most of the relevant info and sources, can be seen here. This user deserves a long period or an indefinite block from Misplaced Pages.

• Admins please note that He had been warned many times by different users/and admins. His talk page is filled with such 3RR warnings and blocks. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 19:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:TalhaZubairButt reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: Page protected)

Page

Pakistan Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710916278 by MBlaze Lightning (talk)Come on Talk."
2. 22:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC) "There seems 2 be more sourced info abt Pak army on other pages, hence I have collected here sourced info from other pages abt the military involvement in Bosnia, Palestine and Afghanistan. Info agreed upon in other articles on '71 war has also been added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Long drawn out edit warring on multiple pages. Please see the report given above(that of Mblaze) for other targets. These two seem to be going at it like bulls in a china shop FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: I am simply trying to make good sourced edits and @MBlaze Lightning often changes it back to before because he disagrees, often he wants his own POV pushed.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@TalhaZubairButt Mblaze is going to be blocked soon enough for his disruptions, but that does not mean we should start warring to prevent warring. Admins and others users (like me) routinely patrol these pages and keep an eye out for guys like him, so to be frank there is just no reason to start a war against these guys. They get their comeuppance in the end, no need to get involved in edit warring with them. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Okay, thanks. I felt as if I was being stalked. TalhaZubairButt (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Katie 16:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz reported by User:VQuakr (Result: )

Page

Oath Keepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710959074 by MrX (talk) Add more sources for wording in question, fix one word - "discredited" is more neutral than "scam.""
2. 02:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710823375 by VQuakr (talk) It's a valid news source."
3. 03:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "undo well meaning but inappropriate removal of sourced material to a WP:NPOV source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Warned here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "/* NPOV */ ?"
2. 03:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Scare quotes */ re"

Comments:

After breaking 3RR on March 16/17, they are back at it again. No technical violation of 3RR this time, but pretty clear pattern of edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

FIRST: the claim of "breaking 3RR" is false. SECOND, this appears to be just harassment tactics by VQuakr. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Notified here. VQuakr (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:FilmandTVFan28 reported by User:Dcasey98 (Result: OP blocked one week)

Page: List_of_children's_films#2000s 
User being reported: FilmandTVFan28 (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:

Throughout the past week, I've made some simple edits to the page and been repeatedly shut down, edit-warred with, blocked, and ignored. This particular page has a set criteria of rules that the films on the list need to meet in order for them to be put on the children's film list (found at the top of the page,) and FilmandTVFan28 and user Betty Logan consistently violate them. They utilize a third party source, Allmovies, and consistently put the Harry Potter franchise on the list, which don't meet the criteria established by earlier users and administrators of the page, that all films must be G or PG rated and marketed exclusively to children. Harry Potter meets none of those. After being blocked for deleting them from the list (they've been rightfully deleted from the list by a previous user since last summer,) I was blocked. I tried to play by Betty's game when I was un-blocked, and utilized citations for my additions to the page and they've been repeatedly deleted, not to mention I've been mildly harassed over user talk pages, even when trying to negotiate peacefully Dcasey98 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Dcasey98Dcasey98 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC).

• Note to admin: Before taking action on this report please read mine first at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dcasey98_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Dcasey98: First off, read WP:OWN. And if multiple editors are reverting you, you are probably editing against consensus (if all the traffic is heading toward you, you are probably in the wrong lane). Also, blocks don't happen without a reason...

Your reverts include 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. FilmandTVFan28's reverts include 1, 2, and 3.

He is not edit warring, you are. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

They were all recruited by Betty Logan, who loved unprofessional sources, to block me, for no other reason are they involved in this disputed. FilmandTVFan28 has edit warred 7 times in total.

The films don't belong on that list. READ THE CRITERIA! They're the only PG-13, YA-adapted films on there! It makes no sense, regardless of the sources they use! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcasey98 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Those also are not revisions. They're editions, and no one but FilmandTVFan28 has been reverting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcasey98 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 week If he's "reverted" seven times, you've "reverted" somewhere between 20 to 30 times. You can't pretend that manually re-adding the same material is not a revert while simultaneously accusing every single edit by FilmandTVFan28 of being a revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dcasey98 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Indefinite block)

Page: List of children's films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcasey98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am not sure if this is the correct place for this report since the disruption at the article goes far beyond edit-warring. I will go through the problem chronologically since it is porbbaly simpler to start at the beginning.

Previous case

• Case 1: The problem originally started with Dcasey98 repeatedly removing sourced content from the article (namely the Harry Potter films) on the basis that he personally disagrees with the sources. The specifics are outlined at the article talk page. He was subsequently blocked from the article for edit-warring. It would be best if the admin who takes up this case acquaints themselves with the oirginal case at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive310#User:Dcasey98_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_Blocked_31_hours.29.

• Sockpuppetry: This block was subsequently extended after he started edit-warring at the article using a sockpuppet (Bellatrix2017).

This case

• Case 2: After his block expired he has resumed edit-warring and disrupting the article by making a sequence of WP:POINTy edits, that are either unsourced, poorly sourced, or well sourced but not strictly corroborated by the source:

Subsequent reverts:

• Resumption of original edit-war. In addition to the POINTy edits, Dcasey has resumed the original edit-war by removing the Harry Potter films once again (note one of the sources which he doesn't regard as credible is an academic source by a professor who did his PhD on children's films):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• First discussion about "Harry Potter" on article talk page:
• Second discussion about pointy edits:

Comments:

In addition to the edit-warring, there has been other disruptive behavior. Dcasey98 filed a false vandalism report against FilmandTVFan28 (see ) and has indicated his intent to ignore Misplaced Pages policies with the comment "SOURCES DO NOT MATTER IF THE FILMS DO NOT REACH THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS" (see (). By my count, over the last four days he has reverted three editors (myself, FilmandTVFan28, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and a cluebot) a total of fifteen times. Betty Logan (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Left a note instead of a template on his page explaining why in detail. I've also restored what appears to be the pre-disruption version and am watching the page. If he resumes edit warring after the block or tries sockpuppetry again and someone else doesn't get to him first, I will probably indef him. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks ok now. Thanks for restoring a "good" version, I didn't really want to do it myself in case it was seen as perpetuating an edit-war. Betty Logan (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Scratch that, indef block now for this attempt at sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710985013 by Ghatus (talk)Giving links is "not required" as per wikipedia policy."
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 06:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710978646 by MBlaze Lightning (talk) then simply remove the image. Here I'll show u how"
   2. 06:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Ceasefire */ removing extra image due to concerns. I do not share the said concerns but am simply not ready to engage in dispute."
3. 05:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 710584091 by TripWire (talk): Just when did Guardian become an unacceptable source? (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent Edit Warring and disrupting editing across multiple Articles from past few days. Recent Violation of 3RR by the User on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and refusing to discuss at talk page, despite been warned enough times (can be seen on his TP here)! Please see this. Non-Civil behavior while dealing with other users. The user deserve a long period ban. The user has been blocked by the administrators previously at least 3 times for the same reason (can be seen here) i.e., Edit warring, Content blanking, POV-Pushing, and Non-Civil behavior. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: User is currently under investigation at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TripWire- MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Knee Jerk Reaction

@MBlaze Lightning feel free to open up as many reports as you wish. With your upcoming block we will have some fresh air and perhaps you too will return as a better editor. Removing sourced content/blanking and then claiming that "it is not available to me online, so it must be false" is an age old vandal trick used by disruptive users since the inception of wikipedia and it is undone with prejudice. Misplaced Pages allows reliable sources that are offline. And an news article written in the Guardian newspaper is mighty reliable. So feel free to read up on WP:RS and please stop your disruption. As for the claim that I am being "investigated" as a sock, well one of two things is going on. Either Mblaze is lying, yes I mean he is just making up stuff and thinking, "What the heck, let me just lie about this stuff too, these guys will fall for it", OR there is an invisible SPI going on which I have not been invited to and only Mblaze known about it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Both editors involved are as bad as one another. I've seen FLCC on numerous administrator noticeboards and I'd like to think I'm not the only one who thinks that this needs drawing to a close. This immature edit warring, violating the 3RR and counter-filing reports simply goes to show how awfully pathetic this is. It is unbelievable that these editors think the community should be wasting any of its time on them. I am therefore proposing blocks on both sides per WP:BOOMERANG, perhaps an indef for FLCC as their name has come up one too many times on these noticeboards for my liking (and I'm sure most editors on here are in agreement with me). Absolutely unbelievable. --Ches (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: my humble request to you, to please investigate the entire case carefully, I have never violated any Misplaced Pages policy nor my name has ever came on the noticeboard (Except this one-today even tho I didn't violated 3RR). Thank You MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning - the part about somebody's name constantly appearing on AN was directed at FLCC. Furthermore, you have violated Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring - one need not violate 3RR to be blocked for edit warring. --Ches (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555 FLCC? Sorry, didn't get you!? And I am innocent here in this case, I had always discussed the matter at talk page with other editors whenever I have found myself in dispute and had never went beyond 2RR (2RR- that too just 2 times, I guess) to date, please do have a look at my contributions, I had always contributed in a good faith to wiki to date and will continue to do so and that is why I have been granted the reviewer rights! So I believe, I should be exempt from the apparent upcoming block and should be given a last and only chance even if I had violated Edit Warring? Please!? Thank You. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning - for the record, FLCC = FreeatlastChitchat. Neither of you are innocent, you are both edit-warring. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555 My contributions are decent enough to prove my Innocency. I had always contributed in a good-faith manner and had been never accused of vandalism/Edit-Warring/Sock-Puppetry/etc to date (Edit Warring- Except this one). Contrary to FreeatlastChitchat, I had never been block, nor had been accused of disrupting editing to date. The report filled by FreeatlastChitchat is also based on 2RR as I had not violated 3RR, furthermore, you are requested to visit talk pages of the respected articles, FreeatlastChitchat mentioned, I had always discussed the dispute on almost all of those article's talk pages. This should be seen as WP:BRD. So, yes I'm innocent in this case! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning - sorry, no such thing as a "correct" or "innocent" party in edit-warring. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, you are both in the wrong. I am now going to defer this to an administrator, and I therefore kindly ask that you refrain from pinging me. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. There is no 3RR violation here but there is a multi-party edit war. Hopefully a 1RR restriction won't be required once protection expires. Katie 17:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:86.139.178.202 reported by User:IJBall (Result: )

Page: List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.139.178.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: this (and earlier this)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this (sort of - but see most recent Talk page topic)

Comments:

Not technically "3RR" but persistently edit warring over the last month to replace scrupulously sourced content with earlier version that was almost entirely unsourced (and contained many list entries that were out-of-scope). Attempts at warning this IP have come to naught. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Have notified IP of this entry on the noticeboard, as that is one of the requirements of filing the report. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Was meaning to do that last, but got distracted... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

User:Ahunt reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Article protected)

Page

Metrojet Flight 9268 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted, the consensus at Talk:Metrojet_Flight_9268#Why_does_this_still_say_cause_uncertain.3F is to not change this now. You need a consensus there first"
2. 16:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "reverted, see the talk page"

(This is a 1RR SCW&ISIL DS article.)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Metrojet Flight 9268. (TW)"
2. 17:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* March 2016 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Discussion over - it was a terrorist attack */ new section"
2. 17:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Discussion over - it was a terrorist attack */"
3. 17:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Discussion over - it was a terrorist attack */"

Comments:

Ahunt has already reverted 4 different editors by inserting the same "under investigation" text, breaching 1RR with the last revert. I've tried to discuss on his talk page but he refuses to relent and accused me of edit warring instead. I'm fine with a warning, since this appears to be an otherwise productive editor. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected I have protected the article for the moment, Ahunt is just one of many editors applying the current consensus on the term to be used in the infobox, clearly Legacypac doesnt agree so continues to be disruptive against the consensus, not sure "Discussion over" use my version is a constructive disccussion method. That said it is better if discussion continues on the talk page throwing warnings around will not help. But all editors should note the 1RR restrictions on this article MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Penguin888 reported by User:Amortias (Result: Both warned)

Page

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Penguin888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Both User:Jwebbs913 and User:Penguin888 warned at their talks. Both advised to use article talk and not modify article until consensus is reached. Both complying at the moment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jwebbs913 reported by User:Amortias (Result: Both warned)

Page

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jwebbs913 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "give me an official Misplaced Pages policy on verified, but unaired, spoilers please."
2. 21:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711097362 by Penguin888 (talk)
3. 21:49, 20 march 2016 (UTC) "hmu w/ a link then. Misplaced Pages:spoiler says that broadcast delay cannot be used as a reason for omitting verifiable information"
4. 21:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "(i'm waiting for you to show in the official Misplaced Pages policies that spoilers from unaired episodes cannot be added."
5. 21:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "show me the official Misplaced Pages policy on unaired spoilers. the project on spoilers said that broadcast delays cannot be used as a reason for exclusion of verifiable information. cite your sources please"
6. 21:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "show me the official Misplaced Pages policy on unaired spoilers. the project on spoilers said that broadcast delays cannot be used as a reason for exclusion of verifiable information. cite your sources please"
7. 21:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)"screencaps of episode events here: http://imgur.com/a/VBnsR; your's is vandalism at this point"
8. 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
9. 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
10. 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 711094918 by Penguin888 (talk)"
11. 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "not even gonna try to give a reason? work fish"
12. 21:31, 20 march 2016 (UTC) "show me the official Misplaced Pages policy on unaired spoilers. what i've read said that as long as it's verifiable (see entire screencapped episode here: http://imgur.com/a/VBnsR), then it's fair game"

After partial discussion:

1. 23:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "we've established that spoilers are a-ok in the talk page."
2. 23:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "formatting i suck at sometime (s) // talk page says that spoilers are ok"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Both User:Jwebbs913 and User:Penguin888 warned at their talks. Both advised to use article talk and not modify article until consensus is reached. Both complying at the moment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:85.229.164.17 reported by User:Nyuszika7H (Result: )

Page

• Violetta (telenovela) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Violetta characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Main cast */"
2. 08:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP won't give up, continuing to add unnecessary nicknames to both Violetta (telenovela) and List of Violetta characters, and cleverly trying to avoid sanctions by waiting a month or more between the edits. Before you say they haven't been warned recently, I'm not even sure what warning to give anymore but it seems clearly the same user based on WP:DUCK and they've had a lot of chances to discuss it already but refuse to cooperate. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Viggen reported by User:Ушкуйник (Result: Both warned)

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

• Dear collegues, I would be glad to hear your opinion about the situation in the article about Soviet military aviator Ivan Kozhedub. According to the rules of Wikiperia I tried to explain User:Viggen that Kozhedub's birthplace is Ukrainian SSR, which existed from 1919 till 1991. According to Viggen's logic there is no any matter that Kozhedub's place of birth de facto was Ukrainian SSR because it was not recognized at this period by major of countries. From that reason Viggen tried to describe Ukrainian People's Republic (existed from 1918 till 1921) as Kozhedub's place of birth, although already in 1920 this political creation didn't controled the territory of Kozhedub's place of birth.

• User:HOBOPOCC (see: ) and I tried to explain Viggen the fact that Kozhedub's place of birth is Ukrainian SSR. User:Alex Bakharev has also written: "The legitimacy of UkSSR is hardly less than the legitimacy of the Ukraine People Republic (well, UkSSR had lately a seat in UN). Thus, no reason to change UkSSR to UPR." (See here: ). But even after that Viggen disregards historical facts and systematically tries to proclame Ukrainian People's Republic as Kozhedub's place of birth, which it couldn't be.

• At least six times or even more times he reverted the information about Kozhedub's place of birth on the page about Ivan Kozhedub. See diffs of the user's reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. According to WP:3RR and arguments on the talk page about Kozhedub I suggest, that Viggen should be blocked from editing of the article about Kozhedub. Ушкуйник (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that the issue should be decided by Administrators ASAP as Ушкуйник totally ignored the basic rules of wikipedia regarding to the place of birth. Please check the arguments on the Talk page. I think that WP:3RR is directly applicable to Ушкуйник's actions, but not to me as I reverted the actions which could be regarded as vandalism. Furthermore, please check the input of Ушкуйник and you will see that all his activities are dedicated to convert Ukrainian people (even most prominent) into Russians. Please also check his talk page - it was discussed many times + he has 2 bans. I think it could be reasonable to impose topic-ban on Ukrainian topics for Ушкуйник.--Viggen (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Dear Viggen, thank you very much for your opinion, but it has nothing to do with constructive critic of my contributions. I have a good grasp of history and make contributions only in the articles about topics, which I realy know. It's true, I had 2 bans long time ago in the past, but it is absolutely irrelevalt for our actual discussion about Kozhedub and your tring to make an original research in the article about him. Could you show me any reliable sources to protect your thesis about Ukrainian People's Republic as the place of Kozhedub's birth? Ушкуйник (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Result: Both User:Viggen and User:Ушкуйник are warned. If this war continues blocks will be issued. For the future, please consider the new comment at Talk:Ivan Kozhedub by User:iryna Harpy who has a suggestion of what to do. Warring about the ethnicity of people and place names is a traditional activity of nationalist edit warriors, and the sanctions of WP:ARBEE are available to deal with it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Kasif the great reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: )

Page: Battle of Mu'tah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kasif the great (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:Kasif has been edit warring to change the sourced result of the battle to "Tactical Muslim victory". I directed Kasif to the article talk pageand started explaining and listing sources(12 stating Byzantine victory) with quotes concerning this battle(12 March 2016). Seeing how Kasif has not seen fit to use the article talk page, I waited over a week for a response on the article talk page, then restored the referenced information to the article, Kasif then starts posting nonsense on my talk page about how, "Well the primary sources from medieval Europe cant be trusted". Yet Kasif chosen NOT to engage in discussion on the article talk page! Today Kasif restarts edit warring, removing referenced information(Byzantine victory) and replacing it with his opinion(Tactical Muslim victory)

This editor has also tried to write their opinion into the Battle of Cannae, despite what the referenced quote states. Clearly this editor has chosen to be disruptive, not sure what their issue is. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch reported by User:SiddharthSunny (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Guru Arjan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Islam and Sikhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ms Sarah Welch has continuously edit warred on the above two mentioned articles, and only stopped after she reached the 3rd revert in 24 hours.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. - I was the one to tell her to talk.

Hello moderators, Ms Sarah Welch had constantly been edit-warring with me on these articles and kept reverting my edits despite them being clearly sourced and doing whatever she wants. In fact now she seems to have started edit-warring again this time with another user here. She had also kept bossing me around because I'm new. I too had edit-warred but she was let go scot-free by User:Ian.thomson. This is my second time making a complaint, so forgive me if something is wrong in the format.

I had earlier made a complaint about her at ANI under the section Ms Sarah Welch edit-warring. However it was closed by User:Ian.thomson without considering it after he blocked me when User:Omni Flames reported me. Ian.Thomson claimed on my talk page that she did not violate 3RR. That too despite WP:3RR clearly stating that "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached." And my block shouldn't affect whether the other user should be blocked. Ian.thomson has clearly violated the due process and rules.

Not only that, instead of accepting she has edit-warred, User:Ms Sarah Welch started giving reasons to justify her edit-warring and all of them were frivolious and nothing more than misunderstandings.

The dispute between me and Ms Sarah Welch started when I reverted her changes to the text about Guru Arjan's martyrdom. She continued to revert me . We talked at the Talk:Guru Arjan and I proved her claims wrong there, yet she insists she was right. After proving her wrong I added the original text back again but she added it back again. I even warned her that I'll complain about her if she continued to edit-war. However she refuses to listen. Fed up with the edit-warring I reverted her and warned her the last time. This pattern was also repeated at Islam and Sikhism where I warned her several times not to break the rules. She first completely removed my sourced edits here after User:Sisu55 was blocked saying taht they were edits of blocked editors, even though they were mine. She removed my edits again falsely claiming they were personal opinions when in actual they were sourced content. I proved that my edits were sourced at Talk:Islam and Sikhism, which proves her claims of reading the sources to check my edits are false. I reverted her again but she reverted me again. I reverted her again. She reverted me again. I reverted her again.

Then I got fed up of the constant edit-warring, decided enough is enough and as earlier told complained about her at ANI. However, as already told User:Ian.thomson quashed it. Not only that Ms Sarah Welch into over-detail to try to justify her edit-warring at my complaint, even though edit-warring isn't justifiable no matter what reason you have. And it seems to me that she has started it again now.

She cannot be let go scot-free. Based on her behaviour of disruptive edit-warring, I ask her to be blocked for a period of time. Thank you. SiddharthSunny (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is a repeat case, that went through this board after a @Omni Flames request and also through ANI. The ANI case has been closed. See response of admins @Ian.thomson:, @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, @MaxSem: to above arguments of @SiddharthSunny while @SiddharthSunny was on 36-hour block. See also the threat to admin @MaxSem by @SiddharthSunny, and insults/disruptive style on Talk:Guru Arjan after the 36-hour block expired. Pinging @Omni Flames:, @JimRenge: as they have intervened and recently reverted edits to the Guru Arjan article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch User:Ian.thomson had closed it simply because I was blocked and you hadn't made more than 3 reverts on a single article in 24 hours even though you had been edit-warring. As I have already told User:Ian.thomson has violated the due process. My actions do not exonerate your actions and even if you do not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours on an article, you are still edit-warring. User:JimRenge engaged with another editor. Only User:Omni Flames engaged me. Also to the admins, please note Ms Sarah Welch is making bad faith comments and falsely accusing me of "insulting" her which I have already rebutted. She is also trying to victimise me by constantly pointing out my block. This is against the rules. SiddharthSunny (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also here's evidence of her past edit-warring and violation of other rules where she has been warned as well:

1. - An experienced editor User:Mohanbhan warned her for being constantly uncivil to others.
2. - Mohanbhan again warning her, this time for canvassing
3. Warning to her to stop edit-warring, an experienced user Kautilya3 even recognised and accepted she did edit-war
4. , - Edit-warring over a well-sourced edit and harassing of other users. She even accepted herself that she was wrong.

She should be blocked this instant as her past behaviour shows that she is a disruptive editor. SiddharthSunny (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see also this SPI. JimRenge (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: I checked the SPI. And it seems clear she started the SPI only after my reverts. Seems a clear harrsment attempt to stifle me and other users through false accusations. I think I should file a SPI complaint about her as well. But, this is about her edit-warring over here. What claims she makes about me are not relevant. What do you think of her edit-warring? SiddharthSunny (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean User:Mohanbhan. Funny, that a user with 111 edits knows this template {{Reply|Username}}. I've made over 42,000 edits, and I didn't know this one yet. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Of the diffs you've provided, three are to Islam and Sikhism and four are to Guru Arjan. Ian.thomson already explained to you that 3RR counts per page. Of the four diffs for Guru Arjan, the first is by SiddharthSunny, two are by MSW, and one is by Omni Flames. Apart from WP:DISRUPTIVE, we can also look at WP:COMPETENCE, not to mention the SPI, for which I expect Js82 to be involved again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: But Mohanbhan still has experience, and I wasn't comparing him. The point was Ms Sarah Welch's uncivil behaviour. Also please note that 3RR can be breached even without making more than 3 reverts. SiddharthSunny (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoever you are, isn't it time to let it go? You can't build your wiki-career on hating another editor, can you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

How am I hating? And no I'm not letting it slide, she broke the rules. I'm not complaining about me getting blocked which just recently expired. Also not to mention she has harrased me because I'm new and inexperienced. And she has a past of such behaviour. SiddharthSunny (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• The new list of allegations above, posted at 19:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC), using @Mohanbhan as leverage, is strange. This new list is not about current edit warring. It is a collection of distorted allegations compiled by the highly active blocked sock account @Js82 and posted on ANI in January 2016. I addressed the concerns with @Mohanbhan there, and I will not repeat it here. The January ANI/edit-war complaint was dismissed. I will note that @Js82's socks, which @SiddharthSunny is repeating above, have been traced to persistent harassment, one which has required multiple periods of protection of my talk page. It is unusual that @SiddharthSunny, a new account, knows all this @Js82/@Mohanbhan stuff, lectures on what the due process of wikipedia is, lists the same identical allegations from a blocked account, so quickly and with diffs. Looks like an obvious case of new accounts driven WP:MEAT to me, one that has adversely affected the quality of Sikhism-related wiki articles, and one which has been persistently disruptive and such a time sink for all the veteran editors like @Joshua Jonathan and others, as well as admins. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your past is related to the current edit-warring. Because it shows that you often do this, this isn't the first time. What I said about you is the complete truth Ms Sarh Welch. That you responded to someone warning you not to be uncivil, or whether an earlier complaint was dismissed isn't going to help you exonerate yourselves. In actual the ealier ANI complaint made by Mohanbhan just proves it more that you indeed violate the rules often. You have been warned many times for uncivility, , edit-warring here and here. And a npte to everyone, please note that she now seems to be claiming that I'm Tocic45 and/or Js42's sock both here and at the SPI. I added all of the things Tocic45 told me after reading through them and I found that you have been warned several times for auch behaviour. Claims of "copy-and-paste" or "sock" are not going to help. You have repeatedly violated the rules and you should be blocked to prevent repetition of such behaviour. SiddharthSunny (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:SiddharthSunny and User:AkhtarHussain83 are both blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, based on the history of their changes at Guru Arjan and the talk page. It is unusual that a new account (25 February) such as SiddharthSunny is so well-informed about an existing dispute. Akhar's account was created on 14 March. New accounts that are this aggressive are often found to be socks. My favorite edit of AkhtarHussain83 is from 19 March, "Restore some legit edits of blocked editors". That's a good way to start out a new account on the right foot, and to encourage the belief you might be one of the blocked editors. See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/KahnJohn27. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring