Page

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

User being reported

Cydevil38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC) "Been talked over already, read the talk page before requesting others to do your job"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC) to 20:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675374000 by Zanhe (talk) per Xia Dynasty"
   2. 20:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 01:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675314652 by Ogress (talk) widely used legendary founding date"
4. 11:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Gojeoson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been recently blocked for edit warring on Korea templates and is now edit-warring Gojoseon. After my most recent revert, which had the edit summary "Reverted to revision 675374000 by Zanhe (talk): Reverts by at least two separate editors = take it to talk already", his edit summary says "Been talked over already, read the talk page before requesting others to do your job". I don't know what this means but clearly that he is not interested in the talk page. Reverts by several editors. Ogress _smash! 05:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second Ogress. Cydevil38 is a career edit warrior. Although he's a long-time user, he has only made a few hundred mainspace edits, most of which involve edit warring and nationalistic POV-pushing (adding the purely mythical 2333 BC date to Korean history articles, for example). At least five or six different users have complained about him on WP:ANI and here. He's already been blocked twice before (including his former account Cydevil), but has not changed his ways. -Zanhe (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said in the short comments, 1. the legendary founding year these two users are trying to remove are widely used in Korea, the day of which is a national holiday, 2. legendary founding dates are used in other articles as well such as Xia Dynasty, and 3. this founding year has been already discussed over at the talk page. Ogress misinforms the situation by saying "several", whereas it's only two editors, Ogress and Zanhe, attempting to remove the legendary founding date. There are many others who disagree with their view. These are reverts made by Zanhe and Ogress over the last week other people's edits, which is about time when I noticed them making edits to the article in a disagreeable way: Zanhe - [1] Ogress - [2] Ogress - [3] Clearly, "several" as said Ogress is rather the people that disagree with them.

The Korean counterpart of the article also uses the legendary founding in the same fashion date[4]. In the infobox, it is clearly indicated that the founding date is legendary. Founding date and its sources is also discussed extensively in the body of the article. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is irrelevant to the fact that you have deliberately broken 3RR and refuse to discuss. It doesn't matter if you are right - you are breaking 3RR. To be clear, I said in my edit summary, "Reverted to revision 675374000 by Zanhe (talk): Reverts by at least two separate editors = take it to talk already".

You won't go to the talk page, you even SAY you won't go to the talk page because "Been talked over already". You got banned six months ago for 72h https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?action=view&page=Cydevil38&type=block for a three-month edit war on Korean topics. You know better and you did it anyway. In fact, you just edited the area of discussion again. Ogress _smash! 04:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Unless I'm misreading the diffs, I'm not seeing a 3RR violation. You've also been edit-warring on the article, and have made no attempt to discuss it on the talk page either. There's a section above, that you left blank, called "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" and the editing note, which was removed from this report, says "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too" - You've both been edit-warring, and neither of you have tried to discuss it on the talk page instead of hitting "undo", so why should Cydevil38 be blocked and not you? Aoidh (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Aoidh @Aoidh: There are definitely 4 diffs in total of nonconsecutive edits where he is restoring the date 2333 BCE; am I reading the edits wrong?

I reverted what was patently nonsense - the state was formed 2000 years ago? - and said, "take it to talk". When his response was "Been talked over already, read the talk page before requesting others to do your job", no, I did not go to talk because he was clearly stating he was not interested in talk.

I can't change the past and add a "come discuss this" to the talk page. I would note I stopped editing this section (and the page entirely as it happens) at two reverts because that's when you realise you are wading into an edit war.

In contrast, Cydevil38 has continued to edit the page; he literally just edited the section in question, removing an IP's cites. He also doesn't seem to care about 3RR or edit warring. Look at his response above. You can block me if you think it is appropriate, but I did not know what else to do when Cydevil38 literally said he would not discuss the topic other than to bring him here to ANI, where suddenly he decides it is time to discuss the topic: "look, here is my argument". Why did we have to get to the current point at ANI in order for him to decide it was time to have a discussion about consensus? Ogress _smash! 04:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• more comment* I see above also that there are diffs from the seventh where I reverted his edits twice. I have to admit I missed that - I didn't remember that. I do a lot of edits. My rule is that if there are two reverts, if that is reverted I go to talk and engage. There was no revert, so I dropped it and went to do three solid further days worth of editing, including dealing with a lot of contentious pages. Check my edit history: Ogress (talk · contribs). I don't know how many edits I've made since the 7th, but it's certainly not on my first page of edits, which is set to newest 500.

I admit I did not see this nor remember it when the spat started up again. I can see that would make AGF seem harder for an outside editor. All I can say is what I already did: I literally didn't remember that. And I apologise to the editors around me for that.

I think perhaps this is even further bad-faith evidence for Cydevil38, whose edits are restricted only to a handful of Korean pages. He's only edited 2 pages in all of August: the one in question and the Korean template he got a three-day ban for. He waited until the situation calmed down in terms of reversions and then re-added material. That's clearly gaming the system. Ogress _smash! 05:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I've made after this report was removing citation that has nothing to do with Gojoseon's founding date. They are a list of books that Zanhe used in his argument that Dangun should be left out of the article. Also, I only make edits to pages where I can make meaning contributions, which are mostly Korean articles. It's rather annoying that both Zanhe and Ogress make mockery of me because I'm no as active. This editor also insults Koreans in general by saying the legendary founding year is used as the basis of a calendar(like birth of Jesus Christ) and the date of the founding is a national holiday. When I told Ogress to read the talk page, I didn't mean not to engage in talks, but that Ogress read the previous discussion and consensus that has already taken place[5]. Cydevil38 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, User:Cydevil38 has engaged in long-term edit warring about the history of Korea. Reading the block message from last February is instructive. I left a note for the previous blocking administrator, User:HJ Mitchell. to see if he has any suggestions. Meanwhile, I'm proposing to Cydevil38 that he avoid a block by agreeing to make no further edits on the history of Korea unless he gets a consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is eight years old, Cydevil38, and is a tripartite list of ancient traditional histories from Korea and China (primary sources). That's not RS. We're going to have to discuss this issue on the talk page.

And no, I am not mocking you: I'm saying it's sort of obvious you gamed the system. There can be some suspicion about single-purpose accounts, but I am not making that argument. Well, except I am bringing it up here in reply to you, so except to clarify my response. Ogress _smash! 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As requested by EdJohnston (talk · contribs), I would like to clarify: above, Cydevil38 (talk · contribs) stated, "When I told Ogress to read the talk page, I didn't mean not to engage in talks, but that Ogress read the previous discussion and consensus that has already taken place[6]." That "previous discussion and consensus" is, as you can see from the link, not a consensus, barely a discussion, and definitely not appropriate RS. It doesn't even agree with his claim that there is a unified date of 2333 - one might exist elsewhere, but not in that section, where three traditional dates based on the life of the mythological Chinese culture hero Emperor Yao (noted below as 堯) are proposed in various ancient chronicles and songs from Chinese and Korean historiography.

I am pasting the entire section below:

I hope that helps? I'm not sure what you were looking for.Ogress _smash! 22:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The origin of the 2333 BC date is explained in detail in Constructing "Korean" Origins, a book written by Professor Hyung Il Pai and published by Harvard Asia Center. It was likely arrived by counting back 1048 years (the divine ruler Dangun's age when he abdicated) from 1286 BC, Gija's estimated year of arrival in Korea after the collapse of the China's Shang dynasty. And in a related discussion last year, I showed Cydevil tons of academic sources confirming the mythical nature of Dangun/Tangun and hence the date associated with him (see link). -Zanhe (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: User:Cydevil38 is warned. The next time he makes a revert about the history of Korea that doesn't have clear consensus on the talk page, he is risking a long block from Wikipedia. Since mid-2014 you have reverted 24 times at Template:History of Korea. The fact that others are constantly undoing your changes should be a clue that these edits don't have consensus. Use the talk page to persuade people. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Long-term edit warring is one of the problems this board is expected to address, and if nothing else works, a long block may be required. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cydevil38 Please ban me I cannot bide by your terms, and I'd like to be banned for six months or more if you please, under the same given reason, my 24 reverts at template:History of Korea. I'm sick of half-measures and users like Zanhe threatening me with AN moves like this. So please ban me for whatever amount of time you deem fit for making 24 reverts at template:History of Korea. 121.161.79.71 (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So Cydevil38 is in Zambia, then? I doubt that very much. Ogress _smash! 07:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ogress: 121.161.79.71 geolocates to South Korea, not Zambia. And Cydevil used IPs from the 121.161.79.x network in earlier edit wars (he later said he forgot to log in), see [7] [8]. -Zanhe (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So adding a NPOV tag on a disputed article is edit warring? Is that what you think? 121.161.79.71 (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have warned you for now continuing to edit while logged out. Ogress _smash! 21:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Altaír Jarabo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675649237 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC) to 18:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675549107 by Philip J Fry (talk) Unsourced edits hence possible vandalism."
   2. 17:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Filmography */Added reliable sources to support edit content."
   3. 18:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Premios TVyNovelas */"
3. 07:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675092994 by Philip J Fry (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Revert without reasons */ new section"
2. 08:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Revert without reasons */"
3. 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Revert without reasons */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user began reverting my edit without any explanation, and then began editing the article to your liking without consultation or without reaching an agreement, to let him messages, never gave me a concrete answer. I think this was already enough with this user, who is not interested in Wikipedia teamwork. And he has only wanted to waging a war of editions. Although I disagree with his edit, does not seem to matter. And in my edit I did was update the Filmography of the actress. Because missing projects in which she participated, as "Ugly Btty" and "Lola, érase una vez". Philip J Fry • (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – Only three reverts, while four are needed to break the 3RR rule. Neither of you has posted anything on Talk:Altaír Jarabo. It helps if you can explain the motivation for your changes on the talk page. The two of you seem to disagree about some fine points of detail which are not easy for an outside to understand. I admit that Nyanchoka's comment here is not easy to comprehend. It is possible that Nyanchoka's limited ability in English is getting in the way of a good explanation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of Tekken characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheKerberos01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]
6. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16] (with his rebuttal)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17], though Kerberos's response to being accused of edit-warring is posted elsewhere.

Comments:
The user has repeatedly entered unsourced/poorly sourced information regarding Tekken series characters that even his text admits may not be real. The passage on Jollibee is based on speculation from a questionable source misinterpreting the meaning of a Tweet from Katsuhiro Harada, which users have been repeatedly removing since at least January; and the passage on Luke has no source whatsoever aside from a supposed image Kerberos claims to have, which even he admits might just be fan art.

I've explained my reversions repeatedly, pointing out why it violates Wikipedia policy, but he continues to re-add the content, insisting he's in the right. He's demonstrated similar behavior on the Tekken 7 page, reverting multiple users who attempt to place the character Jack (Tekken) in the "returning characters" section, despite being a "new model", as is consistent with the other Tekken game pages.

The user's writing style suggests to me that English might not be his first language, and it's possible he might not have understood or is misinterpreting why his changes have been reverted up to this point. If so, I'd appreciate it if another user or admin could better explain to him why rumors and speculation don't belong on Wikipedia. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – 24 hours. The edit summary of this edit says "Jollibee and Luke will remain there until an acknowledgment is that the two are not in Tekken 7 case." This looks like a promise to edit war. In the absence of any good source, he intends to keep restoring 'Jollibee and Luke' until he is sure that the characters are not in the series. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I suggest that you deal with David Souza's continual interferences on your various pages that he edits because he is undermining the freedom that Wikipedia offers and not only that but the whole function of Wikipedia as a dependable source of information. It is laughable how David Souza can get away with making editing changes as if he were a newspaper editor with a particular political slant. David Souza, it can be seen on Patrick Matthew page in particular, makes alterations to the wording of sentences of other contributors in a reckless manner so as to alter the sense or relevance of the material contributed. Harmless! Think again, Wikipedia. Your Ward Cunningham has already said it is not his concern. It should be. there should be some code introduced that forbids any tinkering of wording of contributions made by others done by your Administrator/Editors. fair enough if your Administrators/Editors have found some information that is completely false then remove it all but not tinker with the expression of the piece.

Furthermore, it should not be the preserve of Administrator/Editors to issue intimidations on Talk where they have introduced an editing war on a contributor such as I who provided factual information which cannot be disproved as it is a published book. David Souza is a Darwinist and therefore does not want any such entry on Correspondences of Darwin that will upset other Darwinists or maybe draw their attention to this calculated error on the part of Darwin to discredit Patrick Matthew's origination of 'the natural process of selection' in his book in 1831. It stands to reason that this date is 28 years earlier than Darwin's publication in 1859! It should be highlighted on Correspondences of Charles Darwin page so that there is balance.

Otherwise, Dear Wikipedia Administrators/Editors you will find that Wikipedia will be a laughing stock.

Clear it up, Wikipedia, please!

A contributor PS I know you know who I am that's why I've done it this way!!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.98.109 (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Declined — @86.13.98.109: — I'm assuming this is over this series of repeated edits that was reverted by him. Your change literally breaks the text. It's not an issue of facts or opinion or accuracy; your change is literally invalid in the same way leaving out letters in a sentence would be invalid, because the text wouldn't point to the right page (Patrick Matthew) and would instead point to a non-existent page (Patrick Matthew (author of On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, 1831), what we call a "red link"). We have a policy of assuming good faith here, and I suggest you start following it. Taking the tutorial should also help with understanding some of the basics of editing and wiki formatting, while checking out out our list of policies and list of guidelines might help with understanding why you may be reverted in the future and how you can avoid it happening. (pinging @Dave souza: in case he's interested). --slakr^\ talk / 02:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Slakr, you've covered the issues well. The contributions of both Matthew and William Charles Wells are recognised appropriately in the various articles, as covered by reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 06:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Zand dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ali mjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
Ali mjr's disruption has been ongoing since 8 August 4 June. This disruption has been the addition/changes including the addition of their own interpretation(ie. unsourced information). Of the 78 edits made by Ali mjr, none have had an edit summary. Back in 4 June 2015, Ali mjr attempted the same massive changes only to be reverted by LouisAragon. Therefore, this disruption can be dated as far back as 4 June. Judging from the lack of edit summary, no attempt at discussion on the Zand talk page, that Ali mjr is not interested in dialogue but simply changing the article to fit his views. The removal of my warning on his talk page, would indicate said user understands the warning and chooses not to engage in discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. Long term edit warring. The user has never left a talk posting or an edit summary, and is constantly adding unsourced material. He has created a new article at Vakil Water Storage, that (naturally) has no sources. His only use of talk is to remove messages left for him. If this continues, the possibility of an indef block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sardarji joke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Js82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26] (7/22/2015)
2. [27] (7/22/2015)
3. [28] (7/22/2015)
4. [29] (7/22/2015)
5. [30] (7/22/2015)
6. [31] (7/23/2015)
7. [32] (8/6/2015)
8. [33] (8/6/2015)
9. [34] (8/8/2015)
10. [35] (8/8/2015)
11. [36] (8/8/2015)

After their last revert, I (and an administrator) both suggested that they self-revert until consensus had been reached. I waited a few days in an attempt to let them cool off and make the self-revert. Today, they still had not done so, so I again reverted to the pre-dispute version which I believe is the correct procedure while waiting consensus. That led to:

1. [37] (8/12/2015)
2. [38] (8/12/2015)

While I understand it can be frustrating that consensus can take time, that does not excuse edit-warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Js82#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sardarji joke#How Wikipedia protects minority rights & sentiments ?

Comments

Please note that I had undertaken a painstaking journey on the article talk page, lasting over weeks to discuss my concerns and proposed edits (I wished the article to have an expanded introduction). This discussion involved several editors and admins. The current editor in question, Onel5969, was not party to all this discussion.

Subsequent to all this, I have made some edits to the article. So far (for the past several days), no one from the involved group has objected to my edits (one editor had comments, which I respectfully responded to). Onel5969, however, has been having issues on the "very need" to have an expanded introduction (which one of the admins involved in the discussion had openly and clearly agreed to; others had not voiced any objection, in effect providing their tacit approval as well.) All Mr. One has been doing now is engaging in a edit war, having himself agreed openly on the talk page that he did not bother reading any of the prior lengthy debate. (So he had no idea whatsoever regarding what had been discussed and agreed to before he just decided to jump in.) Further, once his actions are questioned, he does not respond further and resorts to edit warring. Since I'm new here, I do not have much idea and time yet to initiate investigations. If only I had them, it would rather be Mr. One whose actions would be under investigation. Nonetheless, through this forum, I would like to urge you to initiate investigations into the autocratic conduct of Mr. Onel5969. His actions clearly smack of personal ego clashes, and are clearly aimed at subduing the genuine voice of new-ish editors by filing unreasonable and unsubstantiated reports against them, thereby wasting the precious time of all concerned.

Js82 (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected Looks like you have both been edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-So what exactly does page protection imply ?

-Not sure why I'm being accused of edit-warring, given all the background that I have provided above.

-I would also reiterate the need to investigate the conduct of Mr. Onel5969.

Thank you.

Js82 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure how you equate attempting to maintain the pre-dispute status of the article while consensus is being reached as edit warring. Js82 is the only editor, out of several, involved on the talk page who had an issue with the lead. When he proposed making the change, which he knew might be contentious, he made the change without waiting for consensus. I'm simply attempting to have the article remain in a status quo until consensus is built. I guess that's the incorrect way to go about building consensus. I let this notice board know of the issue on the August 8, and there was no discussion. An admin, Swarm, added a nice note to Js82's, wherein they suggested (as I had earlier) that Js82 self-revert until consensus was reached. As I explained above, I waited several days in an effort to allow Js82 to calm down and perhaps agree to wait for consensus, but that was to no avail. How is one to respond to an editor who refuses to work to gain consensus, and who after bringing the issue to the attention of the admins, is initially ignored? Not being snarky, I'd really like to know so I can do it properly if there is a next time, and avoid being accused of edit-warring. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol..I would urge whoever is evaluating this to please visit the talk page of the article being discussed, to understand yourself how flimsy and frivolous the arguments being made by the above editor are. As I said, there were painstaking lengthy debates initiated by me. Subsequent to these debates only, I edited the article's introduction. No one, absolutely no one from the involved group of debaters has so far expressed any concern. So all the perception of "dispute" being cooked up by the above editor is utterly absurd. All he has been doing is engaging in edit-warring, apparently to settle some personal scores since his conduct has been exposed as being completely unworthy of a Wikipedia editor ("No effort put in to understand the context and the prior debates, just barge in and wage edit-wars, and then make frivolous complaints against new-ish editors to scare them away.") This must be investigated, as it leads to a ridiculous waste of everyone's precious time.

Js82 (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page because of a report at WP:RFPP and it was only after that I saw this report. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Gemma Chan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675837541 by Flyer22 (talk)"
2. 00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675833514 by Flyer22 (talk)"
3. 22:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Multiple warnings about vandalism AND edit warring have been given. User is not willing to work with other editors. Garchy (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"multiple notices of vandalism" is your statement Garchy?! - that alone is a violation of wiki policy - you cannot prove anywhere I have been a vandal - all my changes have been too ASSIST wiki - you full well know that calling me a vandal is violation of wiki rules - should I know open a admin review for you?!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After you were reverted a second time, why didn't you take your concerns to the talk page to hash it out? If you would have provided a reliable source for the information you were attempting to add, there wouldn't be an issue. It seems you've been notified on your talk page multiple times for disruptive editing. Please remain civil and not threaten to "open an admin for review", we all know that is not necessary. Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'm closing this--it's already been talked about onWP:BLPN. If the IP continues they'll be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, this is the same as the below. Suggest close one and deal with the other? Kahastok talk 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675962304 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
2. 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675961867 by Kahastok (talk)This very cleary does belong here, idiot, you are obviouly not Scottish"
3. 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675958581 by Mosmof (talk)"
4. 18:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675905494 by Mosmof (talk)"
5. 18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675946590 by Kahastok (talk) Leave this along, this very much belongs"
6. 20:19, 13 August 2015‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 675958581 by Mosmof (talk)"
7. 20:27, 13 August 2015‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 675961867 by Kahastok (talk) This very cleary does belong here, idiot, you are obviouly not Scottish"
8. 20:55, 13 August 2015‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 675962304 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
9. 22:41, 13 August 2015‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 675977957 by SantiLak (talk) Scotland is a Soverign entity, if not in this part of page needs to be in a nother!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe: new section"
2. 20:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. (TW)"
3. 00:10, 14 August 2015‎ (UTC) "Edit warring at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Attempt[48]

Response[49]

Comments:

Per talk page comments, user is only interested in pushing a nationalist POV Scr★pIron^IV 21:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert number 6 Kahastok talk 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert number 7 and no sign of stopping. Kahastok talk 22:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This guy now is at twelve reverts, is no one able to block him? Ogress _smash! 05:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Special:Contributions/Prokaryotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)  : Scalar field theory; Fermi's golden rule ; Adjugate matrix ;et al.

User being reported

Prokaryotes (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:

Please take a look at this user's frenetic rampage of today, Aug 13. After rebuffing sensible argument, and manipulating MY talk statements with HIS drivel, he has launched a campaign of block deletions and quasi-random, thoughtless additions of refimprove requests by the truckload. I believe this is "vandalism-within-the rules" and might be up to you to collectively fix. The pages depredated by him look like construction sites. I am a professional theorist and he appears hardly educated on the subjects, with some undisclosed ax to grind. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reason with Cuzkatzimhut, however he seems to be not able to except any kind of critic. Almost all his edits lack proper referencing and grammar. Additonally his edits are most of the time to technical. Also the editor might want to explain the edits from me, he thinks are at issue. prokaryotes (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuzkatzimhut if you are a professional theorist(?) on the related subjects you might want to disclose this on your user page. Please read WP:COI. prokaryotes (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap dig: I get paid to teach the stuff: I can teach it more effectively in WP. You may try subtler innuendo when you proffer WP stuff to read, in sardonic flourishes. What makes you suspect I have not read it in 9 years of editing? Now, about that bizarrely inapposite Tegmark et al. reference...Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@prokaryotes. The issue is your massive removal of valid content. You have misunderstood somehow, and believe that every sentence not having a citation with page number can be deleted at will. It cannot. It can be contested, starting on the talk page. This is very different. Most of the material you have removed is so general that general references suffice. For example, in an article not about elementary quantum mechanics you do not require a citation with page number for the statement that a scalar is a boson. It is perfectly enough that the reference section has five or more solid references that all will telly you that scalars are bosons. The same thing goes for the mass-tagging of articles Cuzkatzimhut have edited in the past. It is also not okay to add incorrect statements with the excuse that you provided a "citation". If you find that inline citations are lacking, by any means, add some. Your current activity is bordering on vandalism.

You have also been threatening me (and also Cuzkatzimhut, in his case you appealed to "incompetence") with admin action when I told you on a talk page (as politely as possible) that you should not edit other peoples comments, and that your recent edits were no good. It does not look like you are interested in a dialogue. YohanN7 (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice to other editors: Yohan has a history of insulting others (see also various other issues on his talk page history), he defends the position of editor Cuzkatzimhut concerning my recent edits. Today in response to some claims, i posted in those regards on his talk page and about WP:Forum. He the responded in his edit "remove crackpot edit". Since the points he mentioned above and his edits are off topic here, i leave it at that for now. Again i ask both editors to provide any diffs in regards to edit warring. prokaryotes (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, my points are on topic, your's are not. And, yes, everyone editing posts by others are crack-pots, especially when they threaten with admin-action after being told no-no. YohanN7 (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This in not in the usual form of reports at WP:AN3. The submitter ought to revise it so it names one or more articles where 3RR has been violated, or a long-term edit war is occurring. Otherwise this report may be declined with no study of the merits. Please refrain from personal attacks, especially on admin noticeboards. Calling people idiots or crackpots isn't charming and may cause you to be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it is worth, since around 17:00 yesterday, prokaryotes has done nothing but damaging articles Cuzkatzimhut has contributed to. These edits are to be found if you click on "History" in prokaryotes user profile: Special:Contributions/Prokaryotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These are 80-90 edits targeted solely at Cuzkatzimhut. YohanN7 (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the noticeboard to identify the evident pattern of systematic unconstructive editing. WP should be able to police itself, pursuant to whatever format strictures, and not leave things to the successful formatting of the appeals of complainants. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have a misunderstanding about how things are done here. If you have a report to make about edit warring then it is up to you as the report creator to provide this evidence. It is not up to the administrators to do this for you. The process goes thus: you raise the report, provide the evidence, request the action and the admins peruse the evidence and act on it if they agree with you. If you have evidence of other misconduct, gather the evidence and present it to WP:ANI. Blackmane (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackmane, the user or users are now posting their version or interpretation, and conduct about rules, what first was a unrelated support question of mine at Project Physics. Maybe you can try to to explain to him that adding reference tags is a common and important Wikipedia action. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The submitter of this report has declined to identify any specific article where warring has occurred. But my own review shows that revert wars have happened on the following two pages:

• Fermi's golden rule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Scalar field theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Related discussions have occurred at

• WT:WikiProject Physics#How to deal with articles which lack proper citations
• at ANI
• NORN.

So far the NORN discussion seems to have made the most progress and gained the most input from regular editors. Can User:Cuzkatzimhut explain why the present AN3 report should be kept open, given the profusion of venues? If it was up to me to close this without further input I'd probably warn Cuzkatzimhut, Prokaryotes and YohanN7 that further reverts could lead to a block. Editors are expected to find a proper venue and then wait patiently for consensus without continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuzkatzimhut keeps on reverting, now content which is not considered RS. I didn't mentioned this earlier, but both users show a continued pattern of battleground behavior.prokaryotes (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Brandon Haunstrup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
2. 13:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "Pompey is a nickname for Portsmouth, but nicknames aren't used in Wikipedia articles."
3. 20:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675932235 by MYS77 (talk)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Attempt

Comments:

The user only edited a footballer once in his whole contribution to this WP, and all in a sudden says to me that "we should not use nicknames in Wikipedia". Then, after showing examples of how team nicknames work here, I was reverted with no further explanation. MYS77 ^✉ 03:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2015 Tianjin explosions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vantastic2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single purpose account created to blank a well-cited section of the above article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

May be a sockpuppet of User:Wackykid. Citobun (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's an IP trying to remove the same content: [56] Geogene (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User is engaged in an amateur "censorship" campaign to remove referenced content about the Chinese government's actual censorship campaign, as reported by reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible sockpuppet: User:Dfnkgne. Citobun (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reported sockpuppet(s) here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vantastic2014, please add comments...

Page

2015 Tianjin explosions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 09:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 09:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 10:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015 Tianjin explosions. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also suspected sockpuppet, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vantastic2014 495656778774 (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user might not be a malicious user. We must WP:Assume good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrefalsen (talk • contribs) 10:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. We should try to convince him not to vandalize articles anymore, before infringing on his privacy with a checkuser. 10:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilenson (talk • contribs)

We must not WP:QUICKSOCK. We must WP:AGF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genious12345 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely – by User:Materialscientist per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Vantastic2014. Three of the editors who commented above are also blocked as socks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Serbs of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.121.37.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on talk page

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

Comments:
I recently added certain tags to the article in question and made a lengthy explanation prior to that on talk page as to why I did so. The reason was exactly to avoid what is happening now. However certain user named Tuvixer came in and simply reverted my tags without any summary or discussion on talk page [61] as to which I warned him not to remove the tags without discussion or explanation. After I warned him I will report him [62] the "anonymous" IP in question comes into play and starts blatantly reverting and removing tags without proper discussion. You can also see his disruptive behavior on talk page where the user replied talking more about me (even implying I was a fascist) and just plain blatant disruption of would-be proper discussion. Considering the language used by the anon IP and the rather strange immediate appearance and same blatant reverts/disruptions I am quite convinced the anon IP is the same person as Tuvixer.

Also I am well aware that I did more than 3 reverts myself, however I believe there should be an exemption in this case as I have gave proper explanation on talk page why I've added tags and I was trying to have a proper discussion on talk page. Also as far as I know (I may be mistaken) one does not remove tags unless they are properly discussed. Shokatz (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. Use WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. User:Shokatz is warned that his explanation doesn't justify exceeding 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Daggar, Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Charsadda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yamaguchi先生 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]
5. [67]
6. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69] [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]

Comments:

Continious edit war by Yamaguchi先生 and deletion of sourced data with tag unsourced. Reported user is also deleting extensivly on diffrent pages huge data with out even involving talk page disscussion or citition needed tag. Please check following # [76] # [77] # [78] # [79] # [80] # [81] # [82] All these are just few examples. HashimAchakzai (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HashimAchakzai, for bringing this to the attention of the Administrators' noticeboard. HashimAchakzai (talk · contribs) is a newly registered account created for the purposes of POV-pushing and disruption. After registering this account on 11 August 2015 (three days ago) they immediately took to copying and pasting the exact same text across a series of different articles. [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] I am not familiar with the specifics of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert case, but apparently this is another from the flock. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 17:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I am sock of languagexpert;; just because I am editing language section; then file an SPI. Do not disscuss that here. You are removing sourced content on a number of pages which is disruptive and you are also edit warring; I have stoped to reverse your edit and used talk page. Its my right to use this board to highlight this. Explain why you are deleting sourced content? HashimAchakzai (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reported user is not even ready to talk and has deleted my two notices. Kindly follow the link to see [88] HashimAchakzai (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment - This isn't an edit-warring case so much as it is a POV case involving Pakistan that needs serious administrative scrutiny, since Pakistan is considered a subject of conflict and POV editors are subject to discretionary sanctions. HashimAchakzai is adding maps and language descriptions that were originally submitted by socks of LanguageXpert, which is all detailed in the most recent SPI. It is no coincidence that the regional map nonsense has flared up again. This edit warring report is a red herring. Yamaguchi is not the problem here. Note also this discussion at Commons about a map uploaded by a sock of LanguageXpert. LanguageXpert got help from a meatpuppet the last time around, so it wouldn't surprise me if that's what's happening now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• They're a technical match to blocked sock Zmaghndstakun so I've blocked indef as a LanguageXpert sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "Rev Good Faith edits by 45.33.133.211 (talk)"
2. 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "This article is about Greek pop figures, not about the pop census in a country. So it is 10,816,286 minus 6.24% = 10,141,350, right? For census details, we have the Greek census 2011 page."
3. 20:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "Rev. The census does not take in account the ethnicity of the citizens of Greece. If you dispute this, please bring the matter to the Talk page, not here."
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC) to 18:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 676085690 by 45.33.137.203 (talk)"
   2. 18:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 45.33.137.203 (talk)"
5. 03:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "Reverted unsourced population edits by User:KazekageTR."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I noticed this because the page was on my watchlist, but I wasn't involved in this dispute. Neither side made any attempt to discuss this. SilentResident was aware of 3RR as per: [89]. They're also aware of discretionary sanctions in this area: [90]. The reverts of the IP range (45.33.xxx.xxx) should also be scrutinized: [91], [92], [93]. Beyond the obvious similarities in IPs, this talk page edit shows the IP is the same person, aware of 3RR, and more interested in seeking more editors to aid their side of the edit war than actually discuss things: [94]. ~ Rob^Talk 22:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rob, If you check the edits and why they have been reverted, you will notice that 1) no edits are disputed, they are simple reverts due to information not fitting the page, and 2) unsourced new content that conflicts with sourced but already present content is removed and 3) new content unrelated to the page's subject is removed in effort to maintain the page's integrity. It is simple as that. I just tried defending the sourced matterial against unsourced information that replaced them. Lets take for example in the case of User:KazekageTR: KazekageTR raised the population figures of Greeks living in Turkey from 4,000 Greeks to... 200.000 (!) and without citing any good sources to back his edits. Such dramatic population changes in one day, are impossible to happen in real life, and they have to be well-sourced! And I shall note that, before I revert KazekageTR's edit, I made sure the changes do not contradict the relevant page: Greeks in Turkey. I checked this page carefully and it says that currently just about 4.000 Greeks residing in Turkey, not 200.000 as this user claimed in his edits.

Now, as for the user 45.33.133.211 who keeps changing his IP in order to avoid intentionally the 3 revert rules, his edits are done in an way that the page deviates from its purpose: The page is about a specific ethnic group of people, not about the foreign citizens who legally or illegally migrated to Greece, nor is about citizenship. It is about an ethnic group, about people who have Greek ethnicity, regardless of their citizenship (US citizens, EU citizens or Canadian citizens of Greek nationality and or ancestry, etc), so including in this page information that does not really fit in it, can only serve in deviating the page from its purpose. After all, for citizenship of people, it is better that the information goes into a section and not on the leading infobox... The leading infobox is about the ethnic people themselves the page was made for, not about foreign non-Greek citizens, or people of foreign ethnicity who got X citizenship. Right? Secondly, the people of foreign ethnicity who have citizen status in Greece but are not Greeks, should either be added to a section in this page (but not on leading infobox), and to these following 2 pages as well: Greece and Greek census 2011. Isn't that better to do, or did I missed something? With simple words, I am just trying to keep irrelevant (and unsourced in some cases) info out of a page that has nothing really to do about it, and maintain just the relevant and sourced info in it. My apologies if I surpassed the 3-edit war, and I asked this anonymous user who keeps constantly changing his IP, to use the Talk page instead. So we can discuss the matter and see what material can help improve the page. I had no bad intentions or whatever, and again my apologies and is very unfortunate to see that the nature of the edits was not taken into account (although the 3RR rule is very clear). --SilentResident (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This report is not an accurate one. First, revert 5 of KazekageTR by SilentResident is a justified one because this edit by KazekageTR is controversial and has been reverted multiple times in the past by other editors as well, please see example and another from 2014 which had been originally inserted by you guessed it. Revert 3 is a revert done by mistake and has been cleared and discussed with me on my talkpage. This is disruptive editing by a dynamic IP which keeps edit-warring altering cited information by reliable sources and substituting numbers which are of doubtful origin. This report should have reported the disruptive IP not this good faith-editor. Balkans is a difficult area to patrol, especially if one acts based on incomplete information. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user Δρ.Κ., thank you for your support, but nevertheless, it is saddening that I got reported to the Administrator's noticeboard. This is the second time I see my name in the Noticeboard in only 6 months (the first time was with the user Rolandi+) and this is a very discouraging fact. and I now consider ceasing my presence in Wikipedia, because of that, and for the fact that while I am aware of 3RR rule in Wikipedia, I am not aware of what we registered users can do when unregistered anonymous users who constantly change their IPs to avoid the 3RR rule, are doing changes without respecting the integrity of the pages, avoid the talk pages, and do not care about reaching a consensus with other users and the community, or citing good and reliable sources in their edits. I don't know how to react to such similar cases in the future. I am very active person, I watch many pages every day to make sure things are ok, but I can't keep contributing to Wikipedia like this. I am a honest person, but when it comes to my name getting reported, even falsely, this is very discouraging. Anyways, thank you and I appreciate alot your support. --SilentResident (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Article fully protected three days. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to all of you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @EdJohnston: Ed, this is not a dispute among registered editors. The IP was edit-warring against established figures and consensus. Please see also my additional comment below. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @SilentResident: Please do not be discouraged. There are editors like myself who value your scholarly and long contributions in the area of the Balkans and I hope you choose to stay. I understand your frustration at being mentioned in a report which is based on incomplete facts but don't worry because the system is fair and the admins here are experienced and will see through the faults of this report. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Δρ.Κ., thank you for your words. And dear EdJohnston, you did well to raise the protection level of the article, given how in the last 2 weeks it has seen way too many potentially disruptive changes and edits and that does not really improve the article. Have a good day. --SilentResident (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment Revert 2 is actually not a revert because it was done with my agreement after SilentResident came to my talkpage. Please see the time stamp of revert 2 at :53 past the hour and the apology of SilentResident for mistakenly reverting me at :35 past the hour and then he informed me of fixing the figures at :57 past the hour, four minutes after the so-called revert number 2, for which I thanked him. SR was in communication with me and had my full consensus and my thanks. That's not edit-warring. This is improving the article. Meanwhile the unreported IP had reduced the number of the Greek population in Albania from 200,000 to 27,000 which is essentially vandalism. This is a badly-botched and unfair report. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: UFC 191 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jesu1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WWE Batman131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [96] The history of the page already shows plenty of faults by both editors.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jesu1999 WWE Batman131

Comments: Both editors displayed classic behavior of edit warring. It all started with Jesu1999, as he performed disruptive edits and reverted updates from WWE Batman131. The biggest issue is the supposed order of the bouts, but WWE Batman131 has it right as we follow the official website of the organization, while Jesu1999 claims his edits to be based on a mobile version of the same website. Despite being instructed, Jesu1999 continued to edit war and it prompted an escalated situation of numerous edits featuring just reverts and also personal attacks on summary. WWE Batman131 seemed to have good faith at first, but got himself into a situation he knew was avoidable. Therefore, it seems to me that the first editor reported has broken rules regarding edit warring (perhaps even the 3RR), disruptive behavior and personal attack, while the second editor engaged in the edit war as well as personal attacks. I suggest a harsh penalty for the first editor due to his possible maintenance in the future. The second editor is up to you guys in this case. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of one week. Edit warring accompanied by blatant personal attacks on the part of both parties is unacceptable, and that's all there is to it. Swarm ♠ 07:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

Moonwizard2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Critical reviews */Added reviews"
2. 02:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Critical reviews */Added reviews"
3. 22:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "Added reviews"
4. 21:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "A more fair mix of reviews"
5. 18:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Reception */A more fair mix of reviews"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Brickleberry. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blanking, disruptive editing. Edit-warring against multiple editors. Unresponsive despite multiple warnings. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bgwhite (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moonwizard2001. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (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

diff

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15 August 2015 (UTC)
2. 06:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 676176919 by AnomieBOT (talk): Discussion ongoing on talk page. (TW)"
3. 07:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 676180127 by Human3015 (talk)This is the second revert you have done on this issue. Discretionary sanctions apply to you too. Please read the Burden article it may help"
4. 07:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 676181367 by Human3015 (talk)You have reverted me twice please do not revert again. I have already started the discussion on the TP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "/* You should know discretionary sanctions */ new section"
2. 07:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "/* 3rr */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms */ reply"
2. 06:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms */ reply"
3. 07:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms */ REASON?"
4. 07:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms */ violated 3rr"

Comments:

User is involved in edit war without giving any valid reasons to remove content of the article which actually belongs to article. Article is under discretionary sanctions. Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Editor have self-reverted himself and it seems that he/she will not involve in edit war anymore. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense

Human 3015 added the material in question about 2 days ago. The material in question is the "number of injured" in the battles/firing. The article has never had that number because it causes contention and can come from questionable sources. The infobox of the article is proof enough that this has never been added to the article. Human was then reverted by another editor, who clearly said on human's TP that inserting this material will result in wars and should therefore be removed. However Human again added that information. When I came to the article I found the suspicious material and though that some anon IP had added it, so I created a Talk Page section and removed the material. Human reverted me too and came to the TP asking for "reasons" of removing his edits. I explained to him that his TP will show that he has been given reasons so he cannot just say that my edits something new to him. Therefore Human has reverted two editors in the past 4 days and added his own material into it almost SIX times. My last edit was a self revert so the article now shows humans material. I'm sure he will be reverted again but this kind of "abuse" of system to put ones own text into an article is pretty infuriating.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It was I who first removed that irrelevant injuries text as I also agree to FreeatlastChitchat and in fact explained the reasons and tried to discuss it four days ago but after an edit-war seemed to be starting, I did not make any revert. Now Human3015 has started it again instead of a positive discussion at the article's talk. He has a history of edit-warring and logs in the block-log. Now, both of the reported user and the reporter have made 3 reverts each, and FreeatlastChitchat has self-reverted. I would suggest a return to the article's talk. Faizan (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Mount Hermon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Epigraphy, archaeology and references in religious texts */ See: Book of Genesis"
2. 04:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Epigraphy, archaeology and references in religious texts */ Original Research"
3. 04:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Breaking 1r restriction at Mount Hermon */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There's a big 1R edit notice when you edit. Editor ignored this and reverted twice, then a 3rd time after I warned them about breaking 1R. No notice is necessary but I did warn them and they ignored the warning. Doug Weller (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Tomislav Sunić
User being reported: User:Tess18

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]
4. [diff]

• User served AN3 notice. Quis separabit? 15:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [101]

Comments:
This user insists on engaging in edit warring and making unhelpful and outlandish edits, including the removal of diacritics, to the Tomislav Sunić article. I have welcomed this apparent newbie, offered advice and tried to explain but to no avail. He or she continues to make edits without offering any explanation, any edit summaries, or attempts to contact me on my talk page, etc. Quis separabit? 15:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]