Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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 Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Softlavender reported by User:Ronz (Result: Protected)

Page: Isabel Gómez-Bassols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Softlavender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:59, 1 April 2014
2. 16:31, 1 April 2014
3. 17:57, 1 April 2014
4. 05:03, 3 April 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:32, 1 April 2014 05:02, 3 April 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Isabel_Gómez-Bassols#Primary_sources

Comments:
Edit-warring over BLP violations and tagging the article as needing better sources to meet BLP: Self-published sources being used in a BLP that we're cleaning up after it was created against a conflict of interest by a new editor. The article is currently up for deletion, but it looks like we've got enough to keep it. Seems like editors are fine with poorly sourced information as long as it verified (and positive in nature?) - so basically NOT, OR(PSTS), NPOV, and BLP are being ignored in order to include the information. --Ronz (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I understand, making two completely different edits does not constitute 3RR (if I'm wrong please let me know and I'll remember that in the future). Content in each of the two different issues was previously addressed either on the Talk page (as noted in my edit summaries) or addressed (and also previously addressed and explained) thoroughly in the edit summary(ies). (On at least one of the two issues, Binksternet and I have been engaging with the editor on the Talk page, and although Ronz established no consensus and Binksternet and I disagreed with him/her, he made a third deletion of cited non-controversial non-contentious material without establishing consensus, and I informed him that I was going to replace the info per the lengthy Talk page discussion.) Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  This issue isn't 3rr, it is edit-warring against BLP. --Ronz (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, I feel the need to point out that my cleanup (March 30/31) had policy-backed consensus, and from my perspective you have been the one edit-warring without any consensus and without ever even clearly making an incontrovertible case for your edits. Posting acronyms is not making a case, much less an incontrovertible one, and much less one that has consensus. If you feel the article is in violation of BLP or NPOV, then perhaps it's best to take that up on one of those two boards. Meanwhile, two editors engaged in constructively improving the article and its content happen to have disagreed with you and happen to have disagreed with your edits. Softlavender (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This looks like Ronz is the one edit warring. I just don't understand what he's aiming to accomplish with his templating of the biography after all of its problems were fixed by Softlavender and others. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:IDHT, WP:FOC-violating responses. Please feel free to add more in case this needs to go to ANI.

Focusing on the policies: The article falls under BLP, and poorly sourced information should be immediately removed from BLP articles ("without waiting for discussion" actually.) Such content disputes place "The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material."

The sources are self-published, so they should be removed immediately. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week, with the disputed awards being removed (for now). In answer to Softlavender's question, *all* reverts within 24 hours are counted toward 3RR. This is explained in WP:EW. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:110.164.115.224 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Stale)

Page

Development of Windows XP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "No."
2. 05:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Development */ Insert Main article"
3. 04:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Development of Windows XP */ new section"
2. 05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Development of Windows XP. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Article's encyclopedic content was merged into Windows XP, remaining article was fancruft and a WP:NOTCHANGELOG violation. However, an IP editor has persistently reverted. Comments in edit summaries infer WP:ITSUSEFUL ViperSnake151  Talk  05:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Stale User has not edited or made any reverts since the warning was given. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:Jayaguru-Shishya (Result: Both warned)

Page: Talk:Chiropractic (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: QuackGuru (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]
5. [6](My apologies, this source was missing from the report. There the editor removes the whole comment again)
6. [7]
7. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Comments:

The editor has been reverting / making edits repeatedly to an original quote. I have tried to explain him that he should leave the original quote untouched, and include what he has to say into additional comments.

What makes the course of things even more complicated to follow, is that the user hasn't agreed to take the discussion solely at the article Talk Page, but instead has fragmented it to my personal user talk page as well. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor was told to stop deleting my comments. But the editor did not stop. This was harrrass and the 3rr warning was after I stopped editing the chiropractic talk page. The editor added mass original research to the lede of the chiropractic page and removed the tags without fixing the problem. WP:BOOMERANG should apply in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delete QuackGuru's comments, but I did restore the original post whereas he repeatedly tried to revert / make changes to it afterwards. By deleting his comments, I think the user is pertaining to the following edit: [10]. This was a pure accident though, which I already have explained to him and apologized: [11]. The previous link is directing to my User Talk Page, since the editor is constantly taking part of discussion there out of the Talk:Chiropractic.

In my humble opinion, the editor isn't really paying attention to the main point here, that is his constant reverts / edits on the original post he made. By removing / changing his original posts, it has turned impossible to other contributors in the article to follow up the discussion on sources. His current editing is very aggressive, and he doesn't seem to allow any public discussion on the subject. As a result, he is constantly removing / changing the original posts made.

So far, the other changes he brings up are referring to strong, reliable sources, and therefore it is somewhat obscure what he is trying to say; the other edits are not the subject being discussed here. As far as I know, there hasn't been any problems with those either (one contributor was actually thanking me for my edit in the lead at the talk page). But that's off-topic already. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

My original post was on the users talk page but the editor moved my post without stating on the talk page that it was moved from his the talk page. It is not about the sources. It is about the text failed V and you are not getting. The change was also not a good summary of the body. The changes were made on April 1 and the text failed V. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The original post was moved to the article Talk Page, since 1) the post is dealing with the article, and 2) the post is dealing with changes that QuackGuru has made to the article. Therefore I came into conclusion that under WP:MULTI the post belongs to the article Talk Page. WP:MULTI states: If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and linking to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why. This has been clearly stated in the edit summary and explained as well. Still the editor has continuously kept removing / editing the original post, since according to his own words he hasn't given me permission to move or cite it or he isn't interested[12].

Anyway, I recovered QuackGuru's post on my Talk Page since he got so upset about it. Therefore, I told to QuackGuru to regard his post at the Talk:Chiropractic as direct citation instead. It doesn't matter whether it's moved under WP:MULTI, or if it is a direct citation: in neither situation the editor should not make edits to the post. Otherwise the other contributors in the article find it impossible to follow the debate on the sources used, where QuackGuru is pushing very aggressively his own opinion. I think the other contributors should be given a chance to participate the discussion as well, so a final consesus can be reached. The edit warring here has occured since QuackGuru haven't accept his changes to be discussed publicly.

The latest demonstration of QuackGuru's edit warring occured today (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=602606007) where he reverted the made changes again. He is still preaching the same sermon about the sources failing, even it has been already discussed at the Talk Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Mass_original_research_in_the_lead; 2nd post) and shown that it is not the case. His latest revert today makes it pretty hard to understand his claim that it is not about the sources. When we look at his latest revert, we can see that it is very well about the sources.

So far QuackGuru has offered as his defence statements like: the change was also not a good summary of a body and that the text failed. In my humble opinions, those are his very own opinions, and I don't really see how they are connected to the actual problem: his repetitious reverting. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You have ignored my comments on the talk page. It has been shown that the sources failed V and you did add orginal research to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Studies on chiropractic, moreover on its principle intervention spinal manipulation, have found it to be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment for many cases of lower back pain."[original research?]

This is not a summary of the body at all and the sentence is original research.

"However, as with most medical interventions, there are reports of mild to serious adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases."[2][3][not in citation given]

• Rubinstein, SM (2013 Feb 1). "Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review". Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 38 (3): E158-77. Retrieved 1 April 2014. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Rubinstein, SM (NaN). "Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain". doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008112.pub2. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

References two and three do not very the claim. Hence, failed V. The accessdate date was on April 1, 2014. This looks like an April fools joke in mainspace. You can read the body of the article and you can see the lede does not summarise the body. See the Chiropractic#Effectiveness for example. QuackGuru (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: First of all, it's almost impossible to figure out what's going on here because of all the editorializing and irrelevant comments in here. Content disputes on the article are not to be discussed and worked out here. That's what the talk page is for. Second, it's bad form to edit or refactor your own comments after people have read and replied to them. Third, it's bad form to move someone else's comments without making it clear that you are quoting them and where the original comment was posted. Forth, no one has to ask your permission to quote or repeat your comments anywhere on Wikipedia, as long as there is proper attribution per the license you agree to every time you click "Save page". Now can we get back to improving articles? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: Both editors warned. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia expects that editors will show a spirit of good-faith cooperation on talk pages, even when they disagree. WP:REFACTOR provides that "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I'm notifying User:Jayaguru-Shishya and User:QuackGuru of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS; QG is already notified. If problems continue, one or both editors may be restricted from modifying anyone else's comments on a talk page. See also the advice of admin User:Spike Wilbury to both parties above. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Half an hour isn't really time for others to information and I think this has been closed too quickly - edit-conflicting what I was posting below:

This much is obvious: Jayaguru-Shishya is not a new editor.

• Nevertheless he posted a comment made by QuackGuru on his talk page onto the talk page of Acupuncture deceptively giving the impression that QG had commented there.
• In all seriousness, I warned Jayaguru-Shishya that the community does not look favourably on such edits.
• Today, Jayaguru-Shishya has twice reverted [13], [14] without any summary to explain the reverts. The effect was to re-insert a section into Acupuncture that is strongly disputed at Talk:Acupuncture #SYN and MEDRS violations?. Jayaguru-Shishya has made no attempt to engage in that debate.
• I warned Jayaguru-Shishya that he should engage on the talk page, not edit war, pointing out that three reverts is not an entitlement. Enric Naval also reinforced that point.
• Jayaguru-Shishya has now deleted both my and Enric's comments on his behaviour from his talk page and posted them on Talk:Acupuncture which gives the impression that Enric's post was made there. That is purely disruptive editing. The article talk page is not the place to discuss Jayaguru-Shishya's behaviour and I believe that he's simply not here to build an encyclopedia.

I am asking that he be blocked until he comes to understand what is acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Half an hour"? It was more than 24 hours after Jayaguru-Shishya filed this that I commented, and I was the first admin to do so. Neither party has clean hands here and the edit warring noticeboard isn't for solving more complex content disputes or behavioral problems. If you feel there is a more in-depth problem, it would be more appropriate to pursue dispute resolution or RFC/U as appropriate. Problems from these long-term contentious content areas have a habit of spilling over into all kinds of noticeboards, but this is not the appropriate venue. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I see he was blocked by another admin anyway. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I obviously had a "brain-fart" and don't seem to be able to tell the third of April from the fourth. QuackGuru understands the warning and that he must not edit-war. I am pleased that Jayaguru-Shishya has now responded very positively with assurances that he now understands the intent of our edit-warring policies, and hopefully this matter is now concluded. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: )

Page: Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Summichum (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. [diff](cur | prev) 12:21, March 26, 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,267 bytes) (-5,804)‎ . . (reference to the claimants own website are biased primary sources , Muffadal is still a claimant and nass is disputed , maintain NPOV)

Page: Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Summichum (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:Disruptive editing which was reverted by me. (cur | prev) 15:59, March 23, 2014‎ Rukn950 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (31,841 bytes) (-3,493)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Summichum (talk) to last revision by Mufaddalqn. (TW)) (cur | prev) 14:21, March 23, 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35,334 bytes) (+3,493)‎ . . (Added differences between dawoodi bohra and other sects and views from leading Muslim news reports (edited with ProveIt)) (thank)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:#REDIRECT Talk:Mufaddal Saifuddin [diff] (cur | prev) 20:08, April 3, 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (171,338 bytes) (-905)‎ . . (→‎Correction section-wise!) (undo | thank) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:#REDIRECT Talk:Dawoodi Bohra

Comments:

He has been flooding my talk page with template and undoing my edit and deletion from my talk pages. he is mentally harassing me.I am truly frustrated by this user summichum he was blocked twice before and immediately started edit war after being released from block.as shown above and unsuccessfully attempted to block me. Now he is on to harassment.

1. REDIRECT User talk:Summichum

Template war?[edit source]

Hello, I'm Anup. I noticed that you recently have been flooding templates on a regular editor, Rukn950. I'd assume good faith and would let you know that we do no template regulars. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

''Rukn950'' (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• • this is a false allegation, I had posted templates to assume good faith of editors as he had made personal attacks on me and repeatedly accusing me of getting me blocked. Hence I posted the templates to make him understand the policies he is violating. Also this is a false edit war report and this user has conflict of interest and wants to use wiki as promotional tool to promote his religious POV as can be verified by a third party User:Anupmehra . All this is being discussed at length on Talk:Mufaddal Saifuddin both the users have added verifiably wrong information which was what i had reverted and I got blocked . this is why I was the first one to invite a trusted third party for intervention as I saw the two editors md.et , rukn had filled the entire Mufaddal article with BIASED POV. which both the admin and User:Anupmehra acknowledged and removed. These users md.et and rukn also got another good faith editor User:Ftutocdg blocked for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Summichum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The good faith edit which summichum claims;I have given reference above, he completely neglected discussion and blanked out the edit painstakingly done by me and other editors. He is treating Biography article as propaganda. you can clearly see that from history. what summichum claims wrong information and Biased POV( which clearly shows his POV) has been cited by reputed newspapers and registered organization. What about his being flooding my talkpages with template ( refer history ) and reverting MY talkpages? and where have I ever made personal attact? Infact It was because of courtesy assuming good faith, I had not reported him earlier and had only warned him.''Rukn950'' (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Refer above Template war? good faith comment by User:Anupmehra .''Rukn950'' (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:2601:C:B80:779:F135:18C:A457:C2C2 reported by User:MCaecilius (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of Pinky and the Brain episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:C:B80:779:F135:18C:A457:C2C2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 01:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Season 4: 1998 */"
3. 01:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Season 4: 1998 */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "Notice: Excessive addition of redlinks or repeated blue links on Jean MacCurdy. (TW)"
2. 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on List of Pinky and the Brain episodes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been repeatedly adding unnecessary links to multiple articles (such as the one cited above, in addition to Jean MacCurdy, Rapunzel (Disney), List of Tiny Toon Adventures episodes, among numerous other ones; see user contribution), engaging in edit war in the course, is unresponsive to multiple attempts to discussion on their talk page up to and including a final warning, and is rapidly editing many pages unproductively. M. Caecilius (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1/3 day While edit-warring and indeed disruptive, this isn't a big issue, and it's apparently done in good faith. In the interests of facilitating cleanup, I've blocked the IP address, but for only eight hours. It's a Comcast IP address, so the chances are miniscule of the user being awake continuously until the end of the block — it's 11:30PM here in the eastern US, and it will be 4:30AM in the far western US at the end of the block. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing reported by User:Bjenks (Result: Declined)

Pigsonthewing has a complaint about content of a section of article Sydney Opera House and has for more than a year insisted on disfiguring the section with a tag disputing factual accuracy. Other users have patiently attempted to resolve the difference of opinion via the article's Talk page, to no avail. The user declines to employ regular editing practice to make changes, but seems to want other editors to restore previous disputed content. The user has repeatedly reverted attempts to remove the disruptive tag. The latest instance of the long-term edit warring is this diff. The article is an important one, frequently consulted worldwide, and the constant presence of an unwarranted fact tag tends to bring Wikipedia's methods into question together with the article and bona fide editors. Bjenks (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: the situation over there appears to be a legitimate discussion, though given that it has dragged on for a while, the original problem seems to have been forgotten and at present it is unclear to someone outside the fight over if there is a content dispute or if there is merely a spat over sourcing and formatting. I do not think this is actually edit-warring and as the article is not a GAN or FAC, a section tag is not a "disfigurement," particularly when the tag has been there since 2012 and one other editor besides Andy seems to be OK with keeping it there. I have posted as a more-or-less neutral party (in that I have asked Andy's help on template issues but OTOH have never edited the article and am not active on Oz topics; I believe I can view this issue fairly) in an attempt to see if I can sort out exactly what the problem is. So please allow this to just simmer over at article talk. Montanabw^(talk) 04:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been simmering since 3 December 2012. In that time the {{disputed}} tag has been removed several times by various editors, after Pigsonthewing has been absent from discussion, usually for a long time.[15][16][17][18] Each time though, Pigsonthewing has restored it,[19][20][21][22] restarting discussion, but without any progress as Pigsonthewing refuses to respond after a few posts. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Bjenks, next time fill out a proper report with diffs. If there's anything worse than a fast-moving edit war over tags, it's a very slow edit war over tags. Find some other way to resolve it than coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Danielcohn reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

Page

City of David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ""Occupied enemy territory" is clearly POV. And even from that POV, building without a permit is still illegal, just like crossing with red light. Again, take it to the talk page"
2. 19:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601522047 by Nishidani (talk) no sources are reported, only statements by politicians. Please take up in Talk page rather than edit war"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

None required: "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See Talk:City of David - this article is under a 1RR restriction. I warned him in the past for edit warring with basically the same edits, and at that time he was obviously editing as 134.191.232.71 (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Danielcohn for 48 hours per WP:ARBPIA. I blocked the IP for one year as a proxy server.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [#https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602693562&diffonly=1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602693562&diffonly=1
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602684222&diffonly=1
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602683473&diffonly=1
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602681550&diffonly=1
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602677288&diffonly=1
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602670231&diffonly=1

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [Ongoing disruptive behavior]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23][diff]

Comments:
Please do not wholesale revert or delete stuff

• Note. Wuerzele, next time use real diffs, not unclickable numbers. Also, you were required to notify the reported user; I did so for you. Both you and Fleetham have violated WP:3RR, and I'm tempted to block both of you. However, I will wait to see if Fleetham wants to comment, which probably means I won't take any action in the near-term, although another administrator may choose to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, thank you for looking at my report so quickly.

• Re Real vs unclickable diff numbers: I didnt know they needed to be clickable, it didnt say this in the instructions. I've seen diffs only in edit summaries, where they arent clickable. Sorry, I've never done this before.
• Re notifying reported user: I have done this too, I warned him on his talkpage, putting things in larger context of at least 15 other complaints n the last 6 months, but he deleted the post.
• Re tempted to block me/ having violated WP:3RR: Please tell me how. My understanding is violation is more than 3 R's - am I wrong? I defended my edit by reverting Fleethams reverts 3x, which is not ideal. Fleetham violated 3R's by reverting me 4x, reverted another user twice in the same 24h, to the total of 6 reversals. Fleetham reverted a) after I had proposed an edit on the talk page, and b)put a compromise of the proposal in the article. he cited flat out "lack of consensus on talk page" in his reversal summary every time without ever replying to my edit.

This user has long standing, ongoing problems regarding ownership, disruptive and confusing edits, with citation overkill, refusal to engage in sincere, productive conversation with others, a bias which numerous editors remarked upon over time, (on bitcoin the criminal intent), talking to the hand , abusing Wikipedia policies since at least 2011, not an isolated incident of this user.

After repeated wholesale reverts, removing content without comment, avoiding Talk: bitcoin, Fleetham recently changed his tactic: He will now pseudo-engage. After reverts, he sneakily posts on the talk page without addressing me. Unless I make a special effort, I may not see his post on Talk:Bitcoin, which has become a djungle crowded with messages. He waits briefly and when none replies, he will say his talk point is unopposed, and if by chance one person sides with him he calls it consensus. Anotehr tactic is he repeatedly asks me the same question and insists, that he doesn’t "understand a thing" of my explanation, while no other editor else has voiced this. In good faith, one tries to explain again, but he stubbornly insists he doesnt understand or somethingis worse but not saying why. This makes him look good at first or on casual review by someone that doesn’t delve deeply into the matter. Fleetham looks engaged by insisting that he still doesn’t understand, but is fake, shows no sign of trying to really work, is no genuine effort to understand the explanation. He does this until he wears one down, until one doesn’t respond, or until one walks away. He says in the edit summary, (not the talkpage) that his view is “unopposed”, that the other user isn’t engaging, or not building consensus. Thus Fleetham manufactures evidence against a good faith editor, to justify his disruptive behavior. This is vicious.

Since 2-28-14 I have begged Fleetham numerous times not to use edit summaries to shortcut discussion on the talk page. I read today on Fleetham’s talk page that 3 other editors, Dave1185 Thomas.W and Richardbondi have warned him of using misleading edit summaries too, to game the system which is when I realized, that this is what Fleetham does. He does this to immunize himself from criticism and to either justify reverts or avoid counting reverts as reverts. This is dysfunctional.

On this admin page today, I discovered, that one can look up past blocks of users: In 2011 Fleetham was blocked 4 times for increasingly long periods, first 31 h, then 48 h, then 1month twice, then 3 months. There were 4 Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard incidents, 2 of them with complaints like mine |one from March 2011 and one | /Edit warring edit warring disputes]]. He does not have a clean record. Please consider this in your opinion.

In summary: Editing Bitcoin daily for the last 42 days, I have observed how Fleetham at first bites new editors, with wholesale undiscussed, controversial deletions, disguised or open reverts, poisoning the atmosphere. There are at least 15 user comments in less than 6 months on [Talk:Fleetham] complaining about the same thing, likely an underestimate, because numerous others remained silent, or walked away from Bitcoin, including myself, because we want to stay on the subject, and not argue. Please check these user comments out before making a decision.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele, it's hard for me to wade through the wall of text above, including 3-year old blocking history, issues stemming from February, and issues other editors supposedly have with Fleetham's contributions that are also relatively old. I'll just address two points. First, you notified Fleetham of edit warring. You did not notify them of the filing of this report. The instructions at the top of the page state that you are required to do that. Second, you reverted four times. You're probably not counting your edit at 4:49 UTC as a revert but if you read the policy, you'll see that it is because you removed some material from the article and changed some other material. Thus, although I have the discretion to block just one of you even if both violated WP:3RR, I doubt that in this instance I would do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

First, yes I was edit warring. Second, I've repeatedly asked Wuerzele to read and abide by WP:NPA. Third, the issue in question was a proposed change where consensus was achieved, but Wuerzele went ahead and reverted it back to his version. See Talk:Bitcoin#Prose_in_Block_chain_section. I suggest a change, another editor says, "good, I think it's clearer now," and Wuerzele replies, "[my edit] has been a WP:status quo explaining blockchain. It stays." I don't think that justifies my behavior, and there are certainly better ways to handle the situation. Fleetham (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User:GOVINDKRISHNA GKM reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

GOVINDKRISHNA GKM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Colleges */"
2. 11:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Trivia */"
3. 10:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Trivia */"
4. 09:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Trivia */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Barwani. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Exceeded 3RR after warning. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Wrightfront reported by User:JDDJS (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602719674 by Equivamp (talk)"
2. 10:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602707543 by Melonkelon (talk)"
3. 09:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "I've seen YouTube and WIKI's used as sources on here before. Stop undoing this just because you're a butthurt Tumblr fanboy. No offence but that's kinda what I'm getting from this right now."
4. 20:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "Not biased. I never stated any of this as fact. It's criticisms people have given to the website. By your logic, listing the criticisms given to, say, Jeremy Clarkson by quote is biased. I never stated any of it as opinion, if you would notice."
5. 18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tumblr. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I left a note on his talk page recently, but then I saw that he already ignored two warnings about edit warring, so I doubt he'll listen to this one. JDDJS (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Ali Osama reported by User:Hohum (Result: Blocked)

Page

Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ali Osama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 19:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 10:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602691592 by Poliocretes (talk)"
6. 14:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "They keep un-editing it while i have put refs. and reason, their sources are completely wrong."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Yom Kippur War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Infobox results edit war - yet again. */ new section"

Comments:

Despite engaging on the article talk page and their user talk page, asking them for dialogue, and making them aware that this is a 1RR article, the user has reverted several more times. (Hohum ^@) 19:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I would have blocked them for a shorter duration and not per WP:ARBPIA if it hadn't been for the edits themselves, which were distinctly troubling. In their first revert, they changed the "result" from an Israeli victory to an Arab victory but retained all the sources (many) that supported the Israeli victory. In their second revert, they again changed the result, but this time, they removed all of the sources without adding any sources in support of the changed result. The next three reverts were all the same. They removed the old sources and added two in support of their change. One was an unreliable source that was a puff piece about glorious Egypt. The second was better, although I am not familiar enough with these sources to know how reliable it is or whether it was reasonable to cite to it. For those reasons, I blocked for a week (longer than normal for a first block) and did it subject to the discretionary sanctions. As an aside, Hohum, if you want to notify the user of the 1RR restriction (beyond what's already on the talk page and in the article edit notice), the best would be to do so on the user's talk page. If you want to do it on the article talk page, second best would then be to notify the user on their talk page of the discussion on the article talk page. Third best is what I think you tried to do, which was to notify the user through the notification system. However, the standard template, {{User}}, doesn't notify the user. You have to use one of the other templates for this purpose, e.g., {{U}} or {{ping}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:68.33.31.74 reported by User:Le Grand Bleu (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Liz Wahl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.33.31.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:

This has been going on for a few days already. Aparently it's the same person editing from first her nick and now from several IPs. Please revert it to the pre-war condition. Thank you. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Urartu TH reported by User:Grandmaster (Result:Blocked 72hrs )

Page: Khojaly Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Urartu TH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user was warned about WP:AA2, which considers edit warring harmful: [36], and he is well aware of 3RR because he himself provided a link to WP:Editwar in his edit summary. [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:
This user made 4 rvs in 24 h, which is a clear violation of 3RR. He adds a questionable and unsourced interpretation of a source into the lead, despite objections of other editors. Grandmaster 08:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an arbitration covered area, I have also reported it to WP:AE. Maybe it is worth to keep the discussion to one place, so any advise on that will be appreciated. Grandmaster 08:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my edits. In fact, the user initiating this matter is the one that began the back and forth of edits as can be seen in the history of the article. I did not change the substance of the sentence in question, as can be seen. I merely clarified the language. User Grandmaster was warned about not engaging in an editwar. In the Khojaly tragedy talk page, user Grandmaster made contentions about a particular word used in the sentence. The word is a valid use per the source cited. I asked Grandmaster to take the issue to community at a WP:DRN if necessary but they refuses. The user is attempting to a POV versions of events in a highly contentious article.--Urartu TH (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours "Standing by my edits" or not, WP:TRUTH is not an exception to the edit-warring policy. This type of battleground editing led to a block a mere 3 weeks ago, hence the escalation DP 10:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Wondering55 reported by User:Coretheapple (Result: Blocked)

Page: Fort Lee lane closure scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wondering55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45] also user talk page:[46]

Comments:
User has been edit-warring to enforce his will in this article, and attempts by two different users (myself and Cwobeel) to ameliorate the situation have not borne fruit. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Talk:September 11 attacks (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dornicke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]
5. [52]
6. [53]
7. [54]
8. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. User page warning
2. Talk page warning
3. Edit notice warning

Notified: [56]

Comments:
Not much to add here. Since they came back after over a year hiatus. The editor's work seems to have a singular ideological motivation. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A talk page threat was hatted due to poor, deteriorating discussion. Dornicke has reverted 8 times within a 48-hour window, despite being repeatedly warned. Four individual users (myself, User:MONGO, User:Jojhutton, and User:DHeyward) have reverted him, with almost all of them having a clear reason in the edit summary. In contrast, Dornicke has ceased providing edit summaries and is simply reverting persistently. Toa Nidhiki05 20:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The warning in my page reads: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.

You are reverting criticism related to whitewashing in the article in the talk page. Not a single valid reason for censoring it has been provided. The project rules do not support this kind of censorship. It's bad enough that a group of editors believe to the the owners of the article and persistently revert any change in the text. But now you want to CENSOR valid criticism towards the article in the talk page itself? That's more than a very bad taste joke. It's vandalism. Talk about "ideological motivation"... Dornicke (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As for "The editor's work seems to have a singular ideological motivation", just look for my contributions, in this project, and also in the Portuguese (including the featured articles I wrote, almost all of them about art), the French, the Italian, and the Spanish wikipedias. And also for the 6,000 images I've uploaded/donated to Wikimedia Commons. The first reversion by Mongo didn't even include a reason. That's because he simply didn't know how to justify such an absurd action as deleting a discussion simply because he didn't like the way it was going... and it's really funny to see editors that were not even involved in the discussion running here to ask for "punishment". Why? No arguments to defend your point of view, so nobody must see the criticism in the talk page? LOL indeed! Dornicke (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Petr Matas (Result: Declined)

Page: Crimean status referendum, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Reinsertion (revert 1) by Petr Matas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Controversial content removal by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Reinsertion (revert 1) by Petr Matas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Removal (revert 1) by My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Reinsertion (revert 2) by Moscow Connection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Removal (revert 2) by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Reinsertion (revert 3) by Petr Matas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Removal (revert 3) by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Reinsertion (revert 4) by Moscow Connection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Removal (revert 4) by Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Reinsertion (revert 5) by Moscow Connection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Removal (revert 5) by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Observers and legitimacy

• Declined. First, Petr Matas, you include a revert going back to April 1 and yet fail to note that VM has not violated WP:3RR. If I'm going to block VM for slow edit warring, I would block you too as you've hardly been blameless. Second, you include in your list of reverts a revert by another user. Just because another editor agrees with VM's revert doesn't mean that other editor is reverting on behalf of VM. Finally, you failed to notify VM of this report as you're required to do. I do suggest that the editors discuss more and edit the article less. Remember, this article is subject to disretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  Bbb23, let me apologize for my mistakes, I agree with all your reproaches. 1) I confused notice with warning. 2) I know that 3RR was not violated and I was probably too succinct. However, I feel that an edit war is occuring and I tried to document the entire war involving multiple users including myself. I thought that it was obvious from the list including the user names. Still, VM refuses to give detailed explanations of his edits as being told in the talk. From WP:WAR#What to do if you see edit-warring behavior I got a perception that this is the place where to go. Isn't there any policy for enforcing WP:BRD by restoring status quo ante until the dispute is resolved? — Petr Matas 05:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  Petr Matas, if you think this is not just a contentious content dispute but something that rises to the level of significant user misconduct, then WP:ANI is the right place, but be sure before you go because ANI is often not a welcoming place, particularly with these kinds of articles where there's bound to be a certain level of friction. Otherwise, use dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  There's a possibility that WP:AE may also be a relevant forum, as I believe Volunteer Marek was sanctioned under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list under a different username which I will not mention here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 reported by User:173.74.249.6 (Result: Protected)

Page: Mike Scott (sheriff) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

173.74.249.6 (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected for two days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Lockean One reported by User:Finx (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69] (which this editor then copy-pasted on my own talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70] (it's quite literally all over the talk page for the last several months, although this user has been removing or collapsing/hiding comments he doesn't like -- the latest tactic has been to accuse everyone else of being the disruptive/disrespectful ones)

Comments:

First of all, I'm sorry, but this is getting pretty frustrating. We've had little help from administrators so far and it's pretty absurd how long this has gone on. Lockean One's talk page is a graveyard for notices about edit warring and disruptive editing. This is literally all that this account does. There are many users who can attest to this editor being a disruptive edit warrior who just tries to rewrite the same article like some right-wing political pamphlet over and over and over again. Please see these other administrators' noticeboard incidents for background:

1. [71]

1. [72]

1. [73]

Can you please do something about this instead of just locking the article down? fi (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If an admin has any questions of me please let me know. Otherwise, I see no need to address all of the falsehoods above. Those aren't even all reverts by me above, apparently Finx didn't even bother to take the time to read them prior to edit warring and violating the 3RR rule. Must have been too busy making up false and uncivil statements about me as has been done for months now to disrupt good faith discussions of article content. Lockean One (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the edit history of the article. I was surprised when Lockean One wasn't blocked at the last noticeboard posting, roughly two and a half weeks ago. I personally would be in favor of some sort of topic ban. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:111.235.66.34 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 year)

Page

2013 Egyptian coup d'état (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

IP 111.235.66.34's edit

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602970316 by Dr.K. (talk), what you are doing proves that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information because managed by biased ppl, you should stop vandalism!!!!"
2. 07:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602970072 by Dr.K. (talk) stop vandalism"
3. 06:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602805525 by Kudzu1 (talk) stop giving wrong and misleading information, you do not have reliable English sources, and do not put egyptian sources, they sucks!!!"
4. 06:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "No reliable sources provided"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. (TW★TW)"
2. 07:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Removing sourced content and replacing it with bad English. User:111.235.66.34 is an open proxy and continues edit-warring started by blocked proxy 176.35.77.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

STOP GIVING SH*****T TO THE WORLD by providing misleading information, follow you principles of discussing first!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.235.66.34 (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 year. Open proxy so hardblocked for 1 year. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Pk041 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )

Page: Raheel Sharif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pk041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. February 18
2. February 18 (revert by a possible IP sock, as an IP from the same range also restored another of his edit where he was edit warring)
3. April 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Discretionary sanctions warning, 1st block, Edit warring warning, 2nd block, Edit warring warning

Comments:
This user edits is persistently edit warring across multiple articles in caste/clan topic area and up till now nothing seems to have changed in spite of two escalating blocks. -- SMS ^Talk 08:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)