Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilN (talk | contribs) at 20:26, 26 March 2014 (Adding new report for Heritoctavus. using TW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:Jdogno5 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Indefinite block)

Page: Space Jam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jdogno5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (March 18–20):

Editor was blocked for 31 hours by User:Nikkimaria:

Diffs of the user's reverts (March 21):

Editor was blocked for 60 hours by User:Crisco 1492:

Diffs of the user's reverts (March 24):

Disruptive editing on the article talk page:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#Content change and trivia addition over at Space Jam

Comments:

This is the third spate of warring after two blocks. I think a lengthy block is required this time. The issues have been highlighted on the talk page and the sensible thing to do would have been to work through them and supply the requested sourcing, and there isn't much any of can do if he simply refuses to co-operate. Betty Logan (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.—Kww(talk) 04:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Filucz2004 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: No violation)

Page: Shakira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Filucz2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User continues to edit-war over edits to the Shakira article, and giving little to no reason or explanation for why, other than that the edits are "repulsive". User was previously blocked for edit-warring, and when I tried speaking to said user, they ignored my talk page comments and continued on editing. Two other editors also tried communicating with said-user, and ignored them as well. He also called the edits "untrue", but all that was reverted was the infobox and how the date of birth was represented. Neither edit was untrue. User also changed simple changes to how the references were appeared, with "30em", which is what is most accustomed used in articles now. User is obviously only here for self agenda is appears and will continue their edits until they've been blocked once more. And given a look at their talkpage, a severe case of disruptive editing is at hand. livelikemusic 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (User explanation: Revert, totally untrue.)
2. (User explanation: STOP!!!!!)
3. (User explanation: UNTRUE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!)
4. (User explanation: THIS IS REPULSIVE EDITION)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. XXSNUGGUMSXX tried asking why they've been making their edits, with no response.
2. IPadPerson tried once again contacting user, with no response.
3. I tried contacting user, with no response.

Comments:

• No violation There is a slow-moving edit war there, but no violation of 3RR exists. Remember that at least *four* reverts must be done in no more than 24 hours, which is not the case here. However, if you continue, it is likely for any of you to end up blocked. → Call me Hahc21 14:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Abdus Salam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 13:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "huge difference between non-muslim and not-muslim, constitution say not-muslim, so read it by your self. then undo my edit. http://www.thepersecution.org/archive/ordxx.html"
3. 12:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Dr salam had contributed towards initial project development of atomic project, I known it for sure. so don't try to undo it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Abdus Salam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

It is an edit warring report not a 3RR. SMS 13:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Intuitive2000 reported by User:Randykitty (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Pattern Recognition in Physics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Intuitive2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC) to 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601018969 by 41.106.3.43 (talk)"
   2. 12:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601014447 by William M. Connolley (talk)"
   3. 12:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600996239 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
   4. 12:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600996199 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
   5. 12:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600996098 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
   6. 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600987011 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
   7. 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600986899 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
   8. 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600986661 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
2. 12:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "TheRedPenOfDoom is abusing and disrupting this entry by deleting entries necessary for understanding the full story:"
3. 15:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601046086 by Randykitty: The original content has been restored. There are several attempts of censoring information necessary to understand the full story. Argue your argument instead of deleting"
4. 16:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601049755 by TheRedPenOfDoom Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, do not delete just because you do not like the full story. Add contents if you have it"
5. 17:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601056121 by Randykitty Do not delete. You are censoring. Argue your arguments in the talk page."
6. 17:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601057248 by Randykitty Do not be boring. There is a discussion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. First warning
2. Second warning
3. and another warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "/* We are not Ouadfeul mouthpiece */ agree"

Comments:

Several editors disagree with this one editor on the article talk page. Editor has now full scale reverted at least five times, after clear warnings on their talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Elockid 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Arderich reported by User:NeoBatfreak (Result: No violation)

Page: Carrie (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arderich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Carrie_(2013_film)&oldid=601063427

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Elockid 19:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:210.211.110.236 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: 24 hours)

Page

G8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 18:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 18:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on G8. (TW)"
2. 18:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on G8. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP repeatedly adding POV comments/personal analysis. I notified them about both NPOV and 3RR on their talk page (diffs included). BethNaught (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

IP has continued to perform reverts restoring the inappropriate content after my warning and and notifying them of this report. BethNaught (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Elockid 19:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Amensnober91 reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amensnober91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (1RR per WP:SCWGS):

1. 24/03 08:02 revert
2. 24/03 01:39 revert
3. 23/03 18:31 revert

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: 06/03 warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm not an involved party)

Comments:
user:Amensnober91 is among several users engaged on an all-out edit-warring on the described article, which is sanctioned for 1RR.GreyShark (dibra) 19:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours, given that he was previosuly blocked this very same month for 48 hours. GreyShark: please keep and eye on it and let me know at my talk page if, after the block expires, he come sback and violates 1RR again. → Call me Hahc21 21:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hahc21: please record the block at Misplaced Pages:SCWGS#List of blocks and bans.GreyShark (dibra) 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. → Call me Hahc21 22:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Daki122 reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: No action taken)

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Daki122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts (1RR per WP:SCWGS):

1. 22/03 16:56
2. 23/03 13:54

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: blocked on 23 November 2013 for edit-warring at this same page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm not an involved party)

Comments:
Among several users engaged on an all-out edit-warring on the described article, which is sanctioned for 1RR.GreyShark (dibra) 19:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not blocked. I'm going to give Daki122 the benefit of the doubt since the edits did occur on different days although they were 21 hours apart, and because Daki122 wasn't notified of this discussion. That particular edit seems to have gone back and forth quite a bit among other editors as well. I'm minded to fully protect the talk page for a while, although several of the reverts I see in the history are self-reverts.

I will leave a warning on the user's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, my mistake for not notifying him - i had been distracted right in the middle of it.GreyShark (dibra) 22:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: please record the warning at Misplaced Pages:SCWGS#Log of notifications.GreyShark (dibra) 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this I did not see the hours on the reverts as I did revert in two different days so I did not notice that 24 hours did not pass.I did not notice that I eve broke the rule as I thought a day(24 hours) had passed since my last edit.Thanks for the heads up I will try to be more careful next times.Daki122 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:87.161.204.120 reported by User:TheIrishWarden (Result: Blocked)

Page

Winx Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Winx_Club&diff=601098411&oldid=601098263 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Winx_Club&diff=601094709&oldid=601085441

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Winx Club. (TW)"
2. 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Threatening users about being blocked */ new section"
3. 21:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "/* March 2014 */"
4. 21:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wings (Pike novel). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continually edit warring with another IP and threatening to block the other IP. This IP has persistently ignored warnings and branded them as me threatening them Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 22:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 60 hours. → Call me Hahc21 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Marchoctober reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)

Page

Bhakta Prahlada (1931 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Marchoctober (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:

When there is strong evidence to prove that Bhakta Prahlada was released in 1932, he mocks it and supports much older sources which erroneously state 1931 (due to an old belief which he still follows). He has been edit warring against multiple experienced editors who support 1932. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you please see the talk page here: Talk:Bhakta_Prahlada_(1931_film), the above user has been trying to edit the article in a biased manner suitable to him, the talk page even had and administrator who concluded that the name change had no consensus and that the same name be continued, now this user reports me as edit warring though I had not indulged in any edit warring as reported by this user, I have provided all the possible sources and also provided an amicable solution of presenting the same information on the article which the above user presented and without deleting the present information which has overwhelming sources unlike this user's version, the talk page has all the information, in order to get his way on the article this user seem to be reporting me as edit warring, but in good faith I will assume, he misunderstood me and reported me as edit warring here. Marchoctober (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• No violation There hasn't been any reverts since last year. Elockid 03:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Elockid, I want you to see the this for more information. While everyone in the discussions support 1932 based on the authentic sources, he alone does not. To make himself a winner, he always has something to say in rebuttal against other users with valid statements. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That still doesn't warrant any action. This is common during arguments/discussions. To be sanctioned for edit warring he/she must perform multiple reverts against multiple revert or to be sanctioned for 3RR, he/she must perform more than three reverts during a 24 hour period. Simply opposing others' views doesn't qualify for sanctions under policy. If however, they decide to act disruptive by either using personal attacks (I don't see that in the discussion) or start to keep on reverting others, then they may be sanctioned. Elockid

User:XXX8906 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No violation)

Page

List of video games notable for negative reception (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

XXX8906 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 11:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) to 11:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 601108918 by ViperSnake151 (talk): Seems acceptable to me. (TW)"
   2. 11:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601108918 by ViperSnake151 (talk)Nothing wrong with having a large amount of content."
2. 21:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Werieth (talk): non-free use rationale's have now been added for the files. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He is placing in-depth content, copied from other pages, on a page that has always been written in a summary style. There is no consensus for these changes. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• No violation There hasn't been a violation of 3RR. At most XXX8906 reverted three times. But, the consecutive reverts given can be treated as a whole or single revert. I can only really see two reverts on XXX8906's part. I don't see how this would be considered edit warring either. Elockid 03:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:39.32.206.224 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Page protected)

Page

Total Siyapaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "See the talk page topic discussion <Box info>"
2. 14:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to last edit by Finexfeather <Even if 8 crore budget figure from 13 sources is being claimed from low quality sources still it is better then 18 crore un cited figure may be typo error of 1)"
3. 02:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Even if 8 crore budget figure from 12 sources is being claimed from low quality sources still it is better then 18 crore un cited figure"
4. 15:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Cited 12 sources and Corrected. wt sock?"
5. 15:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Reason ?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Total Siyapaa. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Infobox budget figures discussion */ Cmt"

Comments:

This is likely an IP sock of LanguageXpert, who has been all over this article like a rash with multiple socks. I requested PP yesterday, but it appears there are a backlog over there. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected by AlexiusHoratius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The IP is most likely too stale to take any action on. Since this is a Pakistani IP, it's very likely that collateral is very high in case your wondering of a rangeblock. Elockid 03:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tabrisius reported by User:Tachfin (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Royal Moroccan Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "removing vandalism..."
2. 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "The Moroccan army has existed continuously since the 11th-century (removing vandalism)"
3. 15:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "ok...done.."
4. 16:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism...next time you edit i'll contact a mod. YOU CAN'T"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Tabrisius */ new section"

Comments:

User is in violation of 3RR, refuses to resolve the conflict on talk, and keeps reverting edit which is clearly good faith with the edit summary "vandalism". The user in question is also threatening me on the talk page quote: "Next time you edit i'll contact somebody to make you respect a bit others work" Tachfin (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Though Tabrisius has been doing a lot of work to improve the article, he broke 3RR on 25 March per the diffs above. He has made incorrect charges of vandalism plus an AIV report. Notice the intemperate attacks at Talk:Royal Moroccan Army#Tabrisius. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Elmech and sockpuppets reported by User:Smyth (Result: 1 week)

Page: Roosh V (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• Elmech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and sockpuppets;

• Egirl90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doixir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:17, 25 March 2014
2. 11:06, 25 March 2014
3. 13:51, 25 March 2014‎
4. 00:18, 26 March 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user has been invited to the talk page on numerous occasions , but their one and only edit to an article talk page so far has been to delete the discussion they were invited to join and insert a forged comment from another user to make them appear biased.

My report on this user here on AN/I has received little attention. This is the first time they have broken the 3RR, but they have been reverting the article to their preferred version at least once every few days for more than a month now. This needs some serious admin attention, as they are holding the article hostage and ignoring all attempts at discussion. – Smyth\ 01:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconding Smyth's report. User is WP:NOTHERE and a single purpose account. Requesting strong action. Thought they were a sock but apparently were not blocked for it. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week If the consensus at any is to modify the block, then it will be handled there. Elockid 03:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Connor2278 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Protected)

Page

Ed Manion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Connor2278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601286406 by Flat Out (talk)"
2. 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601280773 by Flat Out (talk)"
3. 00:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 00:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ed Manion. (TW)"
2. 01:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ed Manion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Copyright problem removed */ seek consensus"

Comments:

• Page protected It seems that per the result of the last report, both users were warned of edit warring. Instead of issuing blocks, I have decided to protect the page instead. I did however block Arizona3876 (talk · contribs) and Bodiddle1963 (talk · contribs). I have also warned Connor2278 about our policy on multiple accounts. Elockid 02:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) would you consider reverting to the previous version given that I have sought consensus at article's talk page? Flat Out let's discuss it 03:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the practice on the wrong version prevents me from doing so. It doesn't seem like there's consensus on the talk page yet, so I don't feel comfortable making any changes at this time. If however, a consensus is reached, I will be happy to assist. Elockid 03:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Oglesruins reported by User:Tarlneustaedter (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (HAHAHA!, read the reference, or will stay exhibited and in ridiculous, ;))
2. (what it says the user AbelM7 is true, I also saw him writing as well in an spanish encyclopedia, thus it is also known, why one has to stay well and smack you, that you are not God, and that is not going to blindly obey whatever you say, ;))
3. (Spend the link to me of the hindering one " quite solid consensus ", apart, I am not a domestic animal in order that they are treating me that way (another user))
4. (You cannot act without arguments)
5. (here's your reference, clow...)
6. (I compose the article nothing more to be able to put that I do not agree with this, but they are forcing theirs that makes it like that...)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No response from user, the following section is discussion by other editors who have also reverted him.

Comments:
The original bad edit was removing "de facto" description of Spanish as national language. Later reversions have included reverting earlier bad edits from other editors - re-adding the incorrect back-translation "Estados Unidos de Mexico", which had been resolved with a different editor, AbelM7.

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: Protected)

Page

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

User being reported

Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC) to 04:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 04:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH){{http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm, Reason #34: Doubt Cannot Undermine Conviction (website of registered international Dawoodi Bohra Magazine)}} */"
   3. 04:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"
3. 06:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has been given warnings in the past to not add biased primary blog sources as references to take side of one claimant Summichum (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Summichum after being released from blocked status immediately started blanking out the edit painstakingly done by me and fellow editors, and started imposing his view again. Same reason for which he was blocked before.I feel his conduct highly unethical and propose to block him instead.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

We are surprised that a single person joined the Wiki for a specific purpose, intentionally want to impose his partisan views. We have differences on 'Claimant' issue, and the matter is under discussion at talk page. All the relevant reports on subjects are placed in best NPOV. The encyclopedic reports on the page of main subjects are included on individual's page and controversial points are also covered in brief with due references. Summichum seems adamant to take side of one and already blocked once for his activity and now blaming other editors. We know the real in depth facts and would make all sincere efforts to keep the Wiki principles above all. Dear Summichum, please restrain yourself, don't worry truth will prevail and only fare material will have space here.--Md iet (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected for one month, but be warned, if there is a next time I'll be blocking people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mufaddalqn reported by User:Summichum (Result: Protected)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601314011 by Summichum (talk) Please stop your disrupting edition and war edits"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC) to 11:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Restructured the Article so as to make it more readable."
   2. 11:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Mufaddal_Saifuddin. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is a long standing dispute the user has been warned several times yet persists in adding personal blog sources for his claims Summichum (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can see from my talk page the user has given me final warning Just 2 minutes before citing my name in edit-war notice board, further he has given me notice in response to my being giving him notice.pathetic.Mufaddalqn (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This User Summichum is citing difference from two different articles and further he himself was engaging in war edits. You can clearly see from his history and talk pages. I had been given him warnings for his disruptive edits and not citing him to the Noticeboard as a courtesy, because he was already blocked twice before. I leave to the Judgement of Admin that he is right in requesting to block me and it should not be vice versa. Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cue Obviously not a 3RR, but a content dispute running for a couple of months now. I have suggested on the article talk page that the entrenched parties start by taking the question regarding use of primary sources to RSN to get input. Best, Sam Sailor 08:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Sam Sailor Anup Mehra Thanks I really request your interventions . The two users are posting Original research as done in their own blogs as evidences for their claims. My main contention is that users should not take side of any claimant and not add statements like "nass was granted on XYZ" as the succession \nass is extremely disputed and in such a case we can only rely on third party published sources from authoritative sites like huffingtonpost, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 08:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Sam Sailor Anup Mehra User:Ftutocdg RSN dispute: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 09:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If huffintonpost is reliable the more so is times of india. The Admin can find this himself. this should be discussed in talk pages not here.Mufaddalqn (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

We are surprised that a single person joined the Wiki for a specific purpose, intentionally want to impose his partisan views. We have differences on 'Claimant' issue, and the matter is under discussion at talk page. All the relevant reports on subjects are placed in best NPOV. The encyclopedic reports on the page of main subjects are included on individual's page and controversial points are also covered in brief with due references. Summichum seems adamant to take side of one and already blocked once for his activity and now blaming other editors. We know the real in depth facts and would make all sincere efforts to keep the Wiki principles above all. Dear Summichum, please restrain yourself, don't worry truth will prevail and only fare material will have space here.

Only third party published sources have been included now and reports as published by them are quoted for specific points mentioned regarding Nass. If Huffingtonpost is reporting on the material from one self_published_site and being included then TOI, Outlook, Badre Muneer etc. are registered and authorative sites having huge international circulation and material covered by them have same importance in Wiki.--Md iet (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected for one month, but be warned, if there is a next time I'll be blocking people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Spec235 reported by User:Widr (Result: Blocked)

Page

Cesar Rene Arce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Spec235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601317295 by Materialscientist (talk)"
2. 08:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601322342 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
3. 08:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601322992 by Materialscientist (talk)"
4. 09:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "https://www.facebook.com/todd.chandler.16121?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab here is your source and here is another source http://www.intagme.com/chosenforkrime/ i have pics my email is spec235@gmail.com he died for his art..get it right.."
5. 11:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601332919 by Widr (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:111.125.201.50 reported by User:Elassint (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601355560 by Til Eulenspiegel (talk)"
2. 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601357773 by Til Eulenspiegel (talk) I've provided references you are removing for no reason"
3. 15:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601364895 by Til Eulenspiegel (talk) yes you vandalize"
4. 16:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601374704 by 71.246.155.112 (talk) same annoying edit warrior"
5. 16:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601375120 by 71.246.155.112 (talk) what consensus, Reverting vandalism is no edit warring."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was already warned by another user Elassint 17:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I had reverted the vandalism by other user known as "Til Eulenspiegel", who is removing the fully referenced stuff, and adding a known forger Annius de Viterbo. He has got NO REFERENCES for what he is adding. Very soon, he would use his own IP "71.246.155.112" for same edit warring, using same summaries.(edit summaries)

I have reverted, but the version which has references, I am on this article for years, and for days with this identity, this content was NEVER removed, but today this user is edit warring over it, removing it, adding unsourced stuff from himself.

4 reverts by Til Eulenspiegel :-

And soon he did 3 reverts from his IP, even reverting ClueBot NG, that identified his edits as vandalism...

See the block history of Til Eulenspiegel, it is not even a new thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.201.50 (talk • contribs)

You have reverted against consensus and three different editors and refused to take part in discussion. This is not the way we do things around here, you will be reverted and blocked if you try to bring about objectionable changes to articles in this fashion, all while refusing to discuss until it gets to WP:ANE. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Making a incoherent post or denial at talk page doesn't means 'consensus', ultimate consensus I see on talk page is that number of editors had raised this issue for years. And this week, everything got sourced, that you certainly started to revert with your account and IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.201.50 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Another revert/removal of highly referenced content by Til Eulenspigel :- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mannus&diff=601397890&oldid=601375624

Now he has crossed 5 reverts, removing WP:RS and inserting his own unsourced original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.201.50 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Heritoctavus reported by User:NeilN (Result: )

Page

Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Controversies */"
2. 06:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Controversies */"
3. 14:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Recovering from unjustified reverting by Nein : see talk page"
4. 19:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "modified as per the discussion in the talk page"
5. 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "recover from illegitimate sectional blanking of twinkle twinkle NeilN"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* New York Times */"
2. 14:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* New York Times */"
3. 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* New York Times */"
4. 19:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* New York Times */ Fixing style/layout errors"
5. 20:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Public's opinions */"

Comments:

Editor recently blocked for edit warring. Posts on article talk page indicate disruption intentions NeilN 20:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring