Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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: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: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1 January 2015

1. 640453169 copy edit
2. 640462005please don't revert
3. 640462579I'm not sure what your concern is. What do you mean by"the edit is not a copy edit?" As I did not add new content, this is a copy edit
4. 640466409discuss on talk--don't revert please!)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1] and [2] [3]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Comments:
first revert re section started 12/29: simply called "copy edit"

Recently, Fleetham is using this "copy edit" tactic instead of discussing things at the talk page, while being warned at Talk:Bitcoin that his purported "copy edits" contain WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, incorrect grammar, and delete sourced information. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston, Ladislav, somehow it looks, like it's going to be 36 h archiving and no decision again.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:86.130.140.194 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked)

Page

Vatican City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. 20:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 23:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Edit warring warning
2. 23:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Avignon Papacy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Many more reverts have been made over a series of Vatican related pages. Has been invited to discuss with no effect. Charles (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The same editor's edit-warring is continuing. See 25 December 2014 – 4 January 2015}. Esoglou (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And again, five more times! Esoglou (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Editor is busy changing styles contrary to WP:MOS and reverts against anyone who disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Baatarsaikan reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Baatarsaikan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13] [14] [15]

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

Comments:
Please note that this article is subject to a 1RR restriction under WP:ARBPIA. User:Baatarsaikan was given notice of the ARBPIA sanctions on December 31. User:Baatarsaikan spent the morning edit-warring on this article and Persecution of Christians and ignored warnings to stop. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours per WP:ARBPIA.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17] "No citation for Arewa Consultative Forum's relationship to Boko Haram. Using the word "Jihad" doesn't equal support of Boko Haram"
2. [18] No edit summary
3. [19] "edit discussed at length, see my talk page"
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20] and [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:
After the first revert, deleting a paragraph from the Background section, I reworded the paragraph to remove any possible suggestion that the APC/ACF were being described as supporters of Boko Haram, as he appeared to think. I then opened the discussion on his talk page.

He replied here that "the word 'Boko Haram' is not in the reference you cited", revealing that he hadn't even looked at the reference ("Boko Haram" is in the title, and repeated throughout), before deleting the paragraph.

He states repeatedly in all his responses that the reference does not claim that the APC are supporters of Boko Haram, but as I repeatedly point out, the article does not claim that they are! He claims repeatedly that because I quote the founder of the APC speaking about jihad, I am claiming that the APC support Boko Haram. eg here, "it is naive to believe that every Muslim group that says 'Jihad' automatically support Boko Haram". I have tried to WP:AGF, and reminded him repeatedly that the article doesn't say or imply anything that the reference doesn't. Without attempting to refute this, he simply replies each time that it does indeed claim or imply that they support BH, without explaining why he thinks this, eg "why does the wikipedia article imply that they do support Boko Haram?".

His other "complaint" is "what does any of the following have to do with Boko Haram?", to which I reply here that it "describes the long-term background of Islamic militancy in the north of the country" and again here that "a couple of sentences to describe the main political group representing the interests of northern Nigeria is hardly undue."

I began 100% assuming good faith, and I am sorely disappointed. His initial failure to even glance at the reference, followed by his repeated refusal to recognise the fact that the background section of an article contains background, and that the section in question doesn't say (or imply) anything that the reference doesn't, have left me with no option but to report his behaviour here. When he said "I don't need to prove a negative, you job is to prove that APC supports Boko Haram" two minutes before reverting for the third time, it became clear that a) it is completely hopeless trying to communicate with him, and b) he firmly believes that he can remove any sourced material he doesn't like for whatever spurious reason. zzz (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

And, by the way, this, "Again, everyone who says Jihad does not equal support of Boko Haram and I also see you are on a crusade to delete articles about other radical Muslim groups in Nigeria" appears to me at least to be a completely unwarranted and offensive personal attack. zzz (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

References

No violation – It takes four reverts to violate 3RR. Please hold the discussion on the *article* talk page. A discussion on a user talk page may not be seen by others who are following the article. If you can't reach agreement, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As I knew was going to happen, User:Lipsquid is now repeating his edit and refusing to discuss on article talk. zzz (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mustafa ug reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

Page

Eastern Mediterranean University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mustafa ug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "referenceses must support. And this is not advertising the university. This is politics"
2. 21:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC) "not active links to validate this. No need for promotion of the university"
3. 20:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC) "no need to put these things here. no valid references and not enough knowledge about events there, political effects about education and missing information about sitoation"
4. 20:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC) to 19:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Supreme Court ruling on rector's dismissal */"
   2. 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Supreme Court ruling on rector's dismissal */"
   3. 19:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Supreme Court ruling on rector's dismissal */"
   4. 19:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Eastern Mediterranean University. (TW)"

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:198.96.85.111 reported by User:MadGuy7023 (Result: Semi)

Page

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[23]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640826320 by Callmemirela (talk)"
2. 17:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640826223 by Callmemirela (talk)"
3. 17:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640825794 by Callmemirela (talk)"
4. 17:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640824111 by Callmemirela (talk)"
5. 17:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640822503 by Callmemirela (talk)"
6. 17:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640822081 by Callmemirela (talk)"
7. 17:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640813287 by MadGuy7023 (talk)"
8. 16:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 639348128 by MadGuy7023 (talk)"
9. [24]
10. [25]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[26] (both warnings)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is has been edit warring for a very long time. He/She has been reported here and here. A page protection and two blocks weren't enough for them to stop. I am running out of options as they always seem to return with the same editing and edit warring. I would rather lose my privileges to stop this user than let them get away with it. This has been on going and each block was 24 hours, which didn't last the lack of edit warring long. Callmemirela (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Consider reporting this IP at WP:SPI if you are hoping to get admin action on other articles. The only common element I could see in the IPs is that they were all from Canada, though from different cities. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, it would be greatly appreciated if you could please also block the IP. Now that the article is blocked, said user has turned to the article's talk page, and is making a nuisance there. This is someone who clearly needs an enforced timeout. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )

Page: Boko Haram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Lipsquid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]
6. [33]
7. [34]
8. [35]
9. [36] revert 5 made while or after the report was filed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37] Signedzzz warning on Lipsquid's talk. Signedzzz's 3RR report above. [38] Since Signedzzz just warned and filed a 3RR which was declined as no violation, it seems pretty hypocritical to promptly go over 3RR himself on the point. Not the first edit war between them. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39] and elsewhere.

Comments:I'm mainly watching the article page, not edit warring here. No opinion on the merits of one version vs the other.

Yes, I accidentally went over 3RR, so as to specifically direct the user to discuss on talk per BRD. After filing the detailed request last night, so as to avoid this, which I knew was going to happen, I forgot to count my reverts for last 24 hours, assuming that I was still safe. Last night when I filed my report I was on 2 and he was on 3. Now I am on 4 and he is on 5. I should have stopped when I was on 3 and he was on 4. I apologise for my mistake. zzz (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

At least I didn't have to fill in this report again, which took me hours last night. zzz (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

When I filed the report both editors were at 4 (8 reverts total), but now Lipsquid's gone to 5, so I've updated. Suggest an RfC as this is a fairly high profile article with many involved editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the article and the source in detail around the disputed edit and reported my findings. My assessment is that Lipsquid's edit is quite justified and that Signedzzz is following WP:OWN and not the RS's by reverting. I also note that going back at least a few weeks Signedzzz has been pushing a similar point on another part of the article, reflecting a failure to follow sources. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, you say above that I am "hypocritical" and that I am "pushing" a "similar point" in some other part of the article. These accusations are not relevant here. Please clarify this one point:

• Which RS's am I not following in the disputed paragraph (which cited only one ref, cited in my report above)? zzz (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

missed a word. Possessive not plural. the RS's information. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh you missed a word. So, which piece of information in the paragraph is not in the source? zzz (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The info and quote is in the source, but it was placed out of context in a way that is potentially misleading to the reader. It is off topic to the Boko Haram article. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

So a couple of sentences to describe the main political group representing the interests of northern Nigeria, who have a military and intelligence capability, and are suspected of involvement in sectarian riots, is misleading and off-topic in the background section of the Boko Haram article, and must be deleted. Is that what you are claiming? zzz (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• The thing is, if you're right, why was the information in the source? Is the source misleading and off-topic? Do you have a source for that? zzz (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• "It was placed out of context" - how do you come to think that? The source was an article about the background of Boko Haram. The context it was placed in was the background section of the Wikipedia article. Please explain how this is "out of context". zzz (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you've now edited the section in the article to remove the information you find to be misleading and off-topic, and accused me of various things including not following the source(s), please explain your reasoning. zzz (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• And, briefly, what "similar point" have I been "pushing" in another section of the article? zzz (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you have accused me of hypocrisy, incompetence and falsifying sources, please explain. zzz (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not edited the article recently except a one letter typo. Everything else is explained above. If you wish to have a content despite take that to the article talk. Legacypac (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You explained what exactly? What "similar point" have I been "pushing" in another section of the article, for example? zzz (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You've weighed in on the article talk page agreeing with everything User:Lipsquid says (of course), but it's got nothing to do with the article. zzz (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked at both editors versions and the source, then at your arguments and found my assessment is pretty close to Lipsquid's assessment. I just reported my findings to the 3RR report I started after I reviewed everything. Now please stop with the nattering here. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Lipsquid's assessment: "the word 'Boko Haram' is not in the reference you cited." zzz (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm convinced this editor can't read english. I said assessment, I did not say I agree with every word in their comments. Now stop the harassment please. Legacypac (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Anasapananas reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Kwon Yuri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Please note

• Anasapananas has engaged in a longterm campaign since 31 December restoring non-notable awards against consensus and waited after getting a 3RR warning, only to start again soon after the 3RR 24 period expired, thus gaming the system. Non-communicative, shows no signs of stopping without getting blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
2. 10:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */"
3. 08:22, 1 January 2015 "/* Awards and nominations */"
4. 23:36, 31 December 2014 "/* Awards and nominations */"
5. 23:02, 31 December 2014 "/* Awards and nominations */"
6. 22:57, 30 December 2014 "/* Awards and nominations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Longterm edit-warring on K-pop article Kwon Yuri edit-warring against multiple other editors and against consensus. Waited just long enough to not get caught breaking 3RR and then started again. No communication, no use of edit-summaries, just blind reverting. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I have to say nobody else is using the talkpage either, Dr.K.! But I agree Anasapananas's edits have an appearance of slow edit warring and perhaps gaming the 3RR rule, with no attempt to discuss even via edit summaries. Blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Bishonen, but there is a centralised discussion taking place amongst the other editors including Drmies at the K-pop wiki-project and in other articles as well where discussions have taken place and consensus formed. The MO of the reported user is typical of socks which blindly revert without communication. But the edits of this account are not enough for me to open an SPI as yet. This type of behaviour has plagued K-pop articles for years. A very similar case is just above where Kely123 got blocked for a week. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:86.169.134.161 reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: )

Page

Brown adipose tissue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640818633 by FrB.TG (talk) The source of the contention is in the article cited! No-one would subject a human to 8 weeks at 4°C."
2. 16:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640817728 by FrB.TG (talk) A SCRIPT IS NOT COMPETENT TO JUDGE MY CONTRIBUTION."
3. 16:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Adults */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Brown adipose tissue. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I am the person who reverted to my own edit, twice. I had no idea of 'edit warring;' and have no intention of such. My first reversion was to undo a reversion effectively by script (and a user who only got editing permissions yesterday, I learn from his own page).

The second was to point out that the original citation was about mice stressed to an extreme of cold. The citation (though not the article itself) implies a serious medical condition (atherosclerosis) may affect adult humans (being the subject of that section of the page). There are no grounds to assert that comfortable acclimation by humans to moderate reductions in ambient temperatures is in any way comparable to an extreme test done on mice!

There is an article at http://www.jci.org/articles/view/68993 which shows that several SHORT term tests at moderate conditions have shown useful results and no harm, though long term tests are still wanting, as that article and many other state. For now, I request that you let my edit stand, until someone does it better. This is better than removing it and leaving people worrying about atherosclerosis when they should be thinking about a careful reduction in their own weight and their consumption of energy. It is far better that people learn that more human-based research is needed, instead of being forced to fall back on scare stories about extreme tests on mice!86.169.134.161 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I am an uninvolved editor, there is no 3rr breached here, some mild edit warring, and after a quick read of the reference used, the one already in the article, the IPs edits are supported by the reference. A little helping is needed to the IPs edits not blank reverting. Murry1975 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
• The IP appears apologetic on his talk page and I am tempted to believe him. He is informed of edit warring policy and a block is probably not required. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Emerwalnut reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of wealthiest historical figures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:39, 3 January 2015‎ UTC)
2. 17:51, 3 January 2015‎ UTC)
3. 19:35, 3 January 2015‎ UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of wealthiest historical figures. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring to add material that is far outside the scope of the article, introduced 17:23-17:24 here. NebY (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. "far outside the scope of the article" is a polite way of putting it. The edits are a blend of incompetence and vandalism, probably more the former. The user name is a problem, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Nikolaserbboy1995 reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Nikolaserbboy1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Demographics */"
2. 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640751378 by Elekhh (talk)"
3. 02:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640741601 by Chasewc91 (talk)"
4. 02:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I am not actively involved in the Vienna article; I just happened to come across this user's edit warring yesterday in recent changes and reverted him once. User has not even left edit summaries explaining his changes, and is likely aware of other users' reasons for reverting him as he used the "undo" feature twice. Other users have warned him on his talk page. He still chooses to edit war. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Elekhh and Viewmont Viking may wish to comment here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dyrnych reported by User:Afronig (Result: Both warned)

Page: Death of Eric Garner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dyrnych (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

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

Comments:

Editor has engaged in multiple revert wars on this article in one 24 hour period. The BLP issue with asserting that a choke hold was the conclusive cause of death is that multiple agencies (NYPD, Medical Examiner's Office, Richmond County Grand Jury, NYPD PBA, Officer Pantaleo) dispute that a chokehold was in fact used. Since Daniel Pantaleo is alive, along with other police and EMT, they must be afforded the protections of WP:BLP. This editor is being reported for a violation of 3RR. He or she did not make any attempt to discuss this issue on the talk page before making the 4th revert. Afronig (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I honestly can't tell whether this is a complete report or not, but I'll go ahead and answer. This incident started when Afronig removed sourced material as to Eric Garner's cause of death with no explanation and continued to remove the information despite being asked to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The material that this editor continues to remove has been heavily discussed on the article's talk page. It represents the verbatim conclusion of the medical examiner's report as to the cause of Eric Garner's death. Notably, a number of editors have recently engaged in an attempt to debunk the notion that the medical examiner actually included the disputed term "choke hold" in the report, only to be informed by the medical examiner's office that the term in fact appears in the report. Afronig has declined to participate in this discussion—which would have been an excellent forum for him/her to air his/her concerns and to see that they've probably already been addressed—and has simply edit warred to impose his/her own preference on the page over consensus.

I'll also note that Afronig templated me well after I'd stopped editing the page. Afronig's purported effort at discussion were subsequent to his/her repeated removal of sourced, consensus material with no regard for WP:BRD and were accompanied by what appears to be an ultimatum that I restore his/her edit or face a report on this board. I can't imagine how Afronig can honestly accuse me of not discussing the matter under these circumstances.

Finally, it looks like I did technically violate 3RR due to an edit that I'd made yesterday afternoon (and had subsequently forgotten about) involving a different claim and a different user. It's my responsibility to ensure that I'm not violating 3RR (even inadvertently) so I will accept whatever sanction I receive. However, I would ask that the Afronig receive the same; while he/she hasn't violated 3RR as of right now, his/her edits are certainly edit warring and his/her hands are hardly clean. Dyrnych (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

All you have to do is revert your revert before action is taken and this report will be rescinded. This report is complete as of your edit; apologies for my technical difficulties. If a third party endorses your reversion I won't revert (even though I might be able to revert 1 more time since I only reverted twice compared to your 4 times, my intention is not to play games here or get people blocked. I do take BLP issues though very seriously.) Afronig (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Both Afronig and Dyrnych are Warned that if they continue their battle over the material they risk being blocked without notice. A couple of additional comments. First, @Afronig, there is no BLP violation here, not even close. The article appears to faithfully report the facts based on reliable sources. Second, I accept Dyrnych's explanation that they didn't mean to violate 3RR, but remember that you can be blocked for edit warring, which doesn't depend on the number of reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. Your warning and reminder are well taken. Dyrnych (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, I will "appeal" your assertion on the BLP violation to the BLP noticeboard. I also find your action here arbitrary and capricious. Namely, I suspect if the tables were turned and I had reverted 4 times and Dyrnych 2 times in a similar fashion, you would have blocked me and not warned Dyrnych for 2 reverts because of your personal ideology. In fact, your warning to Dyrnych here for 3 reverts on 1 issue and 1 revert on another was pretty mild and you knew I said I would not edit further, regardless of the technicalities of 3RR. It seems you deliberately took my words out of context. Regardless, the 3RR issue is moot but the BLP issue is not. I will file a notice on the BLP notice board which you are welcome to join. Afronig (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:71.213.12.5 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: One Magnificent Morning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (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]

So obviously this doesn't break 3RR, but it's still a back-and-forth that constitutes non-3RR edit-warring. Remember, for something like this to not count as edit-warring, he'd have to have been reverting vandalism or work that a banned user had managed to come around the wall to place. I quote the ANI as a reminder: "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." Therefore, since Ttll213's edits are neither vandalism nor edits from a banned user, that means that spshu's reverts are still edit-warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

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

No, spshu has not tried to resolve this with Ttll213 in the talk page. This is another sign of his edit-warring, because he has not tried to follow B/R/D first.

• Note. This is complicated. The IP is a sock of User:IDriveAStickShift. They've used other IPs before to edit this article. The user is retaliating against User:Spshu because in the edit war between IDrive and Spshu earlier, I blocked IDrive but not Spshu. Therefore, I've blocked the IP for one week and blocked the named account for three months. I've also semi-protected the article for three weeks. All that said, there was an edit war between Spshu and Ttll213, not just by Spshu, and I'll let another administrator evaluate that aspect of the report, although I will watch to see if the edit war has stopped. Both editors have thus far reverted three times, although Spshu's third revert was outside the 24-hour window.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

bbb, you apparently have problems understanding the edit-warring policy:

1. To break 3RR, a person needs to have reverted not just 3 times, but 4 within the 24-hour period. 2. Not having reverted for a 4th time within a 24-hour period doesn't mean there's no edit war. The warring editor(s) should still be warned/blocked even if they didn't break 3RR but were still warring. 3. If you believe that Spshu and Ttll213 were both warring, then that means that when you thought IDrive was warring, Spshu was too.

You also have a problem understanding what sock-puppetry is and is not. You seem to think that once a person has edited with a named account, they are "no longer allowed to edit while not logged in," and so editing while not being logged in is suddenly now "sock-puppetry," according to you. But editing while not logged in, by itself, is not a breakage of Wiki policy that amounts to socking.

You also are only assuming that IDrive and the IP were one and the same, but you haven't confirmed any proof of that. There has been no investigation of the two, such as on SPI or whatever. Besides, though, even if they are the same, you have not proven that there was more happening than merely editing while not being logged in, which is still allowed by Wikipedia.

Additionally, you are just guessing that there's been retaliation. You don't automatically know the mind of an editor, so you can't just say that. Someone really needs to have you reevaluated as an "administrator."

71.219.21.215 (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note I have blocked 71.219.21.215 for block evasion. Chillum 04:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is Ttll213 that is edit warring.

• Reverting to

1. 16:37, 5 January 2015
2. 17:52, 5 January 2015
3. 18:02, 5 January 2015
4. 18:08, 5 January 2015 & name calling on top of that

• Talk:One_Magnificent_Morning#Change_in_schedule - is were I attempted to talk to Ttll213 on top of requests in the edits that his edit should be sourced then responding to the odd source that he used as possible unreliable. Spshu (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:23.92.129.86 (also editing as User:Jfd998) reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Semi, block)

Note: IP has apparently registered and is continuing edit warring as User:Jfd998 (reported by User:Dominus Vobisdu)

Page: Fine-tuned Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 23.92.129.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] See talk page discussions: I think that the edit history and talk page discussions demonstrate that this IP has already been involved in discussions.

Comments:
The IP is removing sourced on-topic material on spurious grounds, and replacing it with entirely unsourced content. The recent history of the article suggests that a single contributor is behind a whole series of edits aimed at removing legitimate sourced content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Update - the IP has now created an account, and has continued to edit-war: [58] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That argument is ridiculous. AndyTheGrump prevents information with 'citations needed' from being removed barring legitimate links. I agree that the criticisms part of the intelligent design argument should stand and my edit was not right. However, I was totally right to remove the 'bubble universe' portion - two of the three paragraphs are unsourced, and the one quote that is sourced is not from a science journal even if it is passed off as such making it unreliable and misleading.

The one addition I made was to the proper section - intelligent design - and linked the article from whence the quote came while nothing the bias of the author who wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.92.129.86 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP (now editing as User:Jfd998) is completely misrepresenting edits - note this [59] unsourced edit, and this [60] removal of sourced content. They also seem to think that their own unsourced opinions (describing sourced content as 'science fiction') is legitimate grounds for removal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And see [61] where Jfd998 resorts to insults, rather than addressing the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Jfd998 blocked indef by User:JzG. Article semiprotected 3 days by User:Vsmith. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:ThorpLove reported by User:Eman52 (Result: Declined)

I would like to report that User:ThorpLove has made roughly six false edits on the 2014-15 NFL playoffs. He appears to be convinced, despite explanations of the NFL playoff format, that the Panthers are playing the Seahawks. I would recommend to block the user for 24 hours (by the time he can edit again, the match ups will be finalized. Eman52 (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Acroterion (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue deletions

I would like to report [[62]] making undue revisions to the Fine Tuned Universe page, deleting fleshed out explanations to the Design argument preventing a page with a full and thorough debate. Wikipedia wanted to improve the 'Wikipedia Creationism' section and having two sentences explaining the Design argument and 500 explaining the atheistic scientific argument is not balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd998 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Acroterion (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:WilliamThweatt reported by User:Ezhilarasan446 (Result: No violation)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suryavarman_II&diff=640921875&oldid=640798481

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suryavarman_II&diff=640921875&oldid=595101556

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suryavarman_II&diff=640921875&oldid=581925338

User talks

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ezhilarasan446#February 2014

Comments:

my edit reverting for Suryavarman_II. I gave some references on the page for suiryavarman is pallava king.I need proper answer from history researcher whether suriyavarman II is pallava orgin king or not.

No violation - It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. Please take care not to break the formatting of the article with your changes. You have never used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:PabloOsvaldo17 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Blocked)

Page

Fernando Torres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

PabloOsvaldo17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 15:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640949209 by RealDealBillMcNeal) Sorry have you not read what I've written I don't care what the original statement read that's no longer the case now look: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/"
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC) to 14:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC) "A.C. Milan have already signed Torres permanently from parent club Chelsea, otherwise he would not be moving to Atlético on loan from Milan! It's not a case of a two-year loan being cancelled half a season in and the loan club Milan giving permission..."
   2. 14:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user was warned as to why he shouldn't make the change and continued to revert. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I see 3RR exactly from the both of you. Afronig (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Only the blocked editor violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:93.171.217.170 (Result: no violation)

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

Version from before the edit war started: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marsh_Mokhtari&oldid=639733905

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk page was enough, only one reverter.

Comments: Bladesmulti is persistently restoring a gimped version of the article; one without categories, without sources, and with significantly reduced amount of entirely unsourced content. Complete removal of all references is especially troubling as the article's a WP:BLP. Full page protection was requested[68], but after forum shopping[69], Bladesmulti convinced his admin buddy Courcelles to semi-protect the page, block the IP user who brought attention to Bladesmulti's disruptive editing, and remove a significant portion of the relevant page protection request[70]. Bladesmulti's behavior was criticized in good faith by an uninvolved editor, but Bladesmulti simply deleted his comment describing it as "busybody behavior" in the edit summary [71]. It's time to stop him, and restore the good version of the article.
93.171.217.170 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The so-called good version of the article is a verbatim copyvio from imdb, written by an anonymous author and completely unreliable. Such copyright violations are exempt from 3RR. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

He didn't mention copyvios, did he? No. That he removed them was only through sheer luck, it was never his intention. And he removed categories and sources too, not just copyvios. Now we have a blp without sources. IMDb may not be the most reliable source out there, but it's better than nothing. And don't forget the other website on the list of references. Plus he made 4 reverts in 1 day. Yeah, he needs to be reminded not to edit disruptively. 93.171.217.170 (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Copy-vio indeed: [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1851126/bio IMDb, Marsh Mokhtari Biography. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Now since this show is entertaining already, I am writing here for future preference. These are obvious duck IP addresses. JJ and Dr.K, you both are aware of 94.210.203.230. 94.210.203.230 was recently blocked as a sock of Beh-nam and the recent investigation(still ongoing) has proven that range blocking is not going to be helpful as he has access to a large number of proxies. It is just behavioral evidence that would help, and tracking of every single proxy as shown in one of the link that was provided by Callanecc. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to the matter at hand. What do you have to say about your disruptive and unconstructive edit-warring? 104.41.3.167 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. Bladesmulti has apparently been removing copyvios, good for him. Also, Bladesmulti was 3RR-warned by User:EoRdE6 (the warning linked to above) plus also by 217.12.214.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); not by the IP posting this report. Are you either or both of those, 93.171.217.170? If you have an account, please use it, don't jump in and out. And no, sock concerns aren't irrelevant here, as they go to your credibility. Bishonen | talk 15:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

Blades is getting better and better! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Bladesmulti's increasing ability to get away with more and more disruptive editing (casting aspersions, edit warring, incivility, etc., all in above diffs) sure is a cause for celebration. No, not really. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

There's more to Bladesmulti's disruption (see above) than what Bishonen dismissed as "removing copyvios"- second opinion from another admin is needed here as given Bladesmulti's documented history of forum shopping in this case, it's likely Bishonen was canvassed off-wiki to defend Bladesmulti. In such cases it's always better when 2 admins express their opinion instead of 1. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Three contributions, and then being able to state "Bladesmulti's increasing ability to get away with more and more disruptive editing", and know how to ask for a second opinion? I've made 27,000 edits, and I didn't even know that it wa spossible to ask for a second opinion. Quack quack! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your incompetence doesn't justify Bladesmulti's disruption. Also, I requested help from an admin, not uncalled-for hostile comments from the peanut gallery. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

104~, you're flattering me! "The peanut gallery" - what a great term! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional request for admin help Please explain to Joshua Jonathan why requests for help shouldn't be answered in a hostile manner, why requests for admin help shouldn't be answered by non-admins, why his above comments are inappropriate, and why it's counter-productive to treat Wikipedia as a battlefield. Then maybe also introduce him to the first law of holes. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well well could someone please educated the IP on copyright laws? This is getting tedious as I looked at the "correct" version and can confirm it is a copyvio from imdb and thus exempt from WP:3RR, do we even do second opinions on this edit board? This seems to be a case of I just don't like it Avono (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Avono, you cannot expect any better from a banned user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Beh-nam, this massive pool of proxies is of course annoying/entertaining. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Then its best just to ignore this. Avono (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Beh-nam, plain and simple. Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, Bladesmulti. As for copyvios, we already established removing them wasn't Bladesmulti's goal, it happened through sheer luck, and there was much more disruption from him than that. A second opinion from an admin very much is needed. Know your place, Avono, and drop the stick already lest you hit yourself with it. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Beh-nam, how come you don't know the meaning of IMDB spam[72]? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Uninvolved admin. There is no violation as the reverts were removing copyright violations and that is specifically exempt from 3RR. Nothing more to do with this report. -- GB fan 18:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Note; the IP spouting a bunch of rubbish here has been blocked for their disruption. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dannywiki1 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: )

Page

Hari Parbat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dannywiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 19:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 18:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 18:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641116307 by Kashmiri (talk)"
5. 17:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Places speedy tags on sourced articles (Hamza Makhdoom, Hari Parbat, Makhdoom) based on POV - which I promptly revert, in violation of 3RR, in order to prevent article deletion, as has unfortunately happened today to Hamza Makhdoom. Likely sock of User:Neyn (along with at least four other socks) - SPI report will be filed tomorrow. Thanks to block for at least a week until SPI process is through, although this SPI account is definitely NOTHERE. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 19:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 Administrator note@Kashmiri: If the article doesn't meet CSD criteria than you have nothing to worry about. The connection with Neyn is not immediately obvious. Let's pretend they're not a sock, but a user acting good-faith. That would mean you are edit warring as well, and have exceeded the 3RR. If you stop, they continue to add CSD tags after they've already been declined, then that's blockable behaviour on their part. I say hold off for a minute until we figure this out. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Thanks. I wish it was as you are saying. Unfortunately, Hamza Makhdoom was deleted today just a few minutes after this user placed the tag. This is a part of something much bigger which I have no time to address at the moment, but look here pls: User_talk:Kashmiri#You appear to be facing something fishy. If you looked through the edit history of the ~8 articles involved, you'd see ~5 socks plus a few editors restoring whatever they damaged. There are a couple of deletion discussion going on as well with these editors involved. Anyhow, SPI will hopefull show things, but for the time being thanks to either block the user or fully protect Hamza Makhdoom, Hari Parbat, Makhdoom, and Sultan-ul-Arifeen. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 20:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: If it meets CSD than it probably should be deleted. Unless you are the original author, remove the CSD tag and simply tell the user to bring it to AfD. There you'll get community input, SPAs and socks (which will be confirmed by then) will be ignored, and if it results in a keep then subsequent requests for speedy deletion will be declined. That's the easy way out, I think. I can't block when it's not obvious. The other accounts were involved with AfDs but not CSDs. It's not a concrete connection to me, but maybe it will be to another admin. My recommendation is to back off and let process take care of things naturally. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:. Thanks, converting it into AfD might be a good idea, I will do that. Even though I am not sure this will stop the vandal. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Kashmiri, you should not be removing CSD tags from articles you have created as you did at Hamza Makhdoom. if you continue to do that you can be blocked. -- GB fan 20:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@@GB fan:: I appreciate your warning, but the article was only recreated by me after speedy deletion earlier today. Until then, it was there for many years. I mentioned this above twice. kashmiri ^TALK 20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:Lil helpers (Result: )

Page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: n/a

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]
5. [77]

There was also an edit war at WP:ANI; Bladesmulti made the following reverts: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]. These would be sufficient for another report, but I'd rather not do that.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments: A user came to Wikipedia IRC help channel requesting that this report be posted. He was met with the kind of unwarranted hostility I've never seen there, which prompted me to look into the case.

After a thorough analysis of the report's contents, I've decided that it's valid. I hereby assume all responsibility for the contents of this report. Of the original report requested by the blocked IP user, only diffs and formatting remain unchanged. The WP:ANI diffs were my addition.

The way I see it, Bladesmulti accused the IP editor of being a sockpuppet of a banned user which, in Bladesmulti's opinion, allows Bladesmulti to (among other things which I consider inconsequential to this report and hence will skip) edit-war. Regardless of one's motivations, edit-warring is unconstructive, and we mustn't allow it.

Bladesmulti needs to be reminded that his good intentions notwithstanding, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we do have a set of rules that everyone's expected to follow.
Lil helpers (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)