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:Wladthemlat reported by Norden1990 (talk) (Result: No violation)

Page: Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wladthemlat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 13:53, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Rephrasing to eliminate the redundancy, while including the multi-ethnicity in the first sentence")
2. 13:58, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Norden1990 (talk): Multilinugal != multiethnic. (TW)")
3. 14:03, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Norden1990 (talk): It very well was multiethnic before 16th century (see e.g. privilegium pro slavis). (TW)")

• 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. John (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Norden1990 reported by Wladthemlat (talk) (Result: Blocked 31 h)

Page: Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 13:47, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595137495 by Wladthemlat (talk) already included")
2. 13:56, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595140389 by Wladthemlat (talk) not true; KoH was not multi-lingual after 1920 and before the 16th century")
3. 14:00, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595140916 by Wladthemlat (talk) back to stable version; so: KoH was not multiethnic after 1920 and before the 16th century")
4. 14:07, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "80% are Hungarians... so today's Slovakia is also multiethnic country. First paragraph: short history, second: ethnicity, borders, third: feast, legacy")

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours John (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Batiste Igienice reported by User:TheSickBehemoth (Result: both blocked)

Page: Vader (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batiste Igienice (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

• Already blocked John (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Enigma9035 reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Protected)

Page: Bioresonance therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Enigma9035 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] (opening the discussion)

Comments:
This case is a bit more complicated than usual. Enigma9035 (talk · contribs) tried to add information about scientific papers published in reputable journals supporting the use of bioresonance therapy in various applications. That edit was reverted, by WikiDan61 (talk · contribs) (me), based on the fact that the edit appeared to be an effort to advocate for bioresonance therapy. At the time, I did not take the time to inform Enigma of my reasons for reverting, and I'll take the 40 lashes for that. However, since the edit was reverted, it should not have been reintroduced without discussion (per WP:BRD). When it was reintroduced (by Cbagdatli (talk · contribs)), it was once again reverted, this time by Alexbrn (talk · contribs), after which the edit war ensued. I warned Cbagdatli about the edit warring concern, and no further edits came from this user. I then opened a discussion about the controversial edit, and invited all parties ([13], [14] and [15]) to join. Enigma responded with a series of reversions (listed above) to reintroduce the controversial material, with very antagonistic edit summaries indicating a general lack of interest in any discussion. So, here we are. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• As this notice was being created, Enigma9035 (talk · contribs) finally opted to join the discussion. Antagonistically, but it's a start. No further edits to the article as of this writing, so perhaps the issue has resolved itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since this is in the area of fringe theories, be aware that discretionary sanctions are also in place, 23:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected - fully protected by Mark Arsten. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Malbin210 reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: Article fully protected for 36 hours. Malbin210 blocked for 48 hours. Others will be warned.)

Page: Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malbin210 (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. [16] (just take a look at the history page for the edit warring)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Albania#NPOV and article

Comments:

This is a report of edit warring on a Balkans-related article, not necessarily a 3RR violation (btw, are Balkans-related articles still subject to ArbComm discretionary sanctions? I haven't followed that case for a long time just noticed on the article talk page that the article is indeed under ArbComm probation). I first noticed [this yesterday and thinking it was a simple case of restoring a deleted, properly sourced, fact and left a message on User:Malbin210's page about claiming to revert "vandalism" in an edit summary that clearly wasn't vandalism. Today, after seeing the fact was removed once again I checked the page history and noticed that it was just a small piece of a larger on-going edit war. User:Malbin210 seems to be a SPA and, quite suspiciously, other SPA, single-edit IPs have jumped in.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This clearly is a very hypocritical act . I have already contacted an administrator ( JamesBwatson) , presenting the case way before you opening this . I have also given more than enough arguments in the talk page . Please do follow this link , to see the already opened case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson ( it is imperative that you do , because you will get a more clear picture and the reason for this whole situation )

Furthemore i need to point out that this user opened this case , after the implicated user ( Astarti34 ) asked for help from WilliamThweatt , as demonstrated here > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliamThweatt&diff=595062326&oldid=595040989 , in the talk page with the title \Help for Albania article/ , where he was asking from him to open a dispute on his behalf for me ! .

Clearly biased and unnecesary act , when an administrator has been already contacted , and users notified (Malbin210 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC))

This is a report of edit warring on an article subject to ArbComm sanctions which I noticed while doing vandalism patrol, all users involved have been notified, not only Malbin210. (btw, leaving a rambling message on another editor's talk page is not "opening a case" and nobody else was made aware of it)--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You are again lying , my last edit in the article about albania is saying > please do not edit , administrator has been contacted . Let us continue the discussion there , link > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&action=history

Furthemore , i did mention the name of the implicated user , and he got a message !

What i need to stress out that , you and astari know very well each other , as demonstrated by the fact that he asked help from you , after i did open a case with a an administrator .

Here is the proof where he asks help from you , to open a case against me , after he got the notice , fearing that he would loose his account because in fact he is the one vandalizing the article about albania ! Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliamThweatt&diff=595062326&oldid=594256153

Here is another link showing that you have participated mutliple times in war editing , supporting user Astarti34 . > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=594910468&oldid=594886667

Here is another link showing you reverting exactly the same thing , support user Astari and his sockpuppet account with the ip 77.49.58.129 >https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=595031369&oldid=595021278

It gives very clearly the connection that you , astari , and the sockuppet account with an ip of 77.49.58.129 , have together .

To get a more clear picture please do visit the article about Albania , and the talk page about Albania . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Update > WilliamThweatt , has commented on the opened case , trying to persuade the administrator not to follow the matter any further by claiming ArbComm general sanctions. Clearly demonstrating his biased implication in this matter ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

*sigh* Honestly, can we do something about the personal attacks and accusations? I simply notified JBW that I had brought the edit warring up for discussion here. FWIW, I really don't have an opinion regarding the content dispute, in general I just plain don't like nationalist motivated edit warring in WP, it's a distraction and highly detrimental to the project which, if I remember correctly, was part of the rationale for the ArbComm decision(s) regarding all Balkans related articles.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I am glad then , because we share the same value . I have never made a single edit for nationalistic purposes as demonstrated by my contributions history . I am only editing economical facts which are accurate and properly sourced . Having a degree and masters in economics i tend to focus to those matters . Best regards , John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is clearly a serious problem here. As a first step, I have fully protected the article for 36 hours. I am still investigating, to see what other steps are needed. The protection of the article is not an endorsement of the current version. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• There have been several unsubstantiated accusations. The most absurd one of those has been the suggestion that an editor who opens an edit warring case on this page and then informs an administrator of the existence of the case is doing so in order to discourage investigation of the case.

I express no opinion on the merits of the two sides in the dispute on gdp, but I urge all parties to try to reach agreement, by discussion in a friendly and cooperative manner, without edit warring, and without taking a battleground approach to other editors. As for the dispute over "Albania remains one of the poorest countries in Europe", initially editors on one side were removing content which was to some extent supported by a source, and those on the other side were repeatedly restoring a version which did not entirely agree with the source. Both sides were at fault here, as the only proper way to deal with thsi was to check what tthe source said, and make the version in the article agree with the source. Eventually, however, this edit established a version that agreed with what the source says. After that, reverting to a version that did not agree with the cited source was unacceptable.

Malbin210 has been blocked for 48 hours for sockpuppetry. It is certain that he or she edited while not logged in to avoid the appearance of continuiong to edit war, and virtually certain that he or she also created the sockpuppet account Allenbond. I see no evidence to support other allegations of sockpuppetry, but if anyone else thinks that he or she does sse such evidence, then the thing to do is to take it to a sockpuppet investigation, not to throw out unsubstantiated accusations in edit summaries and on talk pages.

I shall post warnings to various user talk pages, warning editors about edit warring and about discretionary sanctions. I shall also encourage all concerned to read this message. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Jeffrd10 (Result: Protected)

Page

Heart Attack (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595125650 by Pavanjandhyala (talk) that other pages are not using proper sources is not a valid reason , no consensus to do so here on talk"
2. 14:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594979834 by Pavanjandhyala (talk) WP:PROVEIT that they are professionally acceptable critics in reliably publsihed sources"
3. 13:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594978300 by Pavanjandhyala (talk) no they are not reliable sources or professional critics"
4. 13:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "unsourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "/* edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Even after message asking the user to end waring the users continue to revert each others edit . Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Looks like there is discussion on the talk page which User:TheRedPenOfDoom is involved with so I've protected the page to encourage further discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Правичност reported by User:Jingiby (Result: protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]
6. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:
User Правичност behaves indecently and insults other editors who do not share her/his views as for example here and here. She/he keeps biased, overestimated data about the number of the Serbs worldwide, based on nationalist, unreliable sources. She/he also removed added by me tags, which impugned used by her/him sources here. She/he is edit-warring and does not respect the opinion of other editors and reliable references. Jingiby (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jinglby came up with a new idea and new sources, pushing new reverts without agreeing with me or any other users on the talk page, this means he was pushing it and i was only reverting it to a previous stable version which was aprooved by me and a number of more users such as Adrian, Zoupan, Klačko, and others... who participated in previous discussions about the total figure of Serbs, coming up to a concensus about it. Total number of Serbs was also discussed in a special section in which Jinglby also hasnt participated (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbs/Total_number)... Jinglby is claiming sources are nationalist and unreliable only because most of them are Serbian soruces, that ofcourse bothers him as same as user Sokac121 who is always supportive to any kind of actions which have to do with degrading figures of Serbs or dissagreeing to "anything Serbian" in the past 4-8 months. Jinglby is trying to change the total number of Serbs in the infobox using and pushing sources such as UCLA (a web-langauge learning page) and Ethnologue (another linguist source) for making estimations on how many people belong to a certain ethnic group or its descent, which is quite unproffesional (for example; nobody cannot denie ~18 million Italian Americans arent Italians by ethnicity or descent just because 90% of them dont speak italian - as only ~800,000 italian Americans speak Italian in the USA (these datas are according to latest U.S. census (ethnic group/race and language declaring datas, as they were available to U.S. people to declare on that census). Using linguist sources and "Online-language learning webpages" for counting/ estimating demographics for some ethnic group is two different worlds. I respect opinions of other editors as long as they are not "anti-Serbian aimed" like they are for user Sokac121 and as long as these opinions arent only POV opinions without any "real" reliable and construct accompying sources to support such opnions. A proof of latest unserious contributions by Jinglby on the article "Serbs" is also adding a tag called "(including Montenegrins)" next to a figure 11 million which was based on UCLA source. Though the "including Montenegrins" tag is his own POV opinion which he included - meaning; "If the number of Serbs on planet is 11 million, then this number probably includes Montenegrins and some others because otherwise it would be too high for him". it is much easier to recall Serbian Ministry for diaspora`s definitions and estimations; There is 8 million Serbs in the Balkans and between 2,5 and 4,5 million living in the diaspora. That is 10-12 million also using all of the soruces that were on the infobox before. Period. (Правичност (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC))

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. John (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dlv999 reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: )

Page: SodaStream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dlv999 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [30] (warned by another user on Nov.6)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] (i'm not a party in the edit-warring, but it seems there are constant discussion on the talk page involving this user).

Comments:

This is a third party report on my behalf (i'm not involved), but i noticed an intended violation of 1RR rule (ARBPIA) on SodaStream, herewith reporting this user. This user claimed on Nov.6 that reverting ips "doesn't count" [32] in regard to 1RR, but later also reverted a registered user. It doesn't seem his last revert was against a banned IP.GreyShark (dibra) 19:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Clear violation of 1RR in furtherance of POV-pushing. Attempting to use the company article to COATRACK selected aspects if the Israel-Palestine disputes. 1RR limit applies even to reverts of lousy but nonvandalous contributions.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• The second revert is of an anonymous IP. From the 1rr warning on the Sodastream talk page: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR"

So only one of the 2 reverts counts as a revert for the purposes of 1RR. One revert is not a violation of 1RR. Unlike Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, every single addition to the article I have made is supported by high quality RS directly related to the article topic. Regarding the content in question I am the one that opened the relevant talk page discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverting the content, but is yet to make an appearance on talk despite my request. Also I would not regard Greyshark as uninvolved. It is true he has not edited the page, but we have had many content disputes over the years. Dlv999 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Syria_kurdistan reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: )

Page: Kurds in Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Syria_kurdistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm a third party in this edit-warring)

Comments:

Seemingly, user:Syria kurdistan violated 1RR of WP:SCWGS, making no less than 4 reverts during Feb. 1-2, after he had already been warned on Jan.29.GreyShark (dibra) 19:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: )

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]
5. [44]
6. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: (no warning yet)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no attempts have been made by either party (i'm a third party)

Comments:

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article is under WP:SCWGS sanctions and is restricted to 1RR, which have consequently been violated by CMD no less than 5 times over past week. CMD was most edit-warred by user Soffredo (talk · contribs), (who also violated 1RR, but only once).GreyShark (dibra) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I had no idea WP:SCWGS even existed (although I suppose I'm not surprised). My attention was drawn to this page because Soffredo had been justifying edits to other pages, such as Gallery of sovereign state flags [46], on the basis that the ISIS page showed it was a country. Upon examining the page, the ISIS page showed so because an IP added an infobox deep down in the page, and Soffredo subsequently added his own edits to make the position more prominent at the very beginning of the lead. This attempt to justify edits on other pages on the basis he'd made similar edits on this page were made despite the conversation at Talk:List of sovereign states#Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, where discussion in relation to this dispute has occurred. I'll take this as formal notification of SCWGS, in addition to whatever else happens. CMD (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: )

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soffredo (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]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: (no warning yet)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no attempts have been made by either party (i'm a third party)

Comments:

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article is under WP:SCWGS sanctions and is restricted to 1RR, which have consequently been violated by user CMD (see above). CMD was most edit-warred by user Soffredo (talk · contribs), who also violated 1RR, but only once.GreyShark (dibra) 19:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Arkaad reported by User:L.tak (Result: )

Page: International Criminal Court
User being reported: Arkaad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51] 16:11; first revert; 2nd time adding the info
2. [52] 16:26
3. [53] 1941
4. [54] 2018
5. [55] 2049

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56] 2001

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57], [58], [59]

See the talk page for why I object to the edit. But the point re this noticeboard is that the user keeps reverting, even after finding the takl page, being reverted by 3 different users, and being warned
L.tak (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Simplywater reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result:Blocked )

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

Simplywater is repeatedly adding over 200 words of religious text, either to a quote box or to the infobox. It's not only inappropriate/undue, but the text is misleading out of context.

• 1st edit (and version reverted to) 03:54, 5 February, added to quotebox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.

• 1st revert: 18:07, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.
• 2nd revert: 18:27, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.
• 3rd revert: 18:53, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.
• 4th revert: 19:38, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.

Comment

Simplywater followed the above by removing the first sentence, [60] which she has removed before, then removed most of the article [61] except for the infobox, I assume by mistake.

The context is her extended disruption of the article and talk page since she began editing it on 25 January to add a strong religious POV, especially the talk page, which has now become hard to use. She was blocked for 3RR at the same article on 25 January. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked to prevent further edit warring. -- John Reaves 05:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Farhoudk reported by User:Viewfinder (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.)

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

Previous version reverted to: [62]

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: [68] and several subsequent edits

Comments:
Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.

I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted after a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. JamesBWatson (talk)

User:64.134.237.191 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Candy Crush Saga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "elaboration"
2. 22:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595206663 by Zachverb (talk)"
3. 22:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Restored content regarding King's intellectual property theft. Please do not edit-war. Take concerns to the talk page."
4. 22:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Restoring info on King's intellectual property theft, which was removed through user NeilN's bad-fath edit-warring"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Candy Crush Saga. using TW"
2. 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Candy Crush Saga. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Obvious is obvious */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Headbomb reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result:Decline )

Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [various]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71], [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Mixing_fonts_within_numbers, [73]

Comments:

I don't want to participate in an edit-war on the MOS, but Headbomb is restoring reverted material rather than leaving it to Talk. At issue is a template that we are arguing about, which is supposed to conform to the MOS but doesn't. Headbomb is now modifying the MOS to conform to the template. He has expanded that section of the MOS, formatting it with the disputed template so that it supports his argument; when I used a version of the template which abided by the consensus version of the MOS, he reverted me, so I reverted both of our recent edits back to the version of the MOS last edited by Jimp and others. He then reverted again, restoring his challenged changes to the MOS, claiming the previous was my "preferred" version. (It was not, though I wouldn't object if he or someone else reverted even further.) This isn't 3RR territory, but it's the MOS – we shouldn't be edit warring at all, and he certainly shouldn't be modifying the MOS to win an argument elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Options: a.) I block both of you as you should really know better. b.) You go to the talk page. c.) WP:RFPP for full protection. Pick one. -- John Reaves 05:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I *have* gone to the talk page, and all comments have been supportive of my position. Nonetheless, I haven't been insisting on my way on the MOS: It's Headbomb who is edit-warring by restoring his additions after being reverted. That's the idea, right? BOLD: You make an edit, someone objects and reverts it, you go to the talk page. Headbomb's violated that, and I came here rather than escalate. Explain to me how I've done anything wrong. — kwami (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've warned both users of the discretionary sanctions active for the page. Kwamikagami BRD is bold edit Y, revert Y, discuss (ie don't edit it again) N. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Local4554 reported by User:I am One of Many (Result:Blocked )

Page

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

User being reported

Local4554 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Revised my own edit."
2. 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Read the citations before you want them. They are cheap pharmaceutical companies promoting their products."
3. 18:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Removed content because the research was insufficient."
4. 17:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595162500 by I am One of Many (talk)"
5. 17:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Resveratrol. (TW)"
2. 01:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Resveratral */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Reverting without Reading the Article */ comment"
2. 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC) on User talk:Local4554 "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Resveratrol. (TW)"

Comments:

A new user engaged in edit warring, but what is particularly disturbing is that the user has attempted to mislead regarding why they are massively deleting material [74]. The material removed is, in fact, critical of the benefits of resveratrol. I think they are not here to construct an encyclopedia. I am One of Many (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I did not know of the 3 Revert Rule. Please accept my apology! Local4554 (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)On the contrary, each time you were warned to stop you removed the warning from your talk page which is proof you read the warnings and carried on despite a final warning. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I did not want the material on my talk page. That is why I removed it. If I were to spam your talk page, you would not like it either. In his warnings, he was acting as if he were an admin which is why I did not take him serious.

Local4554 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And how did you know that he is not a Wikipedia administrator? And either way, you were told of WP:3RR and that you would be blocked from editing this site if you continued WP:Edit warring. To others, while Local4554 is without good Wikipedia skill, I have my doubts that he is entirely new to editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems this account's only purpose is promotion of resveratrol. Also, the previous comment is nonsensical. You clearly knew of 3RR, since you couldn't have possibly removed the final warning that told you about it without seeing it in the process. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The account is not for the sole purpose of resveratrol. The first edit was attacked by users who wish they were admins. I am One of Many did not mention the 3RR until it was reported. The Editor 04:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local4554 (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment)this final warning is pretty clear. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - (Non-administrator comment)Acting like an administrator This is a good example of where user:I am One of Many was trying to pretend to be an administrator. He did not mention the 3RR. The Editor 04:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• User blocked. -- John Reaves 05:08, 13 February 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: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[75]
[76]
[77]

1. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=595276958

Comments:

•  Comment: - The page is currently semi-protected. The subject is part of a high-profile dispute regarding the succession to Da'i al-Mutlaq, the leader of the Dawoodi Bohra, which has been called "one of the most challenging weeks in the 1,400-year history of the Dawoodi Bohra faith". I have been unable to ascertain any indication that the succession conflict is over, and as this seems to be an ongoing problem I request that the page be fully protected. I am far too involved to protect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Reverted, again, mistakenly citing WP:BLP. I am at 3RR so I will not revert, but attention from another admin would be most welcome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected To encourage discussion, since the semi protection didn't stop the edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:216.126.81.5 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

• 216.126.81.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99.229.246.140 (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 14:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC) to 14:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 14:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 14:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Must remain neutral stance, no consensus achieved on pseudoscience, an "alleged" practicioner is a fraud, not a psychic by definition"
3. Consecutive edits on February 11
   1. 08:52, February 11, 2014‎ (UTC) ""
   2. 08:52, February 11, 2014 (UTC) ""
4. Edits by User:99.229.246.140
   1. February 2, edit summary: "Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral stance when it comes to things like this, so my edit stands. Reread the guidelines."
   2. February 2, edit summary: ""
   3. February 2, edit summary: "Adding facts"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Psionics. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:38, February 2, 2014‎ (UTC) "/* "Considered pseudoscience" */ New section"
2. 15:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "/* "Considered pseudoscience" */ Reply"
3. Discussion of page protection or blocks followed

Comments:

User is hopping ips every couple days to remove sourced information from the article critical of the topic. He refuses to participate on the talk page. I've considered page protection, but another ip has contributed positively recently. I'd prefer to try a short block on this ip, followed by page protection later (if necessary).   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Jeffro77 reported by User:Grrahnbahr (Result: )

Page: Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeffro77 (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. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments:

The case is discussed thoroughly on the articles talk page, and Jeffro77 are asked several time for adding sources for the claim he insists of keeping. Jeffro77's behaves reminds about ownership to JW-related artiicles. Anyway, it looks like a 3RR-violation to me. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't formally warned the user, but this edit [83] proves that Jeffro77 is well aware about the 3RR. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC) -->

Comment:Grrahnbahr should probably concentrate more on the "discuss" part of BRD at the moment. The wording he has removed has been present since April 2010 and has clearly enjoyed a consensus all that time. Jeffro has given a reasoned and reasonable justification for the need to retain that wording here. Grrahnbarr is one of two editors tinkering with the wording in what has become a heated and often quite tedious discussion. If Grrahnbarr is adamant his version is correct, and thus should be changed, he needs to seek wider support, rather than edit-warring himself. BlackCab (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The user who has been edit warring is User:Gabby Merger. It's unclear why Grrahnbahr has elected to attack me instead. The wording of the article has been stable for quite some time until Gabby Merger raised an objection that has been quite thoroughly dealt with at article Talk. Grrahnbahr is among the editors who has disagreed with the edit made by Gabby Merger, and was the initial editor to revert Gabby Merger's edit to the version of the article that I also restored. Two of my 'reverts' indicated above are in fact to the same version of the article Grrahnbarr restored after he also reverted Gabby Merger's edits. It was in fact Grahhnbahr who first reverted the edit by Gabby Merger that I subsequently reverted to the stable version of the article, and Gabby Merger has edited the same portion of text without consensus ten times[84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93] over the last few days. Gabby Merger has further indicated at article Talk that she intends to continue with the same behaviour[94][95][96][97][98]; she also attempted to censor her 'threats' to keep reverting[99].--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to be very very clear, not only was the edit I restored the stable version of the sentence for many months prior to Gabby Merger's initial change that Grrahnbahr reverted, but the sentence I restored, to which Grrahnbahr is now 'objecting', is the exact same sentence that Grrahnbahr restored when he objected to Gabby Merger's edit[100].--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on, and I have no real interest all that much anymore in any of this. But to set the record straight regarding something Jeffro77 said. I never said I would revert all the time willy nilly. I never violate 3RR. And I never violate consensus. I made it clear that I would never "revert" or do anything if there was real consensus on Talk, one way or the other, even if I disagreed. I said I always respect consensus, per WP policy. And I never violate 3RR. That can be clearly seen, in the history. And if I was "edit-warring", then so were BlackCab and Jeffro77. It generally takes at least two to "edit-war". What's ironic is that I was not even gonna pursue this matter anymore, as I grew tired of the ownership attitudes (albeit overall decent editing over the years) by both Jeffro77 and BlackCab, over this article. (Also, it's funny how Jeffro77 calls my changing my mind about something, and editing my own comments, as "censoring my threats". By feeling the need to put in a link of my altered comment, where I may have re-thought a bit, and removed or edited my own comment. Assuming good faith, he is, as usual. The point is I never violate 3RR, and I never violate consensus. And I made that clear to him. BlackCab and Jeffro77 do not constitute everybody. And the only thing I was "threatening" was not countenancing obvious bullying, controlling, or ownership behavior, and disrespect of valid good-faith modifications, really not so much because of true valid "redundancy" reasons, but really for "I don't like" reasons, personal preferences towards edits, against WP policy and recommendation. That was it. But I always respect Talk consensus, regardless of my own opinions. Jeffro77, of course, didn't bother to mention those things here on his comments.) As I said, I was not even gonna pursue this anymore anyway. I was not expecting Grrahnbahr to do this with Jeffro77, though. I don't know if it was all that necessary. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: )

Page: Najahid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: يوسف حسين (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Revision as of 17:44, 12 February 2014 (removed seasonal taxing, among other edits)
2. Revision as of 17:58, 12 February 2014 (removed seasonal taxing, among other edits)
3. Revision as of 10:52, 13 February 2014 (removed seasonal taxing, among other edits; replaced sources almost entirely with one ref)
4. Revision as of 16:36, 13 February 2014 (removed seasonal taxing, among other edits; replaced sources almost entirely with one ref)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]

Comments:
The user has been edit warring on Najahid dynasty over contentious material with no consensus. He has in the process breached 3RR. He was also already both warned and blocked a few days ago for the same reason [104]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. What? i can't add information to any page you "own"? I added texts and did not remove anything. You reverted my entire contribution to a worse version without discussing it first. haven't you noticed that you are the only reporting me constantly? I was not engaged in an editing war i was simply adding information to the article. Regarding the sources, see Talk:Najahid dynasty. You need to learn that other people may disagree with you instead of constantly reporting them to be blocked. --يوسف حسين (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, bold is just the first part of the WP:BRD process. It isn't the only part nor is it an excuse for revert warring. The talk page likewise shows that discussion was indeed ongoing, and there was no consensus for your edits to begin with; quite the opposite. Furthermore, the board explicitly states above that "undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." You thus indeed again violated 3RR, despite having just come off a block for that and being specifically warned to "wait for consensus" [105]. Since these are your own actions, be sure to assume full responsibility for them. Middayexpress (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress, the editor you have reported here is likely a WP:Sockpuppet of User:محبةالكتب/User:Samer154, which administrator Mark Arsten can also confirm; see this section for more backstory. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged! He's been really busy of late it seems. Middayexpress (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Flyer22, how did you establish some link between me and User:محبةالكتب/User:Samer154? Again Middayexpress, i was not engaged in edit warring. I did not "undo your work" i rewrote the entire article again. You are the one who should have reached census before restoring the article to its previous version. I was simply expanding the article and did not "undo his work" whatever that was. Good luck--يوسف حسين (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It is funny how you go ahead on your WP:OWN and edit articles and end up with your version at the expense of everyone elses work. That is "undoing" people work, and you might mask it by making other edits but removing info from the lead that I reinserted, is undoing work. --Inayity (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The article was crappy Inayaity. Very poorly sourced so i just edited as i suppose to do in wikipedia--يوسف حسين (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

What you are supposed to do is follow wikipedia rules and if there is an edit which is in dispute do not go ahead with how YOU think it should be, as you seem to be doing across wikipedia. You are not the master expert of these topics and other contributions are needed. Deleting ref which you do not like, moving stuff which you do not think all are missing the spirit of consensus editing, as a result the articles have radical mood swings and no progressive direction. WP:NORUSH--Inayity (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Здраво свијете! reported by User:IJA (Result: See comments)

Page 1: Đeneral Janković (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Здраво свијете! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to (Page 1): diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Page 2: Atifete Jahjaga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Здраво свијете! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to (Page 1): diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

This is a purpose built spam/ edit war account. Regards IJA (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes; Здраво свијете! is at 5RR. Newly-created account dedicated to revert-stalking on topics related to Kosovo; we know what that means... bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I deny the allegations. It seems to me that two editors (IJA and Bobrayner) have combined to unofficially play at 'six reverts a day'. I've edited a handful of articles but only those listed have been reverted by these two and what's more, neither have denied my content or the reasoning behind my summaries, and the only provision for the reverting has been that I am an alleged 'sock'. Now having said that these two editors have not reverted every contribution by me, one look at their history will reveal that they are jointly responsible for the shaping of these Kosovo related articles to appear as they do so it is an unequivocal fact that they are merely pushing POVs and hiding behind a 'reverting the sock' façade. For my part, since my alleged 'sock' status has been the only reasoning behind the reverts, and even more to the point that it is totally untrue, I believe I should not have been reverted. I mean, if I am a 'sock' then someone else is the master. No good crying wolf in this case, the two antagonists need to report me and who they think the master is. It then needs a check, and only if confirmed and I am blocked are they within their rights to remove my contributions. Otherwise, I can be here for ever and they can revert every edit they don't like on the 'I think it's a sock' motive. So until either of them find a good reason to revert me, I consider myself as still being on 'edit number 1' in the chain. --Здраво свијете! (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not the first user to be in an edit war with more than one user. You violated the WP:3RR despite being warned, you have no defence. IJA (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Warned by whom? I haven't violated anything, the reverts against me were based on a false allegation therefore technically did not happen. Furthermore, you are party to any 'editwar' and only because you are hell bent on pushing pro-Albanian viewpoints across the site, your 'sock' summary is a cover-up. --Здраво свијете! (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet. Meanwhile, on another article, Здраво свијете! has reached 4 reverts in 14 hours. [106] [107] [108] [109]. It's a very obscure article, and not particularly controversial, but it's something I had edited earlier; obvious revert-stalking. bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Obvious is it? A sock of whom? Apart from some unlogged edits to which I would admit, I'm not abusing this account as a multiple. --Здраво свијете! (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And if you don't mind me saying, you have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy for someone who has had a wikipedia account less than 24 hrs. And as to me and bobrayner being "responsible for the shaping of these Kosovo related articles"; this is a conclusion you've come to within 24 hrs of having an account/ being on Wikipedia? Why bother denying you're a sock? IJA (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have edited unlogged and will continue to do so where I see fit. Besides, the rules are on display to be read, they are not hidden in some secret location, and I still don't know them all. You are pushing pro-Albanian and anti-Serb viewpoints wherever you can and your history testifies to this. You can choose one of your contributions blindfolded to ascertain that much. And why bother denying I am a sock. Well I don't know quite how else to put this but, because I am not. I don't personally understand how anyone can arrive at such a conclusion without a clue as to who the so-called chief account holder is. That said, I wouldn't at all be surprised if theIJA & Bobrayner accounts were being used by the same person. The viewpoints are identical, where one goes, the other follows. --Здраво свијете! (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If we're the same user, get us checked... and inevitably fail. Here is the warning that was given to you and after this you still reverted. The IJA (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Здраво свијете! Blocked – for a period of 2 days and warned regarding discretionary sanctions. Bobrayner and IJA are warned for tag-team edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:185.35.164.88 reported by User:Antiochus the Great (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

Turkish Land Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 1st revert, IP used (185.35.164.30)
2. 19:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595344225 dont agree with edits you made"
3. 19:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595343187 undoing"
4. 19:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595317502 by Antiochus the Great (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "notify"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page

1. 19:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 13 February 2014 */ hello"

Comments:

The IP has broke the 3RR and continued to revert twice after I warned him on his talk page. I posted a friendly message on his talk page trying to sort things out - the IP did not respond. All of the IPs reverts have resulted in the removal of sourced content that the IP "disagrees with" (i.e WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT). There is an additional possibility that this IP is the same IP-hopping vandal that has been harassing and stalking articles that I have recently edited. This behavior has been going on for days. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected - semi protected for one month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)