Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive241

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff](cur | prev) 12:21, March 26, 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,267 bytes) (-5,804)‎ . . (reference to the claimants own website are biased primary sources , Muffadal is still a claimant and nass is disputed , maintain NPOV)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:Disruptive editing which was reverted by me. (cur | prev) 15:59, March 23, 2014‎ Rukn950 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (31,841 bytes) (-3,493)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Summichum (talk) to last revision by Mufaddalqn. (TW)) (cur | prev) 14:21, March 23, 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35,334 bytes) (+3,493)‎ . . (Added differences between dawoodi bohra and other sects and views from leading Muslim news reports (edited with ProveIt)) (thank)

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

Comments:

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

1. REDIRECT User talk:Summichum

Template war?[edit source]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's been simmering since 3 December 2012. In that time the {{disputed}} tag has been removed several times by various editors, after Pigsonthewing has been absent from discussion, usually for a long time.[1][2][3][4] Each time though, Pigsonthewing has restored it,[5][6][7][8] restarting discussion, but without any progress as Pigsonthewing refuses to respond after a few posts. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

!?!?!?!? 27.130.120.209 (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user was warned about WP:AA2, which considers edit warring harmful: [21], and he is well aware of 3RR because he himself provided a link to WP:Editwar in his edit summary. [22]

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

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

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

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

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

Page: Talk:Chiropractic (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29](My apologies, this source was missing from the report. There the editor removes the whole comment again)
6. [30]
7. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Comments:

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

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

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

I didn't delete QuackGuru's comments, but I did restore the original post whereas he repeatedly tried to revert / make changes to it afterwards. By deleting his comments, I think the user is pertaining to the following edit: [33]. This was a pure accident though, which I already have explained to him and apologized: [34]. The previous link is directing to my User Talk Page, since the editor is constantly taking part of discussion there out of the Talk:Chiropractic.

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

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

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

The original post was moved to the article Talk Page, since 1) the post is dealing with the article, and 2) the post is dealing with changes that QuackGuru has made to the article. Therefore I came into conclusion that under WP:MULTI the post belongs to the article Talk Page. WP:MULTI states: If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and linking to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why. This has been clearly stated in the edit summary and explained as well. Still the editor has continuously kept removing / editing the original post, since according to his own words he hasn't given me permission to move or cite it or he isn't interested[35].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Rubinstein, SM; Terwee CB; Assendelft WJ; de Boer MR; van Tulder MW (February 1, 2013). "Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review". Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 38 (3): E158-77. PMID 22972127.

• Rubinstein, SM; van Middelkoop M; Assendelft WJJ; de Boer MR; van Tulder MW. "Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain". doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008112.pub2. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

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

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

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

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

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

• Nevertheless he posted a comment made by QuackGuru on his talk page onto the talk page of Acupuncture deceptively giving the impression that QG had commented there.
• In all seriousness, I warned Jayaguru-Shishya that the community does not look favourably on such edits.
• Today, Jayaguru-Shishya has twice reverted [36], [37] without any summary to explain the reverts. The effect was to re-insert a section into Acupuncture that is strongly disputed at Talk:Acupuncture #SYN and MEDRS violations?. Jayaguru-Shishya has made no attempt to engage in that debate.
• I warned Jayaguru-Shishya that he should engage on the talk page, not edit war, pointing out that three reverts is not an entitlement. Enric Naval also reinforced that point.
• Jayaguru-Shishya has now deleted both my and Enric's comments on his behaviour from his talk page and posted them on Talk:Acupuncture which gives the impression that Enric's post was made there. That is purely disruptive editing. The article talk page is not the place to discuss Jayaguru-Shishya's behaviour and I believe that he's simply not here to build an encyclopedia.

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44] also user talk page:[45]

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]
6. [52]
7. [53]
8. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Notified: [55]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

IP 111.235.66.34's edit

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

Page: Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LiphradicusEpicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version (before the edit- and move-warring): [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]
5. [68]
6. [69]
7. [70]
8. [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Although multiple move requests were denied (1, 2) and a third (3) did not reach consensus, this user took it upon himself to determine a title and presentation he believes is WP:NPOV and has vigorously defended his version of the article from multiple other users who have reverted him and asked him on the Talk page to follow the proper procedures. He insists he does not need to obtain consensus in order to make these changes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I have reverted the editor myself yesterday, but I don't support this block. I think the user simply doesn't know Wikipedia's rules (including the 3RR rule). It also seemed to me that he didn't know how to move pages before yesterday. :) I really think it wouldn't be right if admins blocked him instead of explaining everything to him and pointing him to relevant rules. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is a new editor who needs some guidance, but he's not taking our word for it. I'd rather an administrator explain the process to him than just block him outright. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted to explain the relevant rules and procedures to LiphradicusEpicus, who has responded by claiming that he/she is under no obligation to follow them (on the basis that his/her changes are obviously correct). I've also been accused of "vandalism" and "random" reversions (on the same basis) and received a "page moves against naming conventions or consensus" warning on my talk page (which shows that LiphradicusEpicus is familiar with the relevant process).

Blocking should be a last resort, of course, but we seem to be running out of options. LiphradicusEpicus appears unwilling to even consider the possibility that he/she has done anything inappropriate. —David Levy 21:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

And you do not consider the deletion of 18 sources and the placing of a biased title to be disruptive?!?! That's downright vandalism!!! Everything you are accusing me of, you could just as easily say you did, only in the reverse. The only time, from everything I have read on our policies, that I was apparently wrong was over the title change to "annexation" due to the fierce resistance that it brought and people defining the word connotatively rather than denotatively. I still fail to see how making a neutral title change is wrong... მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

Actually, in light of the retaliatory report below, I think a time-out for this editor might be warranted. YMMV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. LiphradicusEpicus means well, but the disruption needs to cease. —David Levy 21:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Read my latest comment regarding article title in the below section please. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 21:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User refuses to accept fact that "Incorporation" is a neutral term. Every single person seeing this term has either not objected to it, or actually supported it. I myself was in favor of the term "Annexation" but it became quite apparent that it is a biased term. It is also VERY VERY VERY VERY obvious that "Accession" is just as biased as "Annexation", but on the opposite side of the same coin. Here at Wikipedia, we support neutrality. This user has met me with hostility and refusal to discuss problems. Out of everyone I have been talking to, this user has the least knowledge or say-so regarding the subject-matter. Allowing a term that is PoV-biased one way is just as bad as allowing it a term that is PoV-biased the other way, right? I even added notes to the article's talk page and had a lengthy, explaining discussion with another user (David). I would request that the page be fully protected due to vandalism, but there are a number of errors within the text and that would really make fixing them more difficult (such at the bare url's for sources or typos). The user also deleted 18 reliable sources that were placed into the article to show the most global perspective possible. As for my "move warring", all I did was simply make the title neutral and have been defending it from vandalism now for 1 and a half days. This user also refuses to assume good faith in my changes. I have no where left to turn to, please help. Thank you. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - This is frivolous and baldly retaliatory. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any edit warring here. Not by the user being reported, anyway. CodeCat (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is in direct relation to his report of myself. Let us say, "two can play that game". Out of everyone I have spoken with this user has been hostile and has the least gravitas regarding the subject matter but the most attitude. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

So you're not actually here to report edit warring, but just to get back at another editor for reporting you? See WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT. CodeCat (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I just stated "move warring". მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

You're the one continually moving the article without consensus. You've reported one of multiple reverters on the basis that you're obviously right (so someone who undoes your changes is committing "vandalism" and "refusing to accept the fact" that you're correct). —David Levy 21:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm also a tad confused why people are so against a neutral term...it makes literally no sense. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

As multiple editors have already stated on the article Talk page, people aren't necessarily "so against" the word "incorporation" -- it's that you didn't obtain consensus for the move and are now claiming you don't have to, and you're accusing everyone who tries to put the article back to where it was before you started move-warring of "vandalism". -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but MY POINT is that in the mean-time, it's very biased to have the term "accession" sitting there and it pisses me off just as much as it pisses someone such as Moscow Connection off to see the word "annexation" there. Would you prefer the page have no title until we get the proper documentation for the move to "incorporation/adoption/reunification/etc"???????? I have no problem getting a formal "consensus" but my whole point for the immediate move is based around WP:NPOV; does this make sense now?? მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

P.S. id est the article needs some sort of "working title" while a "consensus" is reached. The working title needs to be non-biased and meet our NPOV standards. As it is, the title "accession" does not meet that criteria, whereas something such as "incorporation" does. See what I mean? I mean it would be theoretically possible to have the working title as "page is under debate over title" or something like that, but that would be so unprofessional it's not even funny!

No consensus means no change. None of this would be happening if you had simply opened up a move request and allowed the discussion to play out, following the process laid out for controversial move procedures. Please, please educate yourself on Wikipedia practices and policies and stop this unconstructive behavior. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Although there's no notice on the talk page, this article is subject to discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: Benevolent dictatorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: 112.203.58.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]

Comments:
Dynamic IP keeps reverting sourced info. --178.252.126.70 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Stale. The reported IP hasn't edited in eight days. I have, however, reverted their last change as it screwed up the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77][diff]

Comments:
Please do not wholesale revert or delete stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bbb23 thanks for you reply. its hard for me to understand that you can ignore context, when making a decision. also to correct you: I did not describe an issue from February. Also, issues that "other people" have with Fleetham are not "old"; if you d care to check out the people that have complained on his talk page, you ll hear their current April 7 2014 opinion, if that makes a difference to you. So I just thave 2 more points: how can editing a sentence count as reverting (=going back to..)? How is this report going to end- does this stay open ?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Bbb23 There are 2 incorrect statements: First, Fleetham has not repeatedly asked me to read and abide by [WP:NPA]]. (if he says so he should prove it) and, mentioning this exhortation here, is smear tactic. it gives the impression as if I had violated that policy, which is untrue. (again,if he says so he should prove it) Second Fleetham's quote of me is wring and incorrect it. This "quote" does not pertain to the section I reported him about and is again smear tactic (=see what sticks).--Wuerzele (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]05:02, 7 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,072 bytes) (-2,177)
2. [diff]04:54, 7 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,249 bytes) (-8,995)
3. [diff] 11:28, 6 April 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (26,209 bytes) (-522)‎
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mohammed_Burhanuddin

Comments:
user:summichum is assuming ownership of the article Mohammed Burhanuddin he has reverted the edit done by other editors without any discussion. he doesn't seem to learn from his previous blocks.his sole purpose in joining wikipedia it seems is to impose his POV and disruptive editing.Rukn950 (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC) I have reported him for other article previously.Rukn950 (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. The reported editor has made only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

Stephanie Gray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Benkenobi18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "rvt vandalism in removal of sourced material once again."
2. 09:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "Removing readded promotional material."
3. 08:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC) ""The article exists because it was originally written by a blocked sockpuppet as a vehicle to promote Appel's blog/views",per talkpage."
4. 07:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "Once again Appel's non-notable opinion has consensus for it's removal from this article. Please stop re-adding material that has been removed before."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Stephanie Gray. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Per BLPN discussion */ new section"
2. 09:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Per BLPN discussion */"
3. 09:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Per BLPN discussion */"

Comments:

I was previously-uninvolved before responding to a request for assistance at the BLP Noticeboard. The user in question is repeatedly removing well-sourced and arguably-relevant criticism of the article subject, and has been involved in a slo-mo edit war over this material for more than a month. Other diffs reverting the same material: [79] [80] [81] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. NorthBySouthBaranof has continued to add promotional material sourced to a hostile blog to a BLP and has removed cited material backed up by 3 citations. I have simply restored these citations and removed the promotional material. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The opinion of a notable bioethicist published in a reliable source is not "promotional material sourced to a hostile blog." At any rate, that discussion belongs over on the article Talk page, which you have refused to engage in, despite requests. You simply keep reverting the material out. That's not on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Protected. Suggest strongly that Benkenobi now engages on the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

•  Not done Two edits in February and one in April do not appear to make an edit war DP 01:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda Are you sure? Specially a user with such a history. -- SMS ^Talk 19:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: Social liberalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117.53.77.84 (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. 07:07, 7 April 2014 "You can't write on the Justice Party here unless they regard themselves as a socially liberal political party. For now, they regard themselves as a social democratic political party."
2. 08:31, 7 April 2014‎ "It's the Justice Party"
3. 08:33, 7 April 2014 "Social democracy is the Justice Party's official ideology."

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

1. 08:18, 7 April 2014‎‎ "+"
2. 08:35, 7 April 2014‎ "+"

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

1. 13:58, 6 April 2014 "Justice Party: new section"

Comments:
This user made 3 rvs in 24 h, which is a clear violation of 3RR.

P.S. I think this user and 180.230.243.143 is the same person. --Idh0854 (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Both parties are edit warring, and both could be blocked. I invite them to join the discussion here and promise not to make any edits regarding South Korean political parties for seven days. (There has been warring at Social liberalism and New Politics Alliance for Democracy). EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry? I think it is totally inexplicable. I strictly observe 3RR. And I was so tempted to discussion himself. But he always use the edit summary without answer. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Result: Both warned. The report is being closed with no blocks per the assurances at User talk:Idh0854#Edit warring on South Korean political parties. Neither party should make any edits regarding South Korean political parties until 15 April. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

Ra.One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603272056 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
2. 08:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "Stop removal of sources and edit. This edit is meant for Good Faith edit, not with purpose of vandalism! I do not want to indulge in Edit war."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps trying to add misleading content, which has sources not supporting it. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note. It looks like the edit war (among multiple users) has ended. If it resumes, please let me know, and I'll take appropriate action.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: Banc de Binary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scapestessa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]
5. [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Recent_whitewashing

Comments:

• Another SPA on this article, created just after a previous bunch were blocked (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notsosoros/Archive), and whitewashing the article in the same manner. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet by Ponyo.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

Crimean Tatars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 11:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "Reverting to more correct version. There is nothing wrong with pictures and the data is current and not dated."
3. 20:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603107954 by KazekageTR (talk) Ayşe Hafsa Sultan and Aziz Nesin were not even Crimean Tatars."
4. 22:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603042457 by KazekageTR (talk) This is better representation for Crimean Tatars as for all 3 sub-groups.."
5. 17:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "reverting to more appropriate and correct version"
6. [109]
7. [110]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Crimean Tatars. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Slowmo edit warrior Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone lock the page, the war about "10%" or "12%" is clearly something which would continue forever until it is stopped by protection here. And I suspect every article even remotely related to Crimea should also be protected. Collect (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Two more reverts since the report was filed. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by DangerousPanda.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

Deaths in 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "/* 6 */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC) to 13:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "/* 6 */ bill is not a notable work."
   2. 13:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "/* 6 */ night at the Museum as its his highest grossing film, and establishes the length of his career"
3. 04:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "/* 6 */ these aren't his career highlights. Like I said with Ramis, three is more than enough, even for those with lengthy careers. There's a discussion on the talk page if you disagree."
4. 04:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "Excessive. Three is enough that more than highlights his lengthy career"
5. 03:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "What's the problem here? Stallion and Babes were him getting Oscar nom'd, Museum is his most recognized later work."
6. 03:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "This depicts the length of his career more."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Mickey Rooney notable works */"

Comments:

Many reverts over what roles to list. Bickering started on talk page, but did not resolve war. Beerest 2 Talk page 18:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I must insist this wasn't a war. The edits were within different contexts, and I have not since attempting any further alterations. Each edit was different, with none in context of warring with the content. First two were for different film titles. Third and fourth was the amount added. The last one was just me providing a comma, don't understand how that was warring. I also want to add I have been on the talk page, so it's not like I'm going about this issue with malicious aggressive intent. If I am wrong in where I stand, I can only apologize and ask mercy as this was not the intended course of action I was going for. Rusted AutoParts 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Stale Given the statment by Rusted AutoParts I don't see a need to take any action at this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

74.58.112.66 (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 18:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC) to 18:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Television films (2004) */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC) to 19:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Television films (2004) */ The TV movies don't belong here. They are mentioned in the main article about the show and have links to them. This article is about the TV episodes and DVDs, nothing else."
   2. 19:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "The TV movies do not belong with TV episodes. Different article all together."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The anon has been asked to explain removal and another editor and I argued against it. The anon removed it again earlier today and I reverted it. The anon then removed the material. Since I have blocked for edit warring like this I won't take on any further restoration of the material until an admin action has been made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Anon was previously blocked for similar edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of three days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: technically not exactly the previous version but

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. April 6
2. April 7
3. April 8

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

Comments:
This user's edits are limited to caste related articles only and this is not the only article where he/she is slow edit warring, other articles include Rana (title), Raheel Sharif. -- SMS ^Talk 19:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sanctioned with 1RR/week per WP:GS/Caste. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

Elaine Paige (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602996336 by DanielRigal (talk)"
2. 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603010483 by Nikkimaria (talk)"
3. 16:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603022183 by Nikkimaria (talk)"
4. 13:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603203745 by DanielRigal (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Elaine Paige. (TW)"
2. 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Elaine Paige. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP (which seems to be stably locked to one user and not used for other purposes) is being used to constantly reinsert a bad edit. Multiple people have reverted it. I have explained the problem on their talk page. They have not replied there or used the article's talk page, where there is also some discussion of it. They have been warned and have ignored a final warning. It is clear that they have no interest in discussion and nothing is getting through to them. They reinstate the bad edit almost daily. Perhaps a short block is needed to get their attention? DanielRigal (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a disagreement about which of two photos to have in the following articles.

Page: United Kingdom general election, 1992 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: United Kingdom general election, 1997 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: United Kingdom general election, 2001 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: United Kingdom general election, 2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.53.37.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff 2005

Diffs of the user's reverts. These are only some of the IPs reverts on 2005 in the last 24 hours. The other United Kingdom general election articles have quite a few reverts in the last 24 hours as well.

1. 2005-1
2. 2005-2
3. 2005-3
4. 2005-4
5. 2005-5
6. 2005-6
7. 2005-7
8. 2005-8

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: diff

Comments:
31.53.37.58 does not leave edit summaries, has not responded to warnings nor requests on their talk page.

Byzantium Purple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the other half of this edit warring, but seems to have stopped since my request here as well as discussions on my talk page. 31.53.37.58 continues to revert without comment.
Jim1138 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've stopped reverting them partially because it became tiring and partially because I want this to be done properly, with discussion, and not countless reverts. It is sad that we have to go here, but there appears to be no other way we can conclude this matter. Byzantium Purple (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: Foreign relations of Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aquintero82 (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. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]
4. [114]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:
Well, I'm sorry, but this is getting pretty frustrating, so I need help from administrators because it's pretty absurd how long this has gone on, as you can see I just create and replace a PNG image map to SVG image map in this page using the previous PNG map as a source of the recent SVG map, but this user did not allow it and revert it several times saying "map provided is not accurate" or that "i'm supporting my map over a map that is already in place" and things like that, the user doens't understand about Wikipedia:SVG image support. --Cihuaweb (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Both users warned, Cihuaweb if someone objects to your edit, you need to discuss it with them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Cihuaweb is insisting that there is 'rule' that svg maps are better and must be used over PNG maps because they "provide a geometrical description of an image using basic objects such as labels, circles, lines, curves and polygons." He also insists that I revert his changes because I'm defending a map which I have created. Although that point is true, he fails to say that he too is promoting a map that HE has also created. The map he wishes to impose on articles relating to Mexico's diplomatic and foreign relations is not accurate, although he claims that he copied the information on the map that he has created from the map I've created. If that were true, he would not have left out Mexican diplomatic missions located in Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait nor would he have highlighted every Caribbean island, where Mexico does not have a diplomatic mission on each island. As a rule of thumb on Wikipedia, one should verify their sources using officials means, such as creating information based on the information provided by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs rather than on someone else's work. Only until today did User Cihuaweb provide a talk page of his own to discuss such matters. However, he ventures into my talk page and tells me what it is that I can and cannot do which I do not appreciate since I have been working not only on articles related to Mexican diplomacy but on over 200 related articles. There is also a point of consistency. Most maps on the diplomatic pages are similar and a PNG map allows users to change and update when necessary which a svg map does not. His reasoning that I do not understand about Wikipedia:SVG image support is baseless. Regards, Aquintero82, (talk), 9 April 2014, 8:11 (UTC)

Page: Mint Press News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [117]
2. [118]
3. [119]
4. [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Notified: [122]

Comments:
Editor has previously been blocked for edit warring on this page. I must have missed some reverts in the list above because this editor's warring and the next one are quite similar in scope. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• topic banned from Mint Press News. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: Mint Press News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Isabellabean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]
4. [126]
5. [127]
6. [128]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

Notified: [130]

Comments:
Editor has previously been blocked for edit warring on this page. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• topic banned from Mint Press News. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: Ethiopian cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raphael.adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]
4. [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

Comments:

Likely sock of indefinitely banned User:Hiyob346. First edited using a mobile device, then switched to Raphael.adams. Waited a few minutes on fourth revert to avoid 3RR i.e. gaming the system. Middayexpress (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Middayexpress, I reviewed the SPI and some of the contributions of the known puppets, but I felt uncomfortable blocking on duck. Therefore, I blocked for longer than usual for the 3RR violation to give you an opportunity to open up a report on Raphael.adams. Also, next time, "likely sock" or not, please notify the user. I overlooked that problem, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I did at first use the subst:an3-notice template [138], but then opted for the subst:uw-3RR template that is also recommended at the top of this board. The form said "diff of edit warring / 3RR warning", so I figured this was alright. Middayexpress (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

Vance McAllister (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603483770 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) this belongs in the section on personal life - discuss is you disagree, stop vandalizing please"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC) to 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ undid vandalism / page sanitizing"
   2. 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Extramarital affair */ undid ongoing spate of vandalism"
3. 18:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603480822 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) GF undo - will delete the redundant sentence in the below section"
4. 17:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ fixed vandalism / page sanitizing by Gaijin42"
5. 17:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603475419 by Gaijin42 (talk) GF undo to change plural to singular"
6. 17:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603453835 by Gaijin42 (talk) it most certainly is"
7. 01:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603380532 by NazariyKaminski (talk) as per WP:BLPPRIVACY, no "privacy violation""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "/* please discuss edits before engaging in wholesale page rewriting */"

Comments:

Edit-warring contentious and unsourced negative material into a BLP. Lots of deceptive edit summaries claiming "good faith undo" while reverting contentious and unsourced negative material. This isn't even close to a borderline case - he's at 7 reverts in under 17 hours. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No 3RR has occurred by me of which I'm aware (if I inadvertently 3RR'ed at some point accept my apology and explanation that this is an article in which one or two users are patrolling and sanitizing and the edits they're making are "fast and furious" and it is difficult to keep up with the rapidity of deletions of sourced material that has been occurring). Editors appear to be "block shopping" against editors with whom they disagree, see here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Vance_McAllister. I will make no other defense as I believe NorthBySouthBaranof's own edit history and Talk page comments stand on their own as per WP:BOOMERANG. (as for my "7 reverts in under 17 hours," again, I'm certain WP:BOOMERANG will paint a whole picture; also note the "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" was actually an attempt by me, not the editor filing this complaint; finally NorthBySouthBaranof extensive reverts will require a bit more attention to identify as he just deletes additions instead of using Undo)BlueSalix (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• strong endorse Baranof and I may be approaching 3RR, but we are clearly falling into the WP:NOT3RR WP:BLP exception. Salix is repeatedly inserting information claiming open marriages etc which are 100% unsupported by the sources. There is no sanitizing going on. The scandal is covered in detail. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(Gaijin42 is the other editor as per above when I referenced "one or two users.") I have inserted no information claiming "open marriage." I placed a WikiLink to the article open marriage, which I felt was appropriate. You objected to it. I deleted it. Pretty simple. This is all contained in the Talk and edit history. Please do not try to dramatize this to get users with whom you disagree blocked. This is not Battle-Wiki. (Also, kindly stop using ALL CAPS and bold in the Talk page. Let's talk softly and civilly. Thank you.) BlueSalix (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix does not appear to believe that 7RR is a problem that they have to deal with personally. Instead, it appears that BlueSalix is deflecting this obvious violation onto others, that it is the fault of others. If BlueSalix is not willing to accept responsibility, then the wiki needs to be protected. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. 48 hours seems rather little for this egregious edit warring on a BLP, but it's the user's first block. I accept the claimed 3RR exemption for NorthBySouthBaranof and Gaijin42, as they were removing BLP violations. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC).

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

KernSibbald has removed several times the section about Bareos and / or stated his personal view in that section.

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacula&oldid=603190357

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

1. 14:16, 9 April 2014 (edit summary: "")
2. 15:36, 9 April 2014 (edit summary: "")
3. 16:03, 9 April 2014 (edit summary: "")

—Gul.maikat (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KernSibbald&oldid=603480166

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bacula&oldid=589973163

User Roeme has published an NPOV version of the Bareos section and has written a warning on the discussion page that every further change has to be discussued first. KernSibbald ignored this and changed the section again. I've reverted changes to roeme's version.

Comments:

--Gul.maikat (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one month by Ronhjones.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

Mohammed Burhanuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rukn950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Activities */ the person has recently deceased so definately BLP violation please refer BLP. policy"
2. 16:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Activities */ BLP violation. liable information."
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC) to 15:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603432461 by Summichum (talk) Reverting vandalism or test edit"
   2. 15:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603423924 by Summichum (talk) Reverting vandalism or test edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "/* BLP Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons */ BLP doesn't apply"
2. 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "/* BLP Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons */ also properly sourced"

Comments:

Violation of WP:3RR: removal of properly sourced but critical information. Reference to the BLP policy is not convincing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As I have stated this edits are clear BLP violation. The user is trying to defame recently deceased person with unreliable source. the user clearly has POV issues. Quote from BLP Article"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

as you can see from above user is violating BLP.Rukn950 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The above diff is in no way critical as user states, but pure vandalism and libelious to the deceased persons.which is not acceptable. the user is using this article as tabloid, promoting sensasionalism and propaganda.Rukn950 (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

1. [139]
2. [140]

The Above I have given the contentious allegation User:Qwertyus and User:Summichum has done. I request to Lock the article.Rukn950 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with all of Summichum's edits but I have the feeling you're trying to keep the article a hagiography. I re-instated the allegations with full sourcing both in the main text and in the references. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks hm?This user rukn and other mdiet have a clear conflict of interest and they are using wiki to write advertisement for a person and religion , I request you to also review other bohra articles Mufaddal Saifuddin Dawoodi Bohra etc due to these users the pages are now blocked , please see, I HAD REPORTED him to the conflict of interest notice board : COI Notice to Rukn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week. Qwertyus, next time please warn the user of edit warring. A notice of this discussion is insufficient. That said, the user hasn't reverted since you notified them. Unfortunately, the battle continued without them.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: Double-slit experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mpc755 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:16, 8 April 2014
2. 22:37, 8 April 2014
3. 23:29, 8 April 2014
4. 00:12, 9 April 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts by multiple editors

Comments:

See the following responses in Talk:

1. Mpc755 (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Mpc755 (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Mpc755 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpc755 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 9 April 2014

@Mpc755 - Even if you are engaging on the talk page or even if your edits are the truth, it does not give you an excuse to ignore WP:3RR. Plain and simple. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter You posted the following in the edit history: "(cur | prev) 22:35, 8 April 2014‎ FyzixFighter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,281 bytes) (-5,715)‎ . . (rv - major WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues, especially if this is being presented as something different from the de Broglie-Bohm theory interpretation - per WP:BRD, resolve on talk page before re-adding) (undo | thank)". You don't even know there is a difference between de Broglie's wave mechanics and de Broglie-Bohm theory and you remove the whole section on de Broglie's wave mechanics. Mpc755 (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one day Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: After his block expired, Mpc755 added the same wp:SYNTH content to another article ([143]), and then added an unsourced entry in the original article ([144]). I have removed both additions. - DVdm (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And here we go: [145]. Edit warring continues. - DVdm (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And again: [146]. - DVdm (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of five days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "Mr.Dougweller you are mistaken and i have explained this in your talk page and also in this rajus talk page.please understand..."
2. 12:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "i have explained in talk page clearly..."
3. 10:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "that is wrong version he simply reverts and please see the talk page..."
4. 10:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "provided explanation in talk page and article is according to the sources and also the info...any user can check the sources and statements..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "/* April 2014 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

3RR violation ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 12:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have explained in my talk page and i have faced this condition before.Because there are two persons i.e. sitush & Joshua Jonathan who are doing multiple reversions.In order to protect the truth i have no other choice.I have clearly provided many sources in talk page and i have explained to Mr.Dougweller.This article is being undermined from 4 years.I have stated references & provided detailed explanations in Rajus talk page according to Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anthropological references by Kumar Suresh Singh.As Rajus will be mentioned & refered as "Kshatriya" by Government of Andhra Pradesh.Please provide justice by protecting the truth.I hope administrators could verify & understand.Thank you -Shvrs (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This editor asked me to protect his version but although he seems to mean well he continually reverts anyone who disagrees with him - 3 editors including me have reverted him and the editor who brought this has also tried to explain to him that he needs to get consensus but despite that and a block on the 1st he continues to edit war. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 7 days Dreadstar ☥ 15:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Hey Dad..! (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 124.171.36.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [147]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:03, 9 April 2014 (edit summary: "indecent act conviction. fair point")
2. 12:00, 9 April 2014 (edit summary: ""undue vulgarity" ?? .. for anyone would readily use in a discussion with their own doctor")
3. 00:00, 10 April 2014 (edit summary: "amazing how stuff gets suppressed to protect these creeps. Disgusting. Take a hard look at yourself")
4. 05:49, 10 April 2014 (edit summary: "the term is slang, just like 'gut', 'moobs' and 'muffintop' which we shall not censor and may not suppress")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page: [149]

Comments:
The post that the IP keeps restoring is unnecessary, as the concerns raised by the IP have already been incorporated into the article, 13 minutes after WWGB's 3rd reversion of the IP's edits.[150] I subsequently left a note on WWGB's talk page noting that I didn't think that simply reverting the IP was productive so I had left a note on the IP's talk page.[151] --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Dreadstar ☥ 15:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: 1985 Pichilemu earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1985 Rapel Lake earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Sfs90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1985_Pichilemu_earthquake&oldid=603542538

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1985_Pichilemu_earthquake&diff=603548106&oldid=603542538
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1985_Pichilemu_earthquake&diff=603548298&oldid=603548273
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1985_Pichilemu_earthquake&diff=603548376&oldid=603548319

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=Talk:1985_Pichilemu_earthquake&diff=603063496&oldid=603063225 Discussion has been open for some time, but the user insists on removing the content, redirecting it to a newly created page, and removing with it all of its necessary attribution (per license)

Comments:

Küñall (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Dreadstar ☥ 15:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [158]

Comments:

See also the edits of IP 93.146.2.73 [159] - clearly the same person. Dagousset has been reverted by two three different contributors, and has had two further contributors agree in the talk page discussion that trivial details concerning an unanswered Italian parliamentary question don't belong in the article. It seems self-evident that, although I'm not sure that WP:3RR has technically been broken, Dagousset (and the IP) will carry on edit-warring indefinitely unless blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, IP blocked for a week. Yes, I won't even bother to do the timestamp arithmetic, it's egregious edit-warring and they have been amply warned. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a long running issue of genre conflict. This anon is removing sourced content and sources with out supplying new refs. Also removing talk on talk:Duran Duran which imo does not fit the anon's POV. Also quickly removes warnings from talk page.

Page: Duran Duran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.204.113.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

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

Comments:
Also deleted talk on talk:Duran Duran

• diff 1 with an edit summary of Removed trash talk.
• diff 2 with What part of 'removed trash talk' did you not understand? with an edit summary of "Removed trash talk"
• I had added a uw-tpv2 between the talk removals diff
• The other IP 86.162.127.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stopped reverting once I explained 3RR.
  

Jim1138 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

1. diff
2. diff

Reverting continues on since AN3-notice added to anon. Jim1138 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours by DangerousPanda.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

Fan S. Noli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1 2

Comments:

1) This article is about Theofan Stilian Noli the founder of the orthodox church of Albania , an Albanian patriot and an ex prime minister of Albania .

User Alexikoua keeps vandalizing the article changing the name to a Greek one . He claimed a reference which in fact was supporting the exact opposite of what he claimed it to be from the talk page > Talk page for Theofan_Stilian_Mavromati , however upon checking the reference ( which in fact you can also check ) there was not mavromatis anywhere to be seen , instead the reference was writing THEOFAN STILIAN NOLI , so there you can see one of the best examples of how some people manipulate even what the references are writing thinking that no one is gonna check .

User alexikoua after the first revert was contacted ( here is the proof ) and was explained to him that even that reference that he claimed as showing the name Stylianus Mavromatis , was in fact showing the exact opposite ( or said otherwise Fan Stilian noli ) however he chose to act like he owns wikipedia ignoring the facts and changing content according to his likes and wishes that suit his nationalistic agenda ... !

Not only he is baptizing an albanian prominent figure , an albanian patriot , an albanian ex prime minister as a greek person, but he goes to that extend that he even ignores the SOURCED facts .

Regards ,

Comment Please note: This brand new user John221989, as part of his starting edits, has joined edit-warring in Albania trying to minimise the Greek ethnic population which is an old issue which reignites from time to time in the article. His other edit is removing material from reliable sources trying to eliminate the Greek background of the subject of the article. Overall, this is typical nationalist POV-pushing which erupts regularly in Albanian-related articles. John221989 has also been edit-warring as 94.234.170.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on the Fan_S._Noli article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

May i request a sock puppet investigation for user DR.K and user Alexikoua ? I am saying this , because user although he has no relation with this whole matter , he is claiming a greek background on Fan Noli . I only ask from anyone to just read the article about FAN NOLI , then you can make your own decision . Also he reverted it , although he knew a 3rr investigation was already asked ... ! Furthmore i am claiming WP:HOUND . This a very inappropriate attitude from members that have a long history of editing wikipedia

let me also stress out , that what i did is to write the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK and the 2011 official housing ( link which was a revert of a revert of another person and i also provided 1 more link which was the official 2011 census ) census LINKS in the infobox . User is so much lying that he is claiming that CIA is trying to minimise the greek ethnic population in albania. Furthmore that edit was initiated by another user , i just provided more links , and arguments in the talk page . Please do verify everything , if you need directs links i will be glad to give them to you as i feel that this user is abusing too much with the fact that he is an old editor of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by John221989 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not seriously suggesting that Dr K and Alexikoua are even remotely related, are you? See WP:ALLSOCKS and WP:WIAPA before you do. You seem to be a bit mixed up about what Wikipedia is all about DP 20:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That they have some kind of connection ? I would even bet my life . I swear to god . However please do look the arguments , the links . DR.K is insisting on writing warning messages to my wall while he knows from the first moment that there was a 3RR investigation opened ... what about that ?

I was also accused for the article of Albania ... for what ? For presenting 1 more link ( the 2011 official sensus result ) after another user had changed the infobox ( total 1 revert on my behalf ) with a source from CIA ? I did provide a link that double confirmed the CIA source of that other person ... I thought wikipedia was all about sources . Isnt it ?

So am i comiting a genocide because i present the 2011 official census result ? Do u agree with DR.K ? Because i would say the ecaxt opposite , which is that DR.K and Alexikoua are nationalisticaly motivated to that extend that SOURCES dont matter a single bit . Am i wrong ?

Regards :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John221989 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Now they're "nationalistically motivated"? Have you ever read WP:BATTLE? We do block for these types of statements against other editors, you know DP 22:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry , now that i am more aware of it , i retract that specific part of my statement . However as per notability , and sources provided , the overwhelming majority of sources show the exact opposite of what these people claim ( in fact all of them including encyclopedia Britanica as i demonstrated below in the other 3RR investigation ) . I will however insist on the WP:HOUND . Regards , — Preceding unsigned comment added by John221989 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So, which part of WP:BRD are you having issues with? You were BOLD and made an edit - it doesn't matter if it was well-sourced or not. Someone else REVERTED it. According to the RULES that you agreed to, you may NEVER re-add that information until you DISCUSS it on the article talkpage and gain WP:CONSENSUS for it. If you're not able to get consensus, then it cannot be added - that's the main rule, and you've been told about it. Also, vandalism has a formal definition and nothing you're saying meets that definition - accusing others of vandalism is ALSO a personal attack when their actions do not meet the definition. Finally, telling you the RULES again and again because you keep breaking them is not considered to be HOUNDING - nor is reporting you for edit-warring when you're breaking the rules so frequently DP 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's hear 94.234.170.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on Alexikoua's talkpage: Next time do check , before changing . It can be that simple , although i know that your reverts are nationalistically motivated ., same as John just above. Also on the talkpage of the article: That source is writing THEOFAN STILIAN NOLI , AND NOT MAVROMATI ... It can be thaaaaat simple . I am glad i helped all of you . Now please stop vandalizing the article claiming sources that show the exact opposite of what you claim them to be ., as compared to John221989's edit summary: Restored version before alexikoua . User insists on writing an albanian person with a greek name claiming a source that is showing the exact opposite. So, the IP is the sock of John221989 per loud quacking. Note the IP sock has been edit-warring across many ARBMAC articles. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please see also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John221989. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Merged report User:John221989 reported by User:Dr.K.

Page

Fan S. Noli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

John221989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Edit by John221989

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603650793 by Dr.K. (talk) LET THE MODS DECIDE IT .... i am reverting again because u have no right to revert something that there is an investigation for ... !"
2. 20:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603647734 by Dr.K. (talk) I find it insulting for the admins that you revert something , while there is an investigation . Please wait , they can revert it back ..."
3. 20:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603646214 by Dr.K. (talk) WP:HOUND HARASSMENT , although he knows a 3RR investigation has already been opened by me , he reverts it !"
4. 19:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "Restored version before alexikoua . User insists on writing an albanian person with a greek name claiming a source that is showing the exact opposite . Adm will be notified"

Please note: The comment in the edit-summary on diff 4 above is false: User insists on writing an albanian person with a greek name claiming a source that is showing the exact opposite. The source says exactly that: Born Theophanus Stylianos Mavromatis in Imbrik- Tepe, a predominantly Albanian settlement in Thrace, then part of the Ottoman Empire, Fan Stylian Noli was educated in the Greek Gymnasium of Edirne (Adrianople)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Fan S. Noli. (TW★TW)"
2. 20:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Fan S. Noli. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Vandalistic edit-warring. Blanking the name and quote of a reliable reference by Gregory C. Ference attesting to the Greek birthname of Fan S. Noli, without any valid reason. This has been a longterm target of nationalist disruption since at least 2013. Please see Talk:Fan_S._Noli#Removal_of_the_referenced_assertion and this edit from July 2013. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a reference having the exact opposite name then > reference

Encylopedia Britanica clearly saying FAN NOLI ... and not mavromatis > Read carefuly what encyclopedia Britannica is saying > West and wanted to modernize and Westernize Albania,was led by Fan S. Noli, an American-educated bishop of the Orthodox church

I can find you 10000 more that say the opposite . Will his name change because you have 1 reference of a book ?

Why did you revert my CIA reference from the Albania thread ( 1 more example of WP HOUND ) which was double sourced with the official housing result of 2011 ( meaning that the official census of 2011 and the CIA world factbook was saying the same ) while now you show of a source of a dubious book maybe describing an albanian in the greek version of the name as something important when all the other sources ( including FAN NOLI himself ) say the opposite ?

Oh the irony , the definition of double standarts ...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John221989 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC) 

1)I ask from everyone to see that Dr.K has initiated this 3rr war , although he did know from the first moment that an investigation has been opened for this matter , he did choose to revert it . As you can see by my edit summaries i only asked from him to wait until the investigation is complete as i find it illogical for him to do such a thing , when moderators are called to give their opinion . It defies reason . Furthemore he has reverted 3 times ..... the same thing ( 3RR rule )

2)He started with this notice warning from my first edit , and i claimed WP HOUND ( harassment ) and i pointed out to him to discuss in the 3rr investigation i have opened ( giving him the link as well ) , some rows above in this page you can find it ... ! He chose not to , instead he prefered to spam my wall , and WP:HOUND me ... please do check by visiting my talk page . Because the way he has presented them is misleading ... rather go to the history of my talk page.

3) I did not blank anything as he lies , instead i wrote the name of Fan noli , as fan noli ... as proven by 3rr investigation ( and the source ) 2 rows above and myriads of links ( i find it very weird , btw that he chose not to further comment on the already opened 3rr investigation , but rather create e new one ) .

All in all he is still still comiting WP HOUND and is simply lying ... his aim is to fill my wall with spam messages , so that he can accuse me being a new member ...

4) As you can see i did only restore the version prior to Alexikoua ... please do check by going to the revision history ( another lie which can easily be verified ) .

5) I am insisting as demonstrated by his history , that he is in more than 1 way connected with user Alexikoua ... ( Verifiable as well , if only you take some minutes )

6) To say you exactly why is so important for them to give a greek name to Fan noli , is because they want to claim that the albanian orthodox church is in fact greek , and 20 % of the population of Albania is greek ... ( here why it is so important for them changing the facts and re naming an Albanian ex prime minister , patriot and founder of the albanian orthodox church with a greek name ) ...

Please do look the 3rr investigation that has been opened by me prior to him opening this . Without that , i think many people would be eager to just believe what this person is trying to make u believe . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by John221989 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand why User:Dr.K. opened this, when there's an identical one 2 sections above. Dr K knows that if we find John to be in the wrong, it's John who will be blocked. There's never a need - ethically or procedurally - to open tit-for-tat filings DP 22:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• The ew-report by John221989 against Alexikoua is malformed since it only lists two reverts by Alexikoua. Second my report is fully documented and includes the reverts of John221989 as well as analysis of his edit summary where he mentions falsely that the reference does not support the fact. I thought that a new, clean report would make the job of the reviewing admin easier, plus I added new remarks and facts. I did not want to add it to the other report to add to the confusion and I considered it a good housekeeping move and not tit-for-tat or a sign of bad ethics. But you can merge it if you like since you don't think it was a good idea. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know that all related activities and reports always go together DP 23:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment DP, but seriously if I knew that, at least for the edit-warring protocol: x reports y, y reports x, I wouldn't have done it, if for nothing else than to seem knowledgeable enough not to do it in the first place. But I'm not here to argue, especially with old hands. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours and the sock for 36 hrs DP 08:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [160]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [161]
2. [162]
3. [163] (earlier revert of changes by User:Diego Moya; outside 24h period)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cdrtools, [[164]] (deleted talk)

Comments:

The talk page (and article history) is full of personal attacks against anybody editing "his" page.

User:Schily is openly the author of the software cdrtools, Joerg Schilling. As such, he obviously has a WP:COI.

As pointed out in: Talk:Cdrtools#Censorship_-_suppression_of_facts_Schily_does_not_like, my changes were very reasonable. In particular, I did fix an incorrectly spelled name, as well as disambiguating Reference 24 and 25, which seemingly reference the same post (but don't). But any change I do is bulk-reverted by User:Schily or his clone, without even looking at the changes.

Here is a list of earlier examples of attacks of this user against others editing his article (editor user names!):

• Diego Moya: on talk page "Repeated vandalism by User:Diego Moya" and "Edits by Diego Moya"
• EagleOne
• Niten
• Chealer
• Fudoreaper
• Saxifrage
• Tcwardrobe (in context of article Jörg Schilling, not cdrtools)

The attacks now get personal, and reference the "outside of Wikipedia": [165] This is a red line for me not to be crossed.

As you can see, I'm neither the first, nor the only one attacked.

My motivation was that IMHO, the article is pretty much unreadable (more of a software manual page or replacement homepage, than an encyclopedia article), and heavily biased towards the authors (User:Schily) opinion; neglecting the fact that every major linux distribution (except OpenSUSE, apparently) is no longer shipping his software. Maybe that is why he is so eager to make his opinion public?

As I don't use his software, I guess I'm out. I don't want to have to deal with such behavior, in particular when they start personally attacking me. This is unacceptable, I'm going to let them make their article unreadable and biased, because it will be useless advocating his position.

Nevertheless, the article needs someone to pay attention to it. If you look at the history of the article, it's been a constant edit war for years (actually even long before I became a Wikipedia user). And the author is apparently banned from several mailing lists and Linux distributions (it was even proposed to ban him from LKML, as well as German Wikipedia [166]. But this needs to be done by someone with more dedication, and maybe even Wikipedia superpowers, than me.

As said before, I'm out. I lack interest in this software to bother any longer given these circumstances; I have an interest in big data, data mining and cluster analysis, not in cd recording; so I take the easy road out (like EagleOne, Saxifrage, Chealer, Fudoreaper, Niten, ...) and focus on the articles that are of importance to me. But given the road the article has been taking the last years, someone will have to take care of it to keep it balanced, and from becoming a pure cdrtools advertisement page. --Chire (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Chire is well known for starting repeated edit wars by repeatedly adding false claims to e.g. the cdrtools Wp page. Most of the problematic content in the article has been written by Chire. He is trying to harm cdrtools since a long time and he must be seen as a stalker to me and the cdrtools project. His main Interest is obviously to harm cdrtools. Schily (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If it is "obvious", where is the proof that I am "well known" for this? Why would I want to harm cdrtools "since a long time"? I have proven that you repeatedly attack other editors. --Chire (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why you like to harm cdrtools - this is something you need to explain, but it is a fact that you try to harm cdrtools since a long time and other users, e.g. Ekkt0r (talk) for this reason send you a related warning more than once already. Schily (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya is someone we can trust. He is an experienced and honest editor and can confirm that I have never attacked him. He knows what is happening in the cdrtools article and I'm sure he will be able to tell that Schily should not be blocked. Thank you. Ekkt0r (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that Ekkt0r has never attacked me, and I thank you for your confidence, but I'm afraid that's the only point where we agree in this conversation. I have never been involved in ANI, but before seeing this thread I was thinking of starting one myself, because of the latest edits by Schily to Cdrtools and his inability to deal with his conflict of interest in a proper manner, for this [167] reinsertion of his notes and references is unacceptable.

I was going to propose that Schily recuse himself and avoid making further edits to the article's content, limiting to voice his concerns at the talk page. I don't think the WP:COI policy means by itself that editors should completely avoid editing pages of a topic when they are involved, provided that they can neutral and compliant with policy. Unfortunately, this is not the case here; Schily does not understand Wikipedia policy, and has a consistent pattern of introducing his personal opinions and value judgements in articles as fact (see [168][169] as some examples among many), original research([170]), removing tags that warned readers about problems with the article, without fixing those ([171]), and misjudging the points made by references and the subtler points of WP:SYNTH (see [172], discussed here, and [173] regarding this reference). I concur with Chire's observation that Schily behaves as if this was an extension of his project's documentation; and that the result of the infighting to solve the COI through the years is an unreadable mess. I have suggested in the past to Schily that he should refrain from modifying the article and let others do the editing after discussing his concerns, as he has proven unable to comply with the most basic requirements of verifiability and neutrality, and too often engages in passing his personal opinions as references.

Looking at his online past throughout the web, Schily is a difficult person to deal with in this and other projects. Given his accomplishments with the Cdrtools software, he must be a brilliant developer; he must posses a thoroughly logical mind, when it relates of how machines work, or he couldn't have built a software of such precision and complexity; but I've watched his interactions with other editors and the problems he has at empathizing with the other side, or to even understand the point that the others are trying to make; having been at the receiving end of his tendency to instantly assuming the worst intentions of others whenever someone contradicts him, I don't think he holds any malice against the encyclopedia or other editors, but I suspect he's not totally on the neurotypical side of the Pact; in any case, he has displayed a lack of competence (of factual, social and bias nature) when the task at hand requires following the steps of dispute resolution or respecting the basic tenets of content policy.

I don't indend this commentary as a personal attack (and will strike it if it's perceived as such) nor as an attempt to ban him from collaboration, but rather as a description of what I've observed of his behavior. I believe it should be for the better (for him and others) that he tried his best to limit his interactions with respect to the article about his tools, and his biography. If this requires that he is topic-banned from the articles related to his COI, so be it. Though I still believe that he has valuable and first-hand knowledge about this article, that could be harnessed to provide the background and links to relevant external sources; if only he limited himself to expose that knowledge and his opinions at the talk pages, and let others with a better grasp of Wikipedia procedures do the actual editing of the article. Diego (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note - I haven't got time to look through all of this now, but it is clear that User:Schily has serious WP:OWNership issues on this article, and today posted this, on the talkpage, which indicates he is not interested in collaborative editing of the article. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit that some of Jörg's edits and/or summaries do not follow all the rules, but when we compare this to all the hostile edits and attacks from all the people who have been fighting him during the last 8 years, Jörg's edits are very light. Jörg has even been blocked on the German Wikipedia by... Chire.

Chire has already kicked a VIP out of Wikipedia. See these last two edits (first and second) by User:Ryan22222 (User_talk:Ryan22222 | Special:Contributions/Ryan22222) who tried hard (a + b + c) to obtain help from Wikipedia admins because he was being attacked by Chire. He gave up and never edited any page again. It is sad to see that Chire does not respect the editors who do not share his views.

If you need any Diffs to have an overview of all hostile edits from Chire against the cdrtools article, please let me know. (I can put a big list.) Thanks for your help. Ekkt0r (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct, this is not a single accident with Chire but something that repeated over years. One of the methods of Chire is trying to waste time of other people and this is not the first time where he was absolutely not collaborative. Chire repeatedly inserts the same false claims and as he does not change his edits once one of his claims was proven false, he cannot be seen as working in good faith. It does not help to try to discuss things with him as he just acts as if there was no attempt to discuss things with him at all. See today: he made a false claim (that a specific package will not run on Mint-Linux) even though this package was verified to work correctly under Mint and what he did was to reinsert his false claim again. Well, it seems that his real interest for today was to get rid of the column in a table that verifies that there are precompiled binary packages even for all the non-colaborative Linux distros. I cannot believe that Wikipedia will allow Chire to abuse WP as a platform to spread libel and slander against an OSS project, so I am in hope for a friendly decision. Schily (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the actual history of Educational data mining (and subsequent changes). I performed a Wikipedia-policy merge (there are attribution requirements!) of a section on "cluster analysis in educational data mining" from the cluster analysis article actually written by Special:Contributions/Jucypsycho. These merged contents where then subsequently removed first by an IP, then b< "Sventura", who did 4 wikipedia edits and by In1romoc, who never contributed anything else. No wonder the administrators (not me), decided to semi-protect the article and follow me on my "meat puppets" complaint ... here is the end on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests (EAR), also bringing the overreaction by Ryan22222 to the editor assistance attention. Since User_talk:Jucypsycho#Educational_data_mining never followed up, I let the removed text rest. If the author does not object to his text being removed - and it being brought to his attention -, why would I interfer?

Here is the actual message I left on his talk page: [174] - using the words "Fix it, don't just delete it"... I have nothing to hide, but the two of you are again not telling the whole/true story, but just telling slander. You only link to his overreaction, but not to what I actually did write, nor that at EAR there was no objection by the administrators to my behavior. Anybody here is welcome to review the history of his talk page [175] and EAR, and welcome to make up his mind. Just don't blindly listen to User:Schily. I'm definitely sometimes an aggressive writer, but I'd say only within the usual Wikipedia behavior.

Here is another "mistake" by you: I did not block User:Schily on German Wikipedia. It's well documented: [176]: a user called "Nolispanmo" reported you (after you had edit wars with him on several articles), and "XenonX3" executed the indefinite ban. Nor did I do the previous two bans, but "Koenraad" and "Gleiberg"... Yes, three different administrators banned Schily... Don't blame me for that, this is paranoid.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a pattern. You blame everybody for everything you don't like. But unfortunately, some of that is just a fact. All the major linux distributions (Redhat, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, CentOS) except OpenSuSE (since 2013) have a ban on your software. I understand that this hurts, but I'm not responsible for that, nor any of the other editors you killed over the years.

Stop blaming me for everything. I'm giving up your article anyway. Make it as unreadable as you like, with more footnotes than text, and more edits than users of your software. But someone will have to fix up your WP:COI and WP:OWN mess for Wikipedia at some point, and make the article worth reading again; and not a replacement homepage of your software. I know that you are not going to respect this, but:

Give me a chance to get out of your vendetta. I'd prefer to no longer participate. Thank you. --Chire (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no vendetta and if you did really stop editing the named arcticles, this would be a real benefit for the quality of e.g. the cdrtools article on WP: so stop your crusade against me and cdrtools and don't continue to add false claims to WP. Nobody is interested in you personally but you add false claims and you do not send a prove for other claims from you that look like own research. This causes people to revert your edits. Schily (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If false claims are added, you can be confident that someone will remove them. But it shouldn't be you the one who do the reverts, Schily, as you are directly involved with the article's topic, and therefore are acting as both judge and jury. If you find some claims in the to be false, signal them at the talk page and explain why they shouldn't be there; the simplest reason would be because the additions are unreferenced. If you can convince others that the content shouldn't be written as is, it will be fixed. Diego (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Diego for your edits. I do not think, however, that there is a COI. The problem is that Jörg is just tired of having to defend himself from the attacks from so many people on the internet since 2006, and from a few hostile editors. So I don't think it would be a good idea to restrict Jörg's edits on the article. He did make some edits and reverts in a way that should be avoided, but this is just the consequence of 8 years of attacks (offending comments, insults, and even slander) by some people who want to prevent cdrtools from having the visibility it should have. I'm not saying this gives him the right to do whatever he wants in the article, but I can understand he has had enough of hostile edits. I'm sure Jörg is able to avoid his passed "errors" once the attacks against him stop. BTW, several claims in the "Licensing issues" are false, but I think Jörg has already accepted to let them there until a better consensus is found.

BTW, do you think we could move the "Licensing issues" section entirely to the talk page and edit it there until we meet a concensus? Ekkt0r (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't think so, then you don't understand COI very well, Ekkt0r. Schily is the author of the software - that's the very definition of Conflict of Interest, and the reason why the policy was crafted. It means that his comments can be linked to from the article as primary sources if relevant, but also that he can't be trusted to fairly judge the point of view of other parties. Someone directly involved with the topic at hand shouldn't be making controversial edits to the article, period; if he had avoided doing edits during those 8 years, he wouldn't have had to "defend himself". (Speaking of which, if you are somehow involved with the project of making cdrtools in any way other than as a user, this would be a good time to disclose your involvement).

As for the "Licensing issues" section, let's discuss that at the talk page. Diego (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget that it is not Wikipedias responsibility to find out the truth. We document positions. Schilys position is that the software can be distributed. The position of Ubuntu, Debian, Redhat, Fedora, Mandrake, Oracle Linux, and apparently many more is that it cannot be distributed in binary form (which is why source-only distributions are not affected). User:Schily repeatedly tried to remove any statement about the position of Debian; but from a Wikipedia point of view, the fact is that Debian does not ship cdrtools, and the official reason (documented by the mailing list posts) is that there is a licensing issue when the license is read using Debians interpretation. We do not care whether this interpretation is correct. It is the documented reason why these distributions do not ship cdrtools. Any attempt to "prove the truth" would be WP:OR, and is not our task. This is repeated very often (e.g. Talk:Cdrtools#Enough_with_the_synthesis_and_original_research).

In my opinion, all that Wikipedia really needs on this topic is: major Linux distributions (Debian, Ubuntu, Redhat, Fedora, ...) do not accept the licence, and give the mix of GPL and CDDL code as a reason (+references for the major distributions saying so). Schily says otherwise, but cannot convince the Linux distributions (except recently OpenSUSE?). End of story.

Which is pretty much what Cdrkit#History has on this matter, and what we have had on the cdrtools web page until the latest peak of activitiy: [177]. This version was quite factual. It doesn't say who is "right", but it documents who said what. IMHO there are some details missing to the reader though: A) the issue is not resolved yet, and the reason why most large distributions do not include cdrtools, B) while Debian created the cdrkit fork, cdrkit is used by most distributions as replacement as is. Similar with the Ubuntu story. It tells there was a legal inquiry, but the outcome is suppressed; and again it is hidden that this is the reason why Ubuntu also sticks to cdrkit.

All of these are facts, and can be reported in a factual tone, unless someone insists on adding footnotes everywhere to mix in his personal opinion (= WP:COI). If you read through the "Notes" section of the current article, don't you agree that these reflect the personal opinion of someone, and do not document or support published facts? (Nor do they contribute to the quality of the article.)

Schily can publish his view in detail on his homepage; Wikipedia should only have a summary of his opinion, and a summary of other opinions; give the reader pointers where to obtain additional information, but not make an attempt to judge who is more right than the other. Wikipedia should also try to keep the article to a size that is of general interest; in the case of cdrtools it should IMHO mostly answer the question "What is cdrtools, and if cdrtools is free software, why is not available in Debian/Ubuntu/Redhat?". I'm okay with having a section that answers "what beenfits do I get from using cdrtools", but then these should be independently checked, and not a green-only feature table published by Schily to advertise his product. This gives undue weight to obscure features such as "Disc Tattooing" (DiscT@2) and Atari MiNT support; and neglects the fact that apparently the 2.x versions of cdrtools (which served as a base for cdrkit) already worked for 99% of users (or that likely cdrkit could also be compiled on MiNT?). I.e. the article should mention that Blu-ray Disc support of cdrtools is (apparently, I have not verified, as I don't even have a BD reader) much better, if cdrkit has any. BD support would then be a notable feature and should go into the article. --Chire (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Schily for 72 hours.

• Warned. Ekkt0r, you are warned. Your editing on the article is troubling as it appears WP:SPA-like and to continuously back up Schily. In addition, your threat of WP:OUTING another editor on the article talk page constitutes a personal attack ("Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly."). If you persist in edit warring on the article or other misconduct, you may be blocked without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My account is not a WP:SPA. I have been regularly contributing on a few other articles (Linux Kernel#Maintenance + Template:Latest preview software release/Linux + Template:Latest stable software release/Linux) until recently on the EN Wikipedia and its equivalents on the FR and ES. I've stopped editing these other articles when I got tired of being attacked on the cdrtools article. I have also been contributing occasionaly on other articles, fixing typos or doing minor edits from time to time. I have lost all the joy I could have when contributing to Wikipedia. Ekkt0r (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Your very first edits after creating your account in August 2013 were to Cdrtools and Template:Latest preview software release/cdrtools (created by you). Of the grand total of about 235 edits you've made in several months, 96 have been to cdrools and 19 have been to its talk page. You created Template:Releases cdrtools (since speedily deleted). You copied Cdrtools (haven't checked if it's an exact copy) to your sandbox and then requested deletion of it. I suspect that at least some of your other edits are Cdrtools-related, but I'm not going to spend any more time on this. The warning stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Errrm, the articles you list are all very related. Rather defining of SPA, really DP 01:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

All my edits on the Linux pages were related to updating the "latest releases". I learned how these small tasks were done, and decided to do some of them myself to "help" the Linux community. Some users forget from time to time to update the refs when updating the version numbers. Well, I did pay attention to these small details and I think many users can confirm that during the few months I have been doing these small (but repetitive) edits, I made almost no mistake. (Please do not think I'm attacking anyone regarding the refs, for example). My only purpose with these edits was to allow more skilled editors to focus on more interesting edits than these maintenance updates. I have also been editing a few articles on the ES, FR, DE and RU Wikipedia (mainly cdrtools and Linux). So yes, most of my edits are related together. (Is this bad?) The reason for my focus on cdrtools is that I'm very sad that some great distros decided to boycott cdrtools. Ekkt0r (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ekkt0r. I'm convinced that you are not Schily: you do try much harder to find a compromise of wording. And IMHO it is typical that new editors first start editing only a small subset of pages they are familiar with; so I don't think you are to blame for not having a wide edit history. But you also happily keep advertiserial material from Schily, unfortunately.

For example in the section "Availability of precompiled binary packages" (emphasis added), you happily reference packages that need to be compiled by the user to work on Debian, Mint, CentOS, Fedora, Oracle Linux, RHEL, Scientific Linux. The only real "precompiled binary" from third party sources is Ubuntu. Just an example that you, too, are biased and not neutral. My attempt to fix this, keeping the references only where they are fact. Eventual compability of Ubuntu packages with e.g. Mint or Ubuntu (which version is compatible with what?) is unsourced; not accessible to actual users (how do they find out which version to use? The PPA web page only assists them for Ubuntu releases!), and WP:OR, isn't it? Many "Linux distributions" on this list, such as roblinux, are dead ducks (the webpage is down, and Sourceforge shows 153 downloads total since 2010), or at most obscure (SlavankaOS, 47 downloads of latest version total). Listing such distributions is not particular sound, is it?

Overall, the availablility section IMHO is mostly advertisment, and should go to the cdrtools homepage. In particular, it does not include which versions of the distributions are supported; or which version of cdrtools is actually included, as just explained. Some of this information should be kept somewhere, but I do not think Wikipedia is the appropriate place. For example, a web spider could be used to frequently check the version available in the PPA, and update a web page on the cdrtools homepage. --Chire (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Chire, and thanks for your previous edit. I agree with you that the words "of precompiled binary packages" should be removed from both the section name and the table caption. I was not happy with this edit (which added these words), but did not complain nor revert it when it was done. I wish I had reverted that edit before, and would like to do it soon if nobody is against. Thanks. Ekkt0r (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ekkt0r: I do not think listing non-precompiled "availability" makes much sense. Instead of figuring out how to port e.g. the Ubuntu PPA package - which most likely entails that you first port the smake package, too; so it's far from a one-command process - people may just as well build the official source code of cdrtools right away. There is no need to provide alternative build instructions that then end up being more complicated; in particular not on Wikipedia. A layout like the "Compatible operating systems" section may also make more sense; there is not much benefit in the tabular layout IMHO. This discussion should, however, be moved to the Talk:Cdrtools page now, to reach a broader consensus. --Chire (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about the title of this section which says I have been warned.

• I did not report anyone, and I was not reported by anyone.
• All the reverts I did were explained and justified. I have never hit the 3RR rule, and almost none of my reverts did ever disappear.
• My acocunt is not an WP:SPA (see the previous comments).
• I do not "continualy backup" Schily, and I have never engaged on edit wars with anyone. I have even changed some of Jörg's edits to improve them, like this one about jigdo which I changed completely.
• I think I am a sensible and honest editor.

I think I could have been warned for another edit, but I have removed it, so I think the warning I got is a little bit unfair. Chire and Diego, if you agree with (most of) what I just wrote, could you please share your point of view add/or a comment saying that you think the "Ekkt0r warned" should be removed from the name of this section? I can assure you that I'll continue to act as if I still had the warning. It's just that I would prefer to see my official status changed before this discussion gets frozen or archived. Thanks to both of you. Ekkt0r (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't expect me to weight in for you beyond what I stated above (i.e. not being a puppet). The following edits don't make you one of my favorite editors: [178] [179] (+ one I'm not linking), and I believe these contribute to the warning you received. I also did not like you bringing up Educational data mining they way you did (which I consider dishonest), but I've detailed this above. This is IMHO an attempt to "report" me, so I cannot agree with your bullet list. For WP:SPA, when not counting all the version number bumping, there is not that much remaining except cdrtools... sorry. no backing by me on this. --Chire (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please stop posting in this section. Warnings have appropriately been provided, and based on the continued discussion, appropriately deserved. Please return to whatever article talkpages further discussion belongs on and go forth and sin no more! If you have other behavioural issues, raise them at the appropriate noticeboard - random sniping here is unacceptable - this discussion was closed days ago DP 09:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

Jermain Jackman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603328380 by Calvin999 (talk) Many reliable secondary sources, UK and India."
2. 16:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC) "notable - see talk page"
3. 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "winner of major TV show is notable enough for a stub, with all these sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Please see revision history of article and it's edit summaries. User is being uncooperative, removing tags and is OWNing the article. User is not willing to listen or abide by rules. User is using WP:CITEKILL to try and create notability despite all the sources saying the same thing. He has also reverted/undone my edits twotimes in under two hours, thus in dander of crossing 3RR. I have tried saying that the tags need to stay for a discussion, but user has removed them. There is no point giving warnings on the users talk page, as he is not listening to my edit summaries. He is also experienced, so should know better and shouldn't have to be warned. No effort has been made to talk to me on the article talk page or my own talk page to resolve.  — ₳aron 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please see the revision history and the talk page. You will note that I did not add the large number of references, only one which showed that the Times of India had covered the topic, and that I have used the talk page, contrary to the above assertion. It is unfortunate that there seems to be no venue in which "should it be a redirect or an article?" can be addressed, as I have seen AfDs rejected where the nominator has been asking for an article to be made into a redirect rather than deleted wholesale. Here we have a situation where two editors, at least, believe that this article is sufficiently notable to be an article, and one editor disagrees. I removed the "notable" tag because I believe, as stated on the talk page, that there is sufficient coverage for notability. The other editor says it shouldn't be removed "on my say-so": he wants it left, on his "say-so". PamD 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Because a two sentence article is not notable and there is nothing else to fill the article with. I hadn't seen the talk page comment, which is as short as the article itself, because you made no effort to tag me or notify me. There was no point starting a discussion if you aren't going to let me know that it's happening. One source is not enough for coverage of notability. That is why a redirect is appropriate for the time being.  — ₳aron 18:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

PamD, the venue for discussing whether a page should be redirected is WP:Proposed merges. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• 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. --slakr^\ talk / 03:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.182.51.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [180]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [181] (original non-consensus edits)
2. [182]
3. [183]
4. [184]
5. [185] (started a new wave of non-consensus edits, claims as usual that they were reverting vandalism)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [187] [188]

Comments:
The article has been already protected a week ago because an IP editor trieid to make similar edits out of consensus. An SPI can be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) until May 2 by Ged UK.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: Royal tours of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.27.78.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 22:24, 31 March 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:21, 3 April 2014
2. 11:25, 3 April 2014
3. 21:05, 8 April 2014‎
4. 17:23, 9 April 2014
5. 20:17, 9 April 2014‎
6. 16:31, 10 April 2014‎
7. 19:18, 10 April 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:08, 10 April 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:43, 10 April 2014‎

Comments:
Removing maintenance tags is, in itself, a disallowed practice. This anon (who, since a dispute between us a little over a year ago at Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, now sometimes follows me around Wikipedia) has been doing so consistently, even after the concern behind the tag was communicated and still more after a discussion was started at the talk page, despite the discussion being brought to the anon's attention. This (plus the insistence on using a contentious, out-of-context quote as "a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a subject into Wikipedia's narrative") can't be construed as anything but disruptive editing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This board does not handle "disruptive editing" - it handles WP:EW and WP:3RR situations. Perhaps you were thinking about WP:ANI? DP 20:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Continually reverting while refusing to both heed warnings and engage in an open discussion constitutes edit warring, does it not? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your reverts don't help. No action.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What, then, do you suggest I do? As I've said more than once now, the anon simply deletes the maintenance tag (meaning my reverts of that are undoing a disallowed action) and refuses to engage in dialogue. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Page: Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]
4. [193]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195]

Comments:

Although I have been involved in the discussion on the article talk page as note above, that is actually a secondary discussion about the issue in question. The main discussion was raised by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) himself at WP:FOOTY#Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990). He had originally removed flags from the article quoting MOS:FLAG as his authority and that action escalated into an edit war against two other editors despite the talk page discussion being open. Ohconfucius has reverted four times in all yesterday and today; furthermore he has warned one of his opponents about 3RR himself. I have reverted Ohconfucius' latest edit because the discussion is open with no consensus yet reached. His attitude is that it is not a matter for discussion and I find that unacceptable. In any case, he has clearly breached this rule by making four reverts. GnGn (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Ohconfucius, I'm not blocking you because you did not violate WP:3RR (fourth revert was not in the 24-hour window), but if you resume the war in the article, you may be blocked without notice. Stay on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prose072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Please see als the threats in This Edit, on my talk page and recent edits on the article and talk page referred to above. Lynbarn (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please also notice the user prose072 asked for help and clear notice to user Lynbarn after Lynbarn gave warning about user Prose072 making post on talk page if that user intends on posting incorrect information instead of facts for information that the web page will be notified to the media as the page is dramatically incorrect and speculation should not be tolerated. Prose072 talk page post was for help, assistance in editing and discussion, and user LynBarn assumes the the talk request for help is a threat, after user lynbarn makes post to user prose072 for requesting help under (helpme) that he was in an abusive edit violation.

Please be advised any speculation posted to a page should be disregarded and inaccurate information should be removed, and a (helpme) topic is for consensus on that topic, not to be disregarded, and when a user has factual information, that information should be addressed, not disregarded, User lynbarn is posted edits as assumptions, NOT FACTS. Please advise as user lynbarn seems to be upset as the information provided by that user can be discounted by user prose072 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prose072 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. This report is malformed, and with some reason, because the reported user made only one edit to the page. A clearly disruptive edit, but then after being reverted, they went to the talk page and initiated a truly absurd discussion there. The reported user is, at best, WP:CIR, but they haven't done that much yet to warrant sanctions (in my view). They've made a series of ridiculous edits after not editing for three years. I will warn them, but if I'm not around and they continue the same pattern, you may have to take them to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Page

Cedar Point (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Cedar Point Attraction History */"
2. 23:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Cedar Point Attraction History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Cedar Point. (TW)"
2. 04:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Cedar Point. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring behavior is coming from both 107.203.32.65 and 107.203.32.141 at the same article periodically since mid-March. User is ignoring edit summaries, talk page notices, and article talk page attempt. There are only 2 edits selected here, but if you just look at the Cedar Point article's history, you will see many more, some of which is listed under the other IP. GoneIn60 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected - semi for one week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)