Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:40, 7 April 2014

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. (My apologies, this source was missing from the report. There the editor removes the whole comment again)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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: . This was a pure accident though, which I already have explained to him and apologized: . 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.

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/search/?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/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."

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."

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

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

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

• Comment: First of all, it's almost impossible to figure out what's going on here because of all the editorializing and irrelevant comments in here. Content disputes on the article are not to be discussed and worked out here. That's what the talk page is for. Second, it's bad form to edit or refactor your own comments after people have read and replied to them. Third, it's bad form to move someone else's comments without making it clear that you are quoting them and where the original comment was posted. Forth, no one has to ask your permission to quote or repeat your comments anywhere on Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Misplaced Pages 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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, " 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 ]. (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)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: also user talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Notified:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

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

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

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

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

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

• (I noticed I was mentioned here.) I believe there must be some rule Volunteer Marek violated. Cause it was rather disturbing and disruptive how he came to the article and started removing all links to Russia Today. I think it was bordering on vandalism. I had to stop reverting after two reverts on April 4. I could not defend the page anymore and even had to stop looking at it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have no idea what I'm supposed to make of your (Moscow Connection) and Demiurge's comments. I can't sanction someone based on some other username who can't be named for whatever reason, or that VM violated "some rule". VM has no entries at WP:EDR.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see how my comments were unclear, User:Bbb23. I'm not asking you to sanction anyone, I was merely pointing out a possible alternative venue to Petr. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• No problem, Demiurge1000, if you're not asking me to do anything, I'm happy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ukrainian revolution

Can this be counted in? Formally, it happened in another article, but the edits were similar. (Volunteer Maerk removed all references to Russia Today and some parts sourced from Russia Today.)

These reverts started immediately after the last Volunteer Marek's revert listed above:

Addition

• 08:54 and 09:19, 4 April 2014 (Sceptic1954 adds "characterised by its opponents as a '''] <ref>http://rt.com/news/us-aid-ukraine-illegal-202/</ref>")

Reverts (three reverts by Volunteer Marek in 24 hours)

1. 15:47, 4 April 2014
2. 12:03, 5 April 2014
3. 12:15, 5 April 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See above. Earlier on the same day, April 4, Volunteer Marek had been warned for similar edits in another article.

A discussion that attempted to resolve dispute on article talk page a few days earlier: Talk:2014 Ukrainian revolution#Coup not Revolution. (Volunteer Marek participated.)

—Moscow Connection (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So, you're just working hard to get Marek blocked? Rather battleground-type behaviour, n'est-ce pas? DP 23:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you attacking me like this? I saw him destroying references in several articles and it bothers me that he can do something like that and that he will continue. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Moscow Connection, we're done here. VM did not violate 3RR. There were a number of editors edit warring, you among them. VM wasn't the only one who removed the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Blocked - Indef by User:Callanecc. User is now requesting unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This did not turn out correctly. And from a process standpoint it was only open for less than a 1/2 day. Please Take a look at the talk page of the article; I was getting close to bringing it here anyway. Both Finx and Lockean one have gotten a little wild editing and commenting. Lockean One has been civil and generally stuck to arguments. Finx has not, and has been continuously using insults and deprecation of editors. This article (which was in flames 3-4 years ago)(despite feisty debates) has not had this type of nastiness until now, and 90% of such has been Finx. Not that I am seeking action against Finx other than possibly a warning. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what talk page you are looking at North, but Lockean One has been incredibly uncivil at times. He is in clear need of a break, not necessarily forever, but for awhile. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

North8000, like I said on the talk page, if you'd care to start an incident report (or even a note on my user page) regarding this nastiness you're accusing me of and provide so much as a single example with context, I'd be glad to consider and explain this alleged misbehavior. As of now, I have to assume you've not done so because it doesn't exist. I remember looking up, reviewing and citing (with quotes) dozens upon dozens of relevant sources to replace wildly inappropriate assertions and speculations peppered throughout this article with actually verifiable information. I remember your and Lockean One's shock and indignation each time you were reminded (repeatedly) that the article cannot arbitrarily follow some contrived and (apparently) politically motivated narrative in spite dozens of reliable sources saying the exact opposite of what you want it to say. I remember insisting, over and over again, that article's talk page is not the place to pontificate on any editor's own favored political views and narratives, to debate their merits or to spew polemics. I remember saying that this is not a creative writing project and that assumptions of good faith eventually evaporate with enough evidence to the contrary. I remember saying that, after years (!) of incessant obstructionism and completely off-topic rants, whether on account of malevolence of sheer incompetence, I'd be glad to see you join Lockean One in a topic ban just so that the other editors can get on with their work. However, since you don't ever edit or contribute to the article in any way whatsoever except to soapbox on how you think it ought to read on the talk page (without an iota of supporting evidence, since you've positioned yourself as a kind of ideological moderator) or the occasional revert when the page mentions verifiable facts that seem to rub you wrong, I'm not sure how to proceed. What I don't remember is ever resorting to personal attacks or name-calling or forgetting to check my politics at the door. I don't remember insisting that the page ought to be a planetarium for the universe of my own political worldview. You're every bit as disruptive as the user above (for what appears to be the very same reasons) except that instead of battering-ram edit wars and calling people "idiots" or "dimwits" your disruption takes the form of protracted concern trolling, blocking consensus and challenging absolutely everything that doesn't neatly follow some party line to endless bloviation on the talk page, over the course of months and months. I am not aware that questioning an editor's competence, and then (eventually) one's intentions violates Misplaced Pages policy. I am not aware that anyone gave you ownership of this article or appointed your its arbiter of dispute resolution. I am not aware that anything on that page has to satisfy all your personal, unsubstantiated sensibilities of fairness and balance in order to be included. If you would like to describe political philosophies differently than they've already been described, I would suggest you spend more time publishing books and less time brewing disingenuous indignation. fi (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been a powerless pseudo-moderator there for 3-4 years, helped bring it out of it's bonfire, and have had to disagree with both "sides" trying to follow the middle ground which is to accurately cover all significant strands of libertarianism. Finx's nasty, insulting mis-characterization of this above is certainly indicative of the problem which I described. And we really haven't had this kind of a problem on a significant scale at the article for 3-4 years until Finx started this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some correlation between your self-appointed pseudo-moderatorship and the horrid, bloggish quality of the article. I'm sorry you find that observation insulting and take offense my insistence on claims from verifiable references rather than following your gut feeling on the appropriate balance between substantiated material and unsubstantiated assertions. fi (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Another complete mis-characterization to deprecate someone. BTW, most of my efforts have been to simply keeping folks from one type of libertarianism from knocking out coverage of the other type. And folks with the most stringent of sourcing standards (and no axe to grind) have said that it is in good shape. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

IP 111.235.66.34's edit

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602970316 by Dr.K. (talk), what you are doing proves that Misplaced Pages 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.  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 12:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

User:LiphradicusEpicus reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Blocked)

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):

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

112.203.58.165 reported by 178.252.126.70 (talk) (Result: Stale)

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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)

User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: No violation)

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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)

User:117.53.77.84 reported by User:Idh0854 (Result: )

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:

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:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)

User:Benkenobi18 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Protected)

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: 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)

User:Schily reported by User:Chire (Result: )

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3. (earlier revert of changes by User:Diego Moya; outside 24h period)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cdrtools, ] (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 Misplaced Pages": 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages . But this needs to be done by someone with more dedication, and maybe even Misplaced Pages 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)

I have recently discovered the real identity of Chire (but have not disclosed it and won't do it unless requested by an admin and in private mail) and found that he has been harming both Jörg Schilling and the cdrtools project by many means (anonymous mails to bug-tracking systems, slander on websites, bug reports with the purpose of eliminating all references to cdrtools in the dependencies/recommends/suggests of all packages in Debian).

Unlike Chire, 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages by... Chire.

Chire has already kicked a VIP out of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring