Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 11 April 2014 (→User:2.27.78.166 reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: ): no action). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:Schily reported by User:Chire (Result: Schily blocked; Ekkt0r warned)

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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages policy, and has a consistent pattern of introducing his personal opinions and value judgements in articles as fact (see as some examples among many), original research(), removing tags that warned readers about problems with the article, without fixing those (), and misjudging the points made by references and the subtler points of WP:SYNTH (see , discussed here, and 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages: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: - 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 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 Misplaced Pages behavior.

Here is another "mistake" by you: I did not block User:Schily on German Misplaced Pages. It's well documented: : 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: . 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; Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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: (+ 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)

User:Raphael.adams reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: Blocked)

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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 , 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)

User:PamD reported by User:Calvin999 (Result: declined)

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 03:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:Beerest 2 (Result: Stale report)

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)

User:74.58.112.66 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

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)

User:Pk041 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 1RR/week imposed)

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 19:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:62.252.179.97 reported by User:DanielRigal (Result: Blocked)

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)

User:31.53.37.58 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked)

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)

User:Aquintero82 reported by User:Cihuaweb (Result: Both warned)

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages:SVG image support is baseless. Regards, Aquintero82, (talk), 9 April 2014, 8:11 (UTC)

User:Mpc755 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)

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:

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:

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 (), and then added an unsourced entry in the original article (). I have removed both additions. - DVdm (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

And again: . - 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)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Topic banned)

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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Notified:

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)

User:Isabellabean reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Topic banned)

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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Notified:

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)

User:KernSibbald reported by User:Gul.maikat (Result: Locked)

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:KernSibbald&oldid=603480166

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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)

User:Rukn950 reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: Locked)

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 Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons */ BLP doesn't apply"
2. 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "/* BLP Misplaced Pages: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. 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)

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)

User:BlueSalix reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result:48 hours )

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: Misplaced Pages: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).

User:Sfs90 reported by User:Küñall (Result: Protected)

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/search/?title=1985_Pichilemu_earthquake&oldid=603542538

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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)

User:124.171.36.210 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked)

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:

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:

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

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. 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Shvrs reported by User:Twsx (Result: Blocked)

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 | _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)

User:Dagousset reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result:48 hours)

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also the edits of IP 93.146.2.73 - 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)

User:Alexikoua reported by User:John221989 (Result: 48hr )

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.  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 Misplaced Pages 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.  02:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please see also: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/John221989. Δρ.Κ.  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.  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.  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.  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)

User:2.27.78.166 reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: No action)

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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

User:68.204.113.233 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked)

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:

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)

User:Silvio1973 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

Silvio1973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC) "Without source, refer to Talk page"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC) to 05:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "You are adding manually the information from another source. This is OR.Provide a source. And report to Talk page to get consensus first."
   2. 05:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "CN"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC) to 11:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "You need a neutral source. Please report to talk page"
   2. 11:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "Source needed"
4. 17:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "Reverting the article in the original condition before the current dispute started"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring notice */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of federal subjects */"
2. 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of federal subjects */"
3. 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of federal subjects */ rp"
4. 17:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of federal subjects */"

Comments:

POV edit warrior who thinks all Russian sources are not valid. User was warned. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

To illustrate user's battleground mentality: "A source close to the Russian Government is not neutral and definitely insufficient to push a POV in the lead. What happened in Crimea is not my problem. My problem is that you post an edit without a source. And unless you do not provide a neutral, your edits will be reverted. 'Without fail'. And report me for 3RR. I simply removed unsourced material and put the article in the condition prior to your POV pushing" on Talk:Russia EvergreenFir (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no batteground at all, but unsourced and insufficient sourced material can be challanged and removed.

The issue here is very straight-forward. EvergreenFir is presenting in the lead that Crimea is possible 'de jure' part of Russia and supports the affirmation with the declaration of annexation from the Russian Government. Of course this raises an issue of neutrality and of WP:FRINGE (to say the less). There is of course a discussion ongoing on the Talk page about this matters and other users told EvergreenFir to refrain from pushing his/her udit, untill valid sources are not presented. For some reasons, EvergreenFir believes that whilst the dispute in progress, the article should not be edit as he/she wants instead than in its originary condition. EvergreenFir was also warned not to include the population of Crimea into those of Russia, unless a valid source provided. But instead of providing sources EvergreenFir has preferred to participate on the Talk page with discussion of doubtful necessity.

Last but not least, I never said that 'All Russian sources are not valid'. Instead I wrote that 'A source close to the Russian Government is not neutral and definitely insufficient to push a POV in the lead'. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Issue of sources is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_government_sources_RS_with_regard_to_issues_about_government.3F. Does not negate your edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User:79.182.51.56 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: )

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (original non-consensus edits)
5. (started a new wave of non-consensus edits, claims as usual that they were reverting vandalism)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)

User:Ohconfucius reported by User:Gnorman Gnome (Result: )

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)

User:Prose072 reported by User:Lynbarn (Result: )

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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring