Page

Linux Mint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601765388 by Aoidh (talk) thanks for finally joining us again on the talk page, it seems that consensus is against you though"
2. 13:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601882037 by Aoidh (talk) reverting you despite your edit summary threats"
3. 03:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602182230 by Aoidh (talk) reverting you despite your specious arguments"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There more reverts going back at least 3 days by this user so the pattern of edit war is clear. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) (This comment was in response to this comment which was then removed) The previous consensus was against this edit, the edit is unsourced, misleading, and WP:UNDUE. Persistently inserting an edit is not the way to push changes on Wikipedia, especially persistent edit-warring by a SPA who has ceased even attempting to discuss the edit on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, looking at the edit history I didn't realize how much I had reverted that; thinking that I'm "right" is no excuse. I think I should step away from that article for a few days and see if any additional discussion pops up, which I'll do (additional discussion will hopefully happen per the WP:DRN discussion I've opened). - Aoidh (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a warning in a dummy edit summary, and I'll say the same thing here. @Aoidh and JohnGoodName: (and Hell in a Bucket to a lesser extent) if any of you revert again I will block you on the spot, take it to the talk page get a consensus ask someone else to make the edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Callanecc I find that to be a curious warning. I reverted once because of the edit war and the edit against consensus and I took it here as an outside editor that saw the problem was ongoing. That's a rather disturbing response and unwarranted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Basically this was my way of avoiding fully protecting the article, it was primarily addressed at Aoidh & JohnGoodName, however since you had also reverted it wasn't fair or equitable not to let you know as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Arseniy Yatsenyuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solntsa90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Apr 1 14:43
2. Apr 1 16:33
3. Apr 1 17:12
4. Apr 1 17:28
5. Apr 1 17:31 (sequential)

1. Apr 1 17:32 (sequential)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning from previous day, 3rr notif

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ongoing

Comments:
User was reported and blocked for the exact same behavior and exact same article the day prior. After 24 hour block ended, proceeded to pick up where it was left off. User also seems to be having fun reverting & blanking content out of spite (personal assessment based on his tone in the edit summary) --Львівське (говорити) 23:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of spite?" Do you even see what you're doing? Any admin who's been involved in the past few days should immediately be suspect to this.Solntsa90 (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had an appeal related to the Ukrainain/Jewish article topic denied earlier (or today)...does it have anything to do with the fact that my words when quoted or used by admins to demonstrate a case against you had something to do with it possibly? I'm not quite sure, because I reverted vandalism, otherwise, I didn't exactly revert anyone's legitimate edit, so I think I'm staying within the 3RR rule (which I'm not even sure it applies to me, since I don't have sanctions against me).

As for my revert that you say was "out of spite", you had no source for it at the time; you have since located a Pravda.Ru source, but before that, you had no source attached to it whatsoever.

And if you scroll to the bottom of the Yatsenyuk talk page, you'll see me working it out with a fellow editor, not simply "edit-warring". There is no edit-warring, just me revert vandalism, and compromising on the talk page. Let's be honest, you get grudgeful against users, as anyone can see through to your talk page history and comments regarding others. I'm not sure what I'm even being reported for, to be honest.

so uh...what is this about again? Solntsa90 (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for WP:3RR, which does apply to you, as you are not above the rules. What you call "reverting vandalism" appears rather to be "reverting to your version", the same version you were previously blocked for. This is textbook edit warring.--Львівське (говорити) 00:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring notice that Lvivske posted on the users talk page for this complaint was posted six hour after the last revert by Solntsa90. i.e. none of the reverts that Lvivske is complaining about happened after the warning.[2] I suppose this is an improvement on Lvivske's previous complaint about Solntsa90's edit warring, when the so-called warning that Lvivske posted in his/her complaint was a content warning, and was nothing to do with edit-warring.[3]

Whilst I think that Solntsa90 was mistaken in believing that the IP editor from Lvov was a vandal, I can understand why a reasonable person would believe in good faith that he/she was reverting vandalism. In these edits, the IP editor from Lvov deleted lots of material that had citations from independent sources.[4][5][6][7]

Please could the article on Arseniy Yatsenyuk be protected from edits for seven days. This apparently controversial issue has induced both Solntsa90 and Lvivske to revert excessively during the last week. (Lvivske is under greater restrictions than Solntsa90.) I do not think that Lvivske played fair in either this or the previous complaint about edit warring. People should be given clear warnings about edit warring, and only reported here if they continue to edit war. That is precisely what has not happened.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If being blocked isn't a warning, I don't know what is. Also, not sure about the "reverting excessively" accusations seeing as I've not touched the article since the 30th, but Solntsa90 has been non-stop revering multiple editors.--Львівське (говорити) 00:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske knows perfectly well what I am talking about. It is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Lvivske is "under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion". Lvivske has breached this sanction on the article on Arseniy Yatsenyuk during the last week. Naturally, in a spirit of fairness, admins block the person Lvivske was edit warring with, but have not blocked Lvivske.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy, your vendetta against me is getting pretty tiring. If you're going rip on me, at least get your facts straight. --Львівське (говорити) 13:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I'm not precluding any blocks by me or by another administrator. On the positive side, it looks like Solntsa90 and Paavo273 are talking to each other on the article talk page. On the negative side, the edit warring by both editors (and the IP, whoever they are) is disruptive. Solntsa90, you can be blocked without violating WP:3RR, particlarly if you resume edit warring, as you did, after expiration of the last block. Indeed, generally, a block in those circumstances is longer than the first. I have no idea what you mean by "active sanctions". I do know if that this continues, whether it's today or tomorrow or anytime in the near term, editors may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Given that the user has already been blocked for edit warring on this article, but that they are engaging in discussion I've decided to impose a 1RR per 48 hours restriction for one month under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of Lebanese by net worth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bcd3174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous revision of List of Lebanese by net worth

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff
2. Diff
3. Diff
4. Diff
5. Diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of User talk:Bcd3174

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Lebanese by net worth

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Fluoridation by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LarryTheShark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

The editor has been pushing an anti-water fluoridation POV on Water fluoridation and Water fluoridation controversy as well.

Completely to the contrary. The complaining editor is pushing pro-water fluoridation to the point of trying to censor the official European union position on water fluoridation in the Water fluoridation article.

And reverting additions to Water fluoridation controversy in which he never participated in the long talk page discussionsLarryTheShark (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LarryTheShark (talk · contribs) is a dead cert sockpuppet, IMHO. It's just which banned user is he a sock of? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: St. Aloysius Gonzaga Secondary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SwervingStyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff (3RR warning and level 2-4 unsourced warnings have been removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: Discussion in my archives from February regarding the same issue: discussion

Comments: User clearly demonstrating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality. I explained the situation to him/her several times in February to no avail (either didn't read or doesn't understand WP:V and WP:OR) and shows no signs of stopping adding his/her unsourced content to the page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take a look at the amount of articles Truth has made and how he has reverted many other pages based on this same evidence which is not correct in many cases. Thanks, SwervingStyle

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Seahorse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:12.130.161.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:
User:12.130.161.8 seeks to purge all mention of the terms "medicine" and "medical" from Seahorse#Use in Chinese medicine, preferring to refer to it as either "superstition" or "tradition," and is not interested in citations that contradict these changes, nor appears to be interested in producing citations that justify or support these changes.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined. The IP was not warned of edit warring, and Apokryltaros was also edit warring. I understand the difference between the IP's edits and Apokryltaros's, but the IP is trying to discuss the issue on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is trying to justify its edits, but has a tendency towards WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I can proceed with editing that section as originally intended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.161.8 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. It means that you should leave the article alone and continue the discussion on the talk page. It means that there must be a WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia for changes to articles, and if the consensus is against you, you must defer to it. If there is no consensus, you can use other means of dispute resolution to assist you, but you cannot edit war.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean continuing to censor the article without bothering to achieve consensus to do so?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get your digs in through the WP:LASTWORD is rather childish and inappropriate - try to take the high road DP 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Paul Broun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gentlemanscholar741776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. Just check his contributes; all dozen edits of his edits are reverts to the same article

Comments:
This "new" account has made 12 reverts to an article in the last 28 hours, please indef block as battleground, coi, block evasion. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is constantly being vandalized with false information. Every time i fix it, people put the same false and politically charged language back, hence reverting back to the correct information. Gentlemanscholar741776 (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Gentlemanscholar741776[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Gentlemanscholar continually removes sourced information - that's clearly NOT vandalism (that has a very distinct meaning). The items being removed are properly sourced, provide balance, apparent truth (based on the sourcing), and are therefore exempt from the WP:BLP aspects that might otherwise be permitted under WP:EW. I would suggest that someone is trying to whitewash this article inappropriately. No comment on block evasion, try WP:SPI should someone with similar MO reappear DP 00:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sydney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: N8-57469 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Comments: An attempt to break the syntax for the infobox. Eyesnore (pc) 01:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why this is being reported as edit warring - many of N8-57469's recent edits have been clear and unambiguous vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for vandalism/disruption based on the inappropriate responses on the user's talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

Page

Colonel Brown Cambridge School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
2. 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
3. 14:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
4. 13:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
5. 04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC) "/* And to emphasise */ new section"
2. 15:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Colonel Brown Cambridge School. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Failed Citation Verifications */ why as a fictional person added?"
2. 13:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC) on User talk:Rahulsinghpinaki "/* April 2014 */ 2nd warning on adding references that do not establish that entries belong in the article."

Comments:

Editor used to do this at 117.197.64.98 (talk · contribs) and has been continually reverted. He doesn't provide evidence that the names he adds are alumni of the school, he adds names of questionable notability, he adds Howard Roark who of course is fictional, and even though I told him "You really must have sources that say they attended the school. And the Muhammad Ayub Khan who is an alumnus doesn't seem to be the same as Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan). You really need to understand this. If you can find sources saying they attended, you might even find we have an article on them." he continues to add these names. Some of them are BLP vilations, and as I told him, he's confused two people with similar names. The Ayub Khan here[31] doesn't seem to be the one who was president of Pakistant. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Enigma^msg 14:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37](My apologies, this source was missing from the report. There the editor removes the whole comment again)
6. [38]
7. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [41]. This was a pure accident though, which I already have explained to him and apologized: [42]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[43].

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

• Rubinstein, SM (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 1 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)[reply]

Page

Rolf Furuli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 09:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 08:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 16:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor received many warnings and explanations over the past few days about the exact same edit but they identified it as "vandalism" or failure to use an edit summary or an unexplained deletion of content. But it was the exact same edit/revert made repeatedly over the past five days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

151 has continued to revert this same passage, racking up 21 reverts since April 1st (and some before that date, too). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 3 March
2. 4 March
3. 30 March. Note edit summary: "moved image to right section" whereas in fact the image was deleted
4. 3 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: previous warning (evidence of notification of edit-warring rules plus this reminder on current edit-warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:1st thread 2nd thread

Comments:
This isn't a bright line breach of 3RR, but is nevertheless edit-warring with some egreggious aspects. Septate wishes to remove an image of Muhammad from the Islam article. He as done so four times over the previous month while talk page threads have been open to discuss the issue - linked to above. The threads clearly show no consensus to remove. Septate knows there is no consensus to remove so he did so on the third occasion with the edit summary "moved image to right section" in an attempt to disguise what he had done. When challenged on this he admitted it was a dishonest edit summary, and apologised in this post. But then (in the last revert above) he removed the image with the edit summary "per talk" yet it was clear from the latter thread that he had no consensus. He had announced in the thread he was going to do it anyway because "no one has raised serious concerns", which was patently untrue. I warned him not to do it, but he went ahead anyway.

Septate has a track record in this type of edit-warring. On the Muhammad article he tried to remove an image twice. After the first removal it was made clear to him in an article talk page thread by Amatulić not to remove the image yet he then went on to do so again with the untrue edit summary of "per talk". Another editor reverted him with the edit summary "no, not "per talk". You were asked not to remove that image" Septate is fully aware the issues around edit-warring, and what would result in an AN3 block, having recently had two reports about him to this noticeboard.

I appreciate that this is not a bright line 3RR and had contemplated whether it would have to go to ANI. But it seems to me the essence of the problematic behaviour is edit-warring as so should be dealt with here. While four reverts in a month may not seem much I think why action is called for is his MO of ploughing on with reverts despite it being clear from the talk page that he shouldn't, and doing so with dishonest edit summaries. DeCausa (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the sidelines: I've often thought that the Muhammad article might be a good candidate for 1RR, although most of the time the participants are pretty good about discussing things on the talk page. 1RR wouldn't be a factor in this report, however, since the reverts were more than 24 hours apart. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring at Islam regarding images. The latest example is here, on April 3 where he removes a Muhammad image yet again and replaces it with one that does not show Muhammad. This follows a series of image removals during March that were performed with deceptive edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

1. REDIRECT User talk:Summichum

Template war?[edit source]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

It's been simmering since 3 December 2012. In that time the {{disputed}} tag has been removed several times by various editors, after Pigsonthewing has been absent from discussion, usually for a long time.[45][46][47][48] Each time though, Pigsonthewing has restored it,[49][50][51][52] restarting discussion, but without any progress as Pigsonthewing refuses to respond after a few posts. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [602691731]
2. [602684222]
3. [602683473]
4. [602681550]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53][diff]

Comments:
Please do not wholesale revert or delete stuff Ongoing disruptive behavior

• 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)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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