Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Drmargi and User:Favre1fan93 reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: No action)

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

---

Page: List of Person of Interest episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs) and Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs)

What we have here are a couple of users who are systematically reverting anyone who tries to put (2014-2015) into various TV show articles. The fall schedules have been announced, yet they insist on preventing posting of the obvious, going so far as to post hidden comments ordering other editors not to add that info. I want an explanation from one or both user ID's as to why they're doing this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And I'd like to know why this user has used a. my talk page and b. this venue but not the article talk page to address this issue. I'll address this matter there. --Drmargi (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You wouldn't answer my question on your talk page, so I have very little confidence you will do so on the talk pages of the various articles you're trying to take ownership of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Drmargi. First, neither of us were edit warring. Second, you should have taken this up on the article talk page, not both of our talk pages, and then here, when I didn't even have a chance to respond to you. As well, wouldn't you think if there was a hidden note there, it's there for a reason? If you actually read WP:CRYSTAL, it states that an article on the 2016 Olympics is fine, but even though we have confirmation that the show will premiere in the fall (again, only fall), there is still a multitude of potential setbacks that could prevent it from airing: Writers strikes, cast disagreements, a presidential speech, (God forbid) a cast member's death. As well, this has been discussed by the Television project and it has been agreed upon that years should not be added until episodes actually air in the television season. If you see it on other pages, then they are in the error, not this page. That is what I would have said to you if you took the proper channels, but since you haven't, I am no longer contributing to this discussion here. If you want to bring it up on the article's talk page, be my guest. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If that isn't a crystal-ball-based argument, I don't know what is. You could make the identical argument about any future scheduled event. Sorry, your argument doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• How does the above provide an excuse from edit-warring? You can edit-war after a single edit, as I'm sure you know. The process is WP:BRD - which does mean that Bugs should have been the one who started a discussion on the article talkpage, but then again, Drmargi refused to provide a valid reason for removal of Bugs' edit, so Bugs could be excused for believing that Drmargi had reverted in error the panda ₯’ 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your response. Drmargi did provide a valid response to Baseball Bugs's question, explaining both that there was a hidden note in the article, and that the "source says returning in 2014, not 2014-2015".[1] How then could Baseball Bugs believe that "Drmargi had reverted in error"? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

DP, did you actually read my response on my talk page? I refused nothing. The edit had been reverted once already (by Farve1fan), and I reverted a second time. There wasn't a lot more to say than what the FF's edit summary and the hidden note said already. Bugs left a message on my talk page, and I answered the question he asked clearly and directly, as anyone who took the trouble to read my response can see. The trouble is, Bugs wants an answer to a question he didn't ask, and seems to be nursing some old grudge or pissed off about something long ago forgotten by everyone else. No one is edit warring aside from Bugs. This whole situation is utterly farcical, frankly. --Drmargi (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The two editors are edit-warring against anyone who dares put the obvious (2014-2015) in. And by the way, the guy who said this should be on the article talk page still has not posted on the article talk page. As I had predicted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm still waiting for a valid explanation. The fact that it's not yet September ain't it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: from an outsider: can't this be resolved peacefully with a compromise? Say, leaving 2014-2015 in, but adding a qualifier such as "predicted"? Because it does seem like a fairly sure prediction, barring exceptional events. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is not a valid edit-warring or 3RR report. Neither editor has breached 3RR and Baseball Bugs hasn't demonstrated evidence of edit-warring. This is a content dispute so this is not the appropriate venue to discuss. To clarify though, adding "(2014-2015)", "(2014-15)" is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. The addition of years is based on a recent renewal notice and assumption that episodes will air in 2014-15. However, a renewal notice 6 months prior to the next season does not guarantee that episodes will air in a particular year. An examples of this is Hotel Hell, which was renewed in 2012 but did not air any episodes in 2012 or 2013. Episodes have only just been scheduled to air in 2014, 2 years after the renewal. There are many things that can happen between when a series is renewed and when episodes do eventually air. Two and a Half Men was expected to air for a full season in 2010-11 but production was halted twice and the season ended nearly three months before it was expected to end. The Playboy Club, Last Resort and Alcatraz were all expected to air for full seasons but were cancelled during their first season, The Playboy Club after only 3 episodes had aired and while several more were scheduled to air. Because of the uncertainty regarding TV series, including years in the section heading when episodes have not been scheduled to air is widely considered by the TV project to be WP:CRYSTAL and we do not add years because of this. This is why Drmargi and Favre1fan93, as well as other editors (including me) have been removing years from future season headings. It is, unfortunately, something we have to deal with every year around this time when the American TV season finishes. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Your argument is not valid. CBS has already said it is on the "fall schedule", which translates to sometime during the fall of 2014. What you're really doing is granting ownership of a number of articles to those two editors. Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Being on its fall schedule is no guarantee that the series will premiere this year. There is too much uncertainty with TV programs. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
      • That's a pretty ignorant comment. But not as ignorant as the user who fell into that copycat troll's trap and claimed I was socking. I've reported user Desk Ref to ANI, and I would assume that any foreign IP's are also copycats, if not actually socks of that user. So their arguments can all be crossed off, and you can continue to own the page. And since it's obvious no one here is going to do anything about this page-ownership situation and the ignorance that's driving it, feel free to close this section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Calling other editors ignorant is, at best, uncivil. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
          • False accusations of sockpuppetry are worse than uncivil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Result: No action. There is a difference of opinion as to how much evidence is needed before we announce the 2014-2015 season for the Person of Interest (TV series). A typical revert is here. Consider an WP:RFC or use one of the established methods of WP:Dispute resolution. If announcement of a new season when episodes have not been scheduled to air is indeed "widely considered by the TV project to be WP:CRYSTAL" then User:Drmargi should be able to document it by linking to past discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it as FavreFan1 who initiated the removal of the dates, and added the hidden note. I came to the party later. BB just made a target of me because he's still pouting about some ancient conflict or another, the specifics of which I've long forgotten. AussieLegend provided the link, and Bignole, who wrote the policy at Project:TV added his comments, so it's quite thoroughly documented. --Drmargi (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

A policy that defies common sense ain't much of a policy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cue Drmargi, could you point me to this documented policy? From what I found on the talk, AussieLegend pointed to previous discussion with three editors. (This discussion also brought up that this is not to do with WP:CRYSTAL.) Also, I did not see the results of discussion integrated into MOS:TV. From that, it doesn't look like a "policy" per-say. Is there a different location I'm not looking at? It seems to me, if people disagree with the the old discussion, it's fair game to start a new one and reach consensus. Kirin13 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It's probably preferrable to let FavreFan or AussieLegend respond to your request. They're active on Project:TV whereas I'm not. I'm sure one of them can satisfactorily address your concerns. --Drmargi (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Kirin13, I was the one to possibly bring the "policy" claim into this. I do see what you are seeing, that same discussion that I in fact started on the project talk page. I, however, did feel that this was stated somewhere in our MOS, as for as long as I have been working on articles in this project, this has been the case: years are not added to the headings until episodes air, or you can unequivocally source that episodes will air in that calendar year, per all the reasons myself and AussieLegend have been stating here and at the discussion over at the article talk. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 18:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I listed them alphabetically. If I ever had any dealings with either editor at some point in the past, I don't remember it, and would just as soon keep it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

User QuackGuru has already been banned before from alt-med articles[2], as well as warned before for edit warring the alternative medicine articles by administrator EdJohnston[3] and administrator Tiptoety[4]. A short caption from Tiptoety's warning to QuackGuru:

Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine. While it is obvious that you have intentionally not gone over three reverts in one day, please be reminded that the edit warring policy does not specify a specific number of reverts, and simply engaging in a long term pattern of edit warring can result in a block. I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions authorized at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Tiptoety talk 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As administrator Tiptoety's warning makes it really clear, there is not any "specific amount of edits that you can do each day". It does not even matter whether you continue that disruptive behaviour on just one or even more articles. QuackGuru has been specifically warned about edit warring Pseudoscience related articles. As far as I have been involved in developing some other alternative medicine articles, such as traditional Chinese medicine or acupuncture, I have noticed the same editing behaviour by QuackGuru even there.

Two days ago, QuackGuru was already warned two times by different editors:

• at 07:13, 14 May[5] (Mallexikon),
• and at 17:38, 14 May[6].

However, it seems that the same editing pattern keeps repeating with QuackGuru:

• at 21:02, 9 May 2014 on the article, Chiropractic, QuackGuru made a revert on {{POV}} tag[7].
• At 19:18, 14 May 2014, he made his second revert on the very same article, on that very same thing[8].

As stated by WP:3RR: ".... The three-revert rule ... is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so..."

However, yesterday QuackGuru also made his 3rd revert, so even the bright line of three reverts applies.

1. Here you can see him inserting the {{MEDRS}} tags: [9][10]
2. Here you can see the tags being removed by another user, DVMt: [11]
3. Finally here, QuackGuru crosses the line and reverts the last edit by DVMt: [12]

WP:3RR is extremly clear on this:

The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.

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

The issue has been tried to be resolved at the Talk page:

1. [14]
2. [15]

Also the edit summaries have been well-established. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

There is a fine line between "edit warring" and "defending the encyclopedia against pernicious nonsense". In this case, it would appear that that people are using defective sources, QuackGuru is tagging the defective sources, and other editors are removing the tags rather than correcting the problems. It isn't happening at a rate that violates 3RR. In this case, my inclination is to warn editors that cite alternative medicine sources that such sources are not to be taken seriously and do not meet WP:MEDRS: removing the tag without correcting the issue is disruptive.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources in question are not defective and there is currently a discussion about this at WP:MED talk. There is ONE constant in all of these alt-med articles and is QG and his editing practices. A topic ban at this point should be considered seeing how the same issues keep coming up again and again and again. Also, Kww it would be nice to assume good faith in other editors with respect to using reliable sources. We're all here volunteering to make WP better. DVMt (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The other editors at TCM and acupuncture are not only conscientious about quality of sources, they are careful to not over-value particular sources. Quack Guru regularly edits in a disruptive and disrespectful manner. Kww, I invite you to pay closer attention to the edits themselves rather than the kind of sweeping generalizations you made. A sincere consideration of the issues and true consensus building is what we need at those articles, not missionary zeal to push a POV.Herbxue (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A few comments on report:

• Using a 9 May edit to demonstate editor ignoring talk from 14 May - doesn't quite work.
• For 3RR you need more than three reverts, so making three reverts is not a violation of 3RR (but may still be edit warring).
• Consecutive reverts count as one revert for 3RR purposes, so now down to two reverts.
• The first 'revert' doesn't seem like it's reverting to any previous edit, thus it seems to me like a new edit and not a revert -> down to one revert.
• The "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" provided above is a notice of AN/EW discussion. That's not the same. The point of giving a warning is to try to halt behavior to prevent bringing an issue to an administrators' noticeboard. (Though given editor's history, it reasonable to believe that he's familiar with given polices and an edit warring warning may not be necessary.)
• In general, article talk pages should be used to discuss article, not behavior of a user. Both of the talk pages linked have section that are more about this editor than about any content. Some editors may view this as a personal attack.

I'm not saying it's not edit warring, but when you bring an issue to a noticeboard, you'll have a much stronger case if everything is lined up. Kirin13 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Herbxue has been notified of the sanctions.

Herbxue is a WP:SPA currently the subject of discussion at ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Herbxue.

User:DVMt has been notified of the sanctions.

DVMt wrote Rather than individually deal with this individual, it might be better to work in conjunction to help prevent in what I see is sociopathic behaviour which ruins the experience of helping WP achieve its goal of being a reliable and credible source for medically related topics. The part "this individual" is referring to me. The editor DVMt has continued his bad behaviour. The paragraph contains the follwing specific sentence written by DVMt: I've tried in good faith with you here, but your editing behaviour seems to be congruent with this [16].[17] On the chiropractic talk page the link is to the page Profile of the Sociopath. He also accusing me of stalking and being a meatpuppet of Ersnt[18][19][20] and having a COI.

Jayaguru-Shishya has been notified of the sanctions.

User:Jayaguru-Shishya has been indef-blocked previously for disruptive behaviour. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_is_not_moving_on_and_he_is_continuing_his_battleground_behaviour.

Jayaguru-Shishya has a history of disruptive behaviour. See User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_32#Question_about_the_resolution_of_an_editwar_dispute_at_Administrator.27s_noticeboard. Both Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Both editors are unable to collaborate. Take a quick look at the comments on the talk page. See Talk:Chiropractic#Removal of the MEDRS tags and failure to collaborate. See Talk:Chiropractic#Tag restored against CON again. WP:BOOMERANG should apply. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cherry picking again, are we? Other editors have had concerns with your radical behaviour [21] concerns regarding neutrality again with QG as the primary culprit [22], more disruptive editing here [23], tendentious and repeated refusals to answer a fundamental question [24] and on and on. Considering how recent QG was warned regarding his editorial behaviour at alt-med pages, this warrants a serious investigation. DVMt (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:DVMt is planning on rewriting the chiropractic article and making significant changes after the dispute at chiropractic was previously resolved. DVMt refuses to moved on. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking through a crystal ball? I've collected 70+ reliable and MEDRS compliant sources and this is my work ground. I'm not proposing anything yet, I'm just organizing references. You seem to have an ownership issues and besides constantly pushing Ernst, you admit to being in contact with him and receiving emails from him [25]. How is that not an act of meat puppetry? You're canvassing offline with a known controversial skeptic and push his research at chiropractic, alternative medicine, acupuncture, etc. DVMt (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can contact Ernst for a copy of a study. I have read numerous WP:MEDRS compliant reviews and have updated the chiropractic article accordingly. You should stop trying to restore past versions of the article that are no longer relevant. You proposal on the talk page was an old version (you claim it is a new proposal) of the article that was previously rejected in mainspace. See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that contacting a controversial author, editing his personal page and pushing his POV on his behalf is 'normal' behaviour. I'm not doing anything other than using talk to discuss salient issues. Like I mentioned above, I've accrued 70+ new reliable sources in my sandbox and I'm actively discussing the problems at chiropractic elsewhere as well to try and build consensus over SPECIFIC issues pertaining to chiropractic. Your interpretation of the events are off-base. Considering you were warned as recently as April 29/14 regarding your editing behaviour, you just seem to keep popping up at ANI over and over and over again. DVMt (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit warring noticeboard, and as such, other discussion shouldn't be happening here. Therefore, as no edit warring by QG has been demonstrated, perhaps this should now be closed. This is not the place for fringe pushers to try to get their fringe ideas into an article. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This was a bogus 3RR report but we should leave this open for admins to apply WP:BOOMERANG for the continued behavior problems and tactics both Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt are guilty of. The sandbox DVMt is referring to is a WP:FAKEARTICLE.[26] QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Roxy, you have made allegations, please provide evidence for your claim, or hold your peace. Not a fake article, quack, unless you've now moved onto trying to removing 70+ new MEDRS sources. Why are you creeping out my sandbox anyways? You're kind of proving my stalking allegation. DVMt (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you on about? No diffs have shown edit warring, what other allegations are you on about. Stop wasting our time. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack has been warned about edit warring several times and has been cautioned as recently as April 29/14. He is essentially on probation and continues to act in defiance of the recommendations. Recidivism is in play. DVMt (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Continuing to make false accusations is making you look very silly at this point. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I tagged a source that was over 30 years old. We have newer sources on the topic. Using a 30 year outdated old source to argue against newer sources currently used in the article is inappropriate. Removing the tag without properly addressing the problem is disruptive. The evidence shows User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not contributing constructively and is repeating past mistakes. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring has been demonstrated clearly in the above diffs. The bright line of 3RR applies. Moreover, as I clearly quoted [[WP:3RR] above:

"The three-revert rule ... is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so

This same has been stated by administrator Tiptoety in his warning to QuackGuru[27]:

Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine. While it is obvious that you have intentionally not gone over three reverts in one day, please be reminded that the edit warring policy does not specify a specific number of reverts, and simply engaging in a long term pattern of edit warring can result in a block. I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions authorized at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Tiptoety talk 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru has defended his behaviour by stating that his reverts were right justified. WP:3RR however is extremly clear on this:

...whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".

Taking into opinion QuackGuru's latest warning by administrator Tiptoety, and QuackGuru's continued edit warring, I think the necessary actions should be taken.. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As we're looking into editor's backgrounds, it's worth noting that Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt are both editing with a POV which attempts to legitimise alternative medicine such as Chiropractic, Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine, where the bulk of their contributions will be found. Jayaguru-Shishya was blocked last month for edit-warring at Acupuncture and despite his assurances in his unblock request, has now moved on to the same behaviour at Chiropractic. DVMt is a well-known sockmaster who has calls for him to be topic-banned from CAM/pseudoscience topics - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DVMt/Archive for the details. QG is wrong to let himself be drawn into an edit-war with SPAs, but I believe he recognises that and has stepped away. Several other editors have now intervened at Chiropractic to support his removal of a primary source, a survey published in a CAM journal, that has no place in a medical article, particularly a controversial one that requires the highest standards of sourcing. --RexxS (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rexxs! I have learned my lessons and haven't repeated the same mistakes again. I'd like to remind you that I got banned even without making three reverts. This is made clear both in WP:3RR and administrator Tiptoety's warning.

However, this dispute is about QuackGuru who has continued edit warring even despite of being warned by admins as the diffs above clearly show it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

RexxS, you're mischaraterization of the facts are noted. No one is trying to legitimize anything, rather, we are trying to delineate what specific aspects of chiropractic are considered fringe and what one's are considered mainstream. Besides, the source was a sociological study describing factions and making no medical claims. More interestingly, you seem to think that all CAM is pseudoscientific and thus cannot have an evidence-based faction. You don't even know the details of what is occurring, so your opinion, unfortunately, as an uninformed one. Similar to 'true believers' your extremist POV towards chiropractic and acupuncture doesn't really add anything to the mix. Jaygurus behaviour is fine at chiropractic, we're all using talk pages to resolve matters. Since when is is Bio Med Central not a credible source? DVMt (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

When the source is a primary source. With another dispute, it was previously suggested an indefinite block to resolve the situation. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DVMt/Archive. DVMt thinks Secondary sources are not required for non-medical claims. WP:COMPETENCE is required to contribute to Wikipedia. DVMt is repeating past mistakes like restoring a primary source (see WP:SECONDARY) and edit warring against CON[28][29] to restore a tag. DVMt claims the dispute is not resolved but it was.

Kirin13 said I only made one revert but Jayaguru-Shishya falsely accused me of breaking WP:3RR[30]. Jayaguru-Shishya is repeating the same type of nonconstructive behaviour he did in the past that got him blocked. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack, you're simply trying to censor anyone that disagrees with you by suggesting they're radicalists, pure smear campaign. Anyone who actually reads the talk page can see the process develop itself. Suggesting I'm not a competent editor is a bogus accusation and there is no 'resolution' that you're claiming. How about you work with us and share a little. You've done nearly 50% of the edits at chiropractic in 2014 and got reported for previous edit warring over CAM related articles. You want to tell the fringe story, I want to share the mainstream/MSK story. Given that the MSK faction represent 80% of chiropractors, and given that chiropractic management of MSK issues is not controversial, naturally so should the emphasis. That's not to suggest there is no controversy historically or currently, but we can't work from a script that says manipulative medicine is pseudoscientific (see OMM) and try to 'balance' things out. Let's take this back to the talk page or if you're willing to go to ArbCom we can get further guidance. Cheers. DVMt (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you add a space to the diff in my comment that broke the link? Do you still think primary sources are acceptable?

Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception for the treatment of back pain.[10][31] A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective for any condition.[11][32]

Do you think these MEDRS compliant sources that summarise the body should still be deleted from the lede? Are you ready to accept MEDRS?

You said I've done nearly 50% of the edits at chiropractic in 2014. You should give me a little more credit than that. I shaped practically that entire article from top to bottom. Who do you think was making massive changes to the article years ago and continued to update the article. Very few editors can write such an impressive well sourced article. It looks like it was written by an expert like Ersnt himself. No random person can write such an encyclopedic article. If it weren't for me you probably could do whatever you wanted with the article. Other editors saw I objected to your changes and then they pitched in. It seems like you want me gone so you can rewrite the article. Isn't that correct? Isn't that what this is about? You already got guidance but you have not agreed to stick with WP:SECONDARY sources or WP:MEDRS sources. QuackGuru (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, why did you remove a link in my comment? QuackGuru (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to have a productive discussion when you use straw men and misrepresent other people's viewpoint. Secondary sources are preferred but in some instances, primary sources will suffice. Since you're now claiming you've shaped the article from top to bottom WP:OWN is in play. The other editors aren't even close to being regulars on the page, that just seem to fly by. Regarding sources, I explained to you on the talk page about using them out of context in some instances and poor paraphrasing as well as cherry picking a sentence out of a source that is out of context and has nothing to do with the conclusions of the paper. But that's beyond the scope of this investigation. NPOV states we write from a neutral POV and the reason why your article(s) keep articles keep on getting flagged. I don't want you gone, I want to work with you, but in order to do so, we need to have be willing to meet in the middle. And that means any stance that suggests that manipulative therapy for MSK is pseudoscientific is a non-starter. If we can agree that manipulative therapies for MSK issues isn't controversial, that would be a great start. What do you think? DVMt (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand your difficulties now DVMt, if you want to write about real interventions, you need to be editing the Physiotherapy article. This one is for Chiropractic, the pseudoscience. Do you see what I'm getting at? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

But Roxy, manipulative therapies are used by a wide variety of professionals for MSK issues, chiros, physios, osteos, vets (pets with MSK issues). Undoubtedly, chiros provide the majority of manipulations for MSK conditions. So, a blanket statement that says chiropractic approach to MSK health is pseudoscientific is problematic, because if that is true that so is the same approach of other professions that practice manipulation. So while this issue is more germane to the chiropractic profession (i.e. validity of manipulative therapies for MSK conditions) it still carries over to others. There needs to be some internal cohesion on the topic and I'm trying to foster a discussion around that topic. DVMt (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. This is "The Edit Warring Noticeboard." It is here for discussion, and possible sanctions regarding Edit Warring. You need Talk:Chiropractic‎ where content is discussed for Chiropractic. HTH. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on the above evidence I recommend actions be taken against Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt. They are both nonconstructive editors and are repeatedly making unfounded accusations. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

TCM and acupuncture articles

I can't say anything about what's going on at the chiropractic article, but QG's editing at the TCM/acupuncture articles has been... difficult. We had to go into DR recently about the question of which exact wording should be used to include the term "pseudoscience" into the article's lede. The DR was successfully seen through by Bejnar and Richard Keatinge; however, QG seemed to have troubles to participate constructively. The DR thread can be found here, the related talk page discussion here, and a separate discussion of QG with DRN volunteer Bejnar here. The consensus wording was implemented on 05-May [33]

• QG tagged the DR consensus as OR on 13-May [34].
• The material which was subject of the DR had been copy-pasted to the acupuncture article by QG on 28-April [35]. After the consensus found at TCM regarding this material was implemented at acupuncture as well [36], QG reverted it on 09-May. Accordingly, DRN volunteer Bejnar had to recommend to start another DR thread for the acupuncture article [37].
• QG deleted reliably sourced material about the proto-scientific nature of TCM, which was based on a standard history book (Needham's Science and Civilisation in China) on 14-May [38]. After the material was reinstated by another editor, he tagged it as a "biased source" [39].
• He reacts with bizarre tagging to material or wording he doesn't like: 13-May, 15-May. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is against you on this. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive840#Mallexikon.

There is support for some type of editing restrictions for Mallexikon. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive840#Proposal.

Many editors disagree with the current wording or never agreed to the current wording at TCM regarding the sentence for pseudoscience. See the list of editors below. You can ask them yourself what wording they think is best.

User:Dominus Vobisdu

User:Jim1138

User:Adam Cuerden

User:76.107.171.90

User:Alexbrn

User:JzG

User:Bobrayner

User:BatteryIncluded

User:Roxy the dog

The proto-scientific claim is based on a reference that is over 30 years old that is outdated and irrelevant to TCM today. "TCM has been described as a protoscience[33]" should be deleted but it is still in the article. See Traditional Chinese medicine#Model of the body. How could TCM be proto-scientific when there is wording in the lede that says TCM is pseudoscience?

According to Mallexikon's statement above, he thinks it is bizarre because I tagged the OR or text that failed verification. The evidence shows Mallexikon is uncooperative and is not interested in helping to remove the OR I tagged. The text can be improved without OR or misleading claims. Rather than focusing on me it would help if editors tried to improve the article and move on. But Mallexikon does not think my edits are improvements. He thinks the text is OR but the text is sourced. We can take this to arbitration and have this matter resolved and/or bring in more uninvolved editors to help improve the article and remove the OR from the TCM article. So far Mallexikon has not explained why he objects so strongly when I have been the main editor improving the article. Is it because he is a True Believer? Guy suggested a better outcome for Mallexikon is a 1RR restriction rather than a topic ban. QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know why we're even still discussing this. The content is well sourced, and aside form a couple of acupuncturists nobody much seems to have a problem with it. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The back and forth is on multiple pages now. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:67.174.173.239 reported by Geraldo Perez (talk) (Result: Semi-protected, user warned)

Page: Jessie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.174.173.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

1. 00:44 04 April 2014
2. 01:47, 12 April 2014
3. 01:42, 25 April 2014
4. 14:58, 27 April 2014
5. 01:32, 16 May 2014‎

• Attempts to communicate:

1. here
2. here

Slow motion edit warring adding inappropriate-to-this page and false info to a disambiguation page. This looks now to be deliberately disruptive. —Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No technical violation, but I agree it seems deliberately disruptive. I semi-protected the article for 3 months and will warn 67.174.173.239 shortly. Zero^talk 06:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Smallbones reported by User:2601:B:BB80:E0:39E8:8E4C:FD09:D212 (Result: Referred to SPI)

Page: User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

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

Comments: Smallbones seems to think he has CheckUser and Sockpuppet Investigation powers that enable him to tell if a new user is a banned user or not. He shows an utter disregard for the 3RR convention.

2601:B:BB80:E0:39E8:8E4C:FD09:D212 (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK and WP:TROLL aside, you too were edit-warring to include inappropriate comments on someone's talkpage ... there's no beneficial purpose for those comments anywhere on the project, but yet you persisted past breaking the same rule you're filing against someone else? the panda ₯’ 10:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's right, 2601:B:BB80:E0:39E8:8E4C:FD09:D212 is a ban-evading sock. Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MyWikiBiz#16_May_2014. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#04_January_2014 (same troll/sock, slightly diff IP range). Coretheapple (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action here. The filing party has already been reported at WP:SPI. When a brand new IP makes an AN3 report on their third edit it does not inspire confidence in their case. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kumioko/Archive

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

---

This page was boldly blanked by AGK, on 2 April. On 8 May, coming across the unusual blanking I reverted and opened a discussion on the talk page. AGK re-reverted out of process, before engaging in discussion. In the course of the discussion he suggested that procedure to overturn his re-revert required the agreement of other Checkusers (plural, but did not state how many), or indeed how many the "larger group of editors" would be.

There I left the matter until the 16 May, when the importance and currency of the page had increased. I checked, as far as I could, that AGK's reasoning was spurious, restored the page once more, and left a message at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, stating that I had restored the page, for other Checkusers, Clerks, and the SPI community to comment. No comment has been received to date.

On the same day Beyond My Ken blanked the page. He did not engage either the discussion on the talk page, nor on the message I had left at SPI. AS I had mistakenly understood that he had disengaged from Kumioko, I asked at his talk page. After first refusing to answer he clarified that he had merely disengaged from the extreme personal attacks he had been making, but not in such a way as to encourage further dialogue. Nonetheless his ironic use of part of my sig, indicates he had read the talk page where AGK takes issue with it.

I am reluctant to restore the page, despite BRD, and despite the unwillingness of the other editors to engage constructively. I will note that of almost 11,000 SPI archive pages I have checked this is the only one blanked in this way. Also that archiving is done manually ("handled by clerks or willing admins" according to comments on SPI talk), so AGK's claim that scripts can remove his blanking, add the archived material and re-blank seems dubious at least.

Obviously we are all way under 3RR, but it does seem that discussion is stymied. If this noticeboard can provide a low-drama way forward, that will, I think, be a good thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

 Comment: Improperly-filed, and an improper place to hold a discussion. As an aside, blanking is not deletion - so no biggie, and making a Federal case out of it makes zero sense. If you want to discuss, take it to a discussion board the panda ₯’ 00:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I wasn't looking for a discussion (about the behaviour). I was looking for someone impartial to say (to AGK and BMK) "WP:BRD applies here, please join the discussion at WPT:SPI and form a consensus." They both know about BRD, however they seem to need reminding of it, and it did not seem productive for me to do it. Probably you are quite right, and as I have just remarked elsewhere I put far too much time and effort into this report. Probably you are also correct that there is a better venue - if, given my clarification, there is, please tell me which one and I will move the report there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC).

In addition to the archive talk page, you've also, at AGK's suggestion taken it to WT:SPI. If you are dissatisfied there, take it to WP:AN, although the issue has many components to it, and you will probably find that any discussion is inconclusive (but I'm only guessing). It surely doesn't belong here, and you did not notify AGK or BMK, both of whom you mention in this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Actually I did notify BMK see my talk page, and should perhaps have notified AGK. Thanks for your response, I shall follow your suggestions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC).

User:Unscintillating reported by User:Steel1943 (Result: Both reminded)

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

Previous version reverted to: 20:56, 17 May 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:24, 17 May 2014
2. 19:57, 17 May 2014
3. 13:43, 17 May 2014
4. 12:50, 17 May 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:53, 17 May 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:12, 17 May 2014

Comments:
Even though that it now seems that the editor in this report is now attempting to take steps in participating in a discussion to create consensus for their edits, I feel as though this still needs to be reported. Unscintillating has been reverting undos of a bold edit that they performed on Wikipedia:Drafts that essentially stated that pages in the draft namespace should have a requirement, in one way or another, that states that a discussion should happen on the talk page of the draft to form consensus to take a draft to WP:MFD; I disagreed with that since those instructions seemingly have no consensus to be supported. After trying to explain my reasons behind reverting these bold edits with edit notices on my reverts, and the continuous reverts of my reverted reverts to their reverts, I realized that since edit notices seemed to not assist in providing understanding to this editor to the purpose of my reverts, I started the above-referenced RFC (attempted to resolve the issue on the article talk page). The editor then seemingly ignores the RFC, and created a new section, question my reverts (thus, why I stated that it seems that the editor is now attempting to take steps to resolve the dispute). At this point, an attempt has been made to start conversation to resolve the dispute, so I'm assuming that the editor is doing this in good faith, but I believe that this report is still necessary for "the books". Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why admins shouldn't block both of you for 3RR violation? Steel1943 gets credit for opening the RfC, but that doesn't entitle you to keep reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I second Ed's question. It is somewhat amazing that Steel1943 filed this report only 10 minutes after breaking 3RR on the same page. Zero^talk 06:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought I was going to get a WP:BOOMERANG for this. I was trying to keep the text where it was before, then realized what I did. If I get blocked, the administrator has my permission to make it an indef. I never wanted to let any user get the best of me, and I have. If I have one block on my record, I don't want to come back to Wikipedia ever again. My real life is more important than having to deal with this crap. Steel1943 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors are reminded that an WP:RFC is in progress. Anyone who reverts the text again without waiting for the verdict of the talk page is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• I have provided a detailed report at [46].  Unscintillating (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Steel1943 reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Already handled)

Page: Wikipedia:Drafts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Steel1943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: *2014-04-28T18:17:34 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,654 bytes) (+16) . . (Deleting a draft: Boldly updated section to include a current XFD forum to be able to nominate drafts for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2014-05-17T12:55:56 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (-148) . . (Undid revision 608955114 by Unscintillating (talk) Again, reverting bold changes where no consensus has been formed for this specifically for the "Draft" namespace)
2. 2014-05-17T13:45:01 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (+28) . . (Undid revision 608959986 by Unscintillating (talk) Reverting edit based on false wording used by previous editor - not "stable text", but "editor's POV")
3. 2014-05-17T20:56:42 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (+28) . . (Undid revision 609001195 by Unscintillating (talk) Again, reverting controversial bold edit - already attempt WP:BRD proc. on talkpage, prev editor has yet to participate - RFC)
4. 2014-05-17T23:45:04 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (+28) . . (Undid revision 609018231 by Unscintillating (talk) No, this is a "no-consensus-based" version of what you believe to be correct - please attempt to resolve on talk page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:

EW case reopened

• I am re-opening this case as a case of denialism and refusal to discuss.  After providing full detail of the sequence of edits here (Diff One), here (Diff two) is the reply.  Discussion is required.  Please reread the initial report above, and you will see that there is not a word about the stable version, which is the dispute that caused the edit warring.  Note that the RfC, etc., is misdirection, because there was already an open discussion started 2014-04-16, WT:Drafts#Venue to hold deletion discussions for Drafts.  This is about WP:BRD, where the OPer thinks that my R is somehow a B, without providing evidence.  The same is true from studying the edit comments in Diff One.  This denialism is an idée fixe.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: This complaint was already addressed above. Two editors have been reminded that the next revert could lead to a block. The point is to stop the edit war. If there are (in fact) multiple discussions running on the same page, why not make a proposal to unify them. At present there is an RfC header over just one of the discussions, the one at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Process for deleting drafts. If you wish, ask an admin to decide which discussion is active and close the others. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Michael Demiurgos reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24 hours)

Page: List of Digimon Fusion characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael Demiurgos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 02:51, 15 May 2014 (Grammar.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:21, 15 May 2014 (What is wrong with this? Should I ask here? Should I ask on the talk page for this article? Should i ask on your talk page? Where?)
2. 00:46, 16 May 2014 ("Clean version"? How was this not a "clean version"?)
3. 03:45, 17 May 2014 (I have provided reasoning for the name change. It was SkullKnightmon who wanted Deckerdramon on his team (even if he was DarkKnightmon/AxeKnightmon at the time).)
4. 08:29, 17 May 2014 (I had to stop in the middle to help my family. Let me finish giving my explanation. Please.)
5. 13:14, 17 May 2014 (Okay I will source them. Just give me time.)
6. 13:37, 17 May 2014 (Sourced. 15/27=5/9 mentions have sources next to them.)
7. 00:56, 18 May 2014 (Whole parts of this article aren't given sources for the information but are still here. Unless one is going to state where the citations are needed, why criticize one individual?)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:15, 17 May 2014 (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Digimon Fusion characters. (TW))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:27, 17 May 2014 m (→‎Addition of original research/uncited material)

Comments:

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Semi)

Page: List of Person of Interest episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 13:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:27, 16 May 2014 (edit summary: "Per Baseball Buggs")
2. 00:22, 17 May 2014 (edit summary: "No reason given for deletion")
3. 10:57, 17 May 2014 (edit summary: "I'm still waiting for a 'valid' explanation.")
4. 12:00, 18 May 2014 (edit summary: "/* Season 4 */ Per talk Page")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:

This report is related to a report above but concerns a different editor. 2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194 suspiciously began editing List of Person of Interest episodes only after Baseball Bugs stopped editing. His first edit was a reversion to Baseball Bugs's version,[51] as were his second and third reversions.[52][53] However, his third reversion also included some vandalism (adding "f" to the end of words, joining words with random letters and just joining words for no apparent reason), and I reverted that edit accordingly.[54] After I left the 3RR warning on his talk page he did engage in some discussion on the talk page, waiting until after the expiration of the 24hr period before reverting again. While the lastest revert is not an exact reversion, it does restore the contested dates, which constitutes a partial reversion. Despite the lastest edit summary claiming "Per talk Page", there is still no consensus to add years. As a side note, after reverting the edit containing vandalism, I did make some edits aimed at a minor compromise with all editors involved,[55] and that was at least partially successful. However, 2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194's latest edit is still obviously edit-warring. Other editors still seem willing to discuss. Only 2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194 seems intent on continuing the edit war and his comments on the talk page are of some concern. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected ten days by User:Kelapstick. It appears there is a consensus on the talk page not to add information about 2014-2015 prematurely. If, in addition to IPs, there are also registered accounts that think differently they should wait until they get support from others on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Unscintillating reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: No action)

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

No need in diffs: from history you easily see it is removal of notability tag.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Russian Bazaar.

At first I thought the user requires edit summary. So I reinstated tag with edit summary "nodability questioned". HOwever the user insist on removing the tag. IMO it is a blatant violation of wikipedia policy about tags, which cannot be removed without discussing its merits. PLease intervene. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Here is the diff in which the OP began edit warring, although it satisfies 3RR.  I issued a "notice" of EW on the OP's talk page, here, which I closed with "FYI", meaning I didn't need a response.  The OP responded here, escalating with both a 3O and this 3RR.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: It is generally considered a bad idea to remove a tag from an article without resolving the issue or explaining why the tag was unwarranted. User:Unscintillating did neither. Upon further review, I not only agree with User:Staszek Lem's tagging of the article as of questionable notability, I have gone ahead and nominated the article for deletion. I would also note that this is User:Unscintillating's second edit war this weekend, a disturbing trend. pbp 22:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since the article is now being considered for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Russian Bazaar. User:Unscintillating removed the notability tag a total of four times starting May 12 and he was risking a block. User:Staszek Lem finally opened a discussion on 18 May but it would have been better to do so at the beginning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mypageone reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: )

• Page: Genevieve Cortese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Mypageone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I politely advised editor Mypageone not to insert information regarding minor children (per BLP) on the above article. He/she ignored the hidden comment specifically regarding this issue in the first place after similar edits were removed, and has now, without comment or explanation, simply restored the edits I removed. I do not intend to get into an edit war with an occasional or one-topic editor or be goaded into violating 3RR, but if this editor is going to edit in bad faith then something needs to be done. Please see [56], [57]. Editor notified on talk page but apparently can't be bothered to respond. Thanks, Quis separabit? 00:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:31.220.238.96 reported by User:TMDrew (Result: 1 week)

Page

William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Other views */"
2. 09:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC) "Reinserted factually correct material - no reason given for its removal."
3. 00:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC) "You have still not provided a good reason to remove a factually correct material. The fact that he may think the term is not justified does not affect whether or not, objectively, it is. Furthermore, please refrain from making threats. It isn't helpful"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

We have gone over this material on the talk page. This editor refuses to use the talk page and continues to revert these edits. I warned the editor in the edit summary. Still continues to edit war. TMD (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking back on the history of this IP, every single edit that this user has made has been a variant of the quote "William Lane Craig believes that God has the moral right to commit genocide." This has been discussed on the talk page, and we have decided against this wording. This IP user has made no other contributions to the page, but has continued to insist on this wording since March of this year.
11:56, March 15, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-22)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (→‎Other views)
14:09, March 16, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-66)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎
07:26, May 17, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+28)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (→‎The Resurrection of Jesus)
05:18, May 18, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (Reinserted factually correct material - no reason given for its removal.)
20:27, May 18, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (You have still not provided a good reason to remove a factually correct material. The fact that he may think the term is not justified does not affect whether or not, objectively, it is. Furthermore, please refrain from making threats. It isn't helpful)

Every one of these edits has been for the same thing. This editor should be blocked from the page.--TMD (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 1 week. The IP has been warring since March to claim that Craig is defending 'genocide' by God, referring to the deaths of the Canaanites at the hand of the Israelites. This puts the word genocide in Wikipedia's voice. The cited material by Craig does not defend genocide as such; he uses other words. The same IP has also received three warnings for vandalism since March. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Andreas11213 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Blocked)

Page

Australian House of Representatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Andreas11213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 609206328 by (talk) If you constantly have time to revert most changes I make, then I'm quite sure you have time to go to the talk page where I have asked for consensus but have been ignored"
2. 07:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 12:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC) "As requested, the svg is updated, see talk page"
4. 05:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 609052913 by Timeshift9 (talk) You see talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [58], [59], [60]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Picture */ +2 cents"

Comments:

Andreas11213 continues to edit war on articles, this time in particular the Australian House of Representatives article. They've been warned previously not to edit war (having been blocked previously for edit warring, they should have a good idea as to what it is). In this instance, the editor has been asked by multiple users to discuss their edits on the talk page to establish consensus for their change - however, they discuss and continuously revert (despite multiple warnings not to). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week Given the previous block in the same topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Michael Demiurgos reported by User:Betty Logan (Result:72 hr )

Page: List of Digimon Fusion characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael Demiurgos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation, but after coming straight off a block for edit-warring went and reinstated the exact same edit. The case is detailed in full further up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Michael Demiurgos reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24 hours) Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours the panda ₯’ 10:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. ashlee g reported by User: Hafspajen (Result: 31 hours)

• Page: Miniature Pinscher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Dr. ashlee g (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor doesn't discuss the topic on talk page, that is well sourced but keeps removing sourced material. Also was warned for edit war and still continues. Hafspajen (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Template:Cue @Hafspajen: According to the edit history of Talk:Miniature Pinscher,you haven't been discussing on the article talk page, either. Have you discussed on the editor's talk page, at least? Epicgenius (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I will take back notice. Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by User:Barek. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Kumarila reported by User:Maunus (Result: 1 week)

Page: 2002 Gujarat riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kumarila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 22:40, 19 May 2014 - Kumarila (Undid revision 609300289 by (talk) Why did u remove it before discussing then ? It is properly sourced, u r the one playing edit war)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:15, 19 May 2014 - Kumarila (Undid revision 609195360 by Vanamonde93 (talk))
2. 22:20, 19 May 2014 - Kumarila (Undid revision 609298245 by Vanamonde93 (talk) Lead talks about complicity of Narendra Modi,. This line does not say that. Don't show your bias in editing.)
3. 22:33, 19 May 2014 - Kumarila (Undid revision 609299750 by Maunus (talk))
4. 22:40, 19 May 2014 - Kumarila (Undid revision 609300289 by Maunus (talk) Why did u remove it before discussing then ? It is properly sourced, u r the one playing edit war)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. User talk:Maunus 22:40, 19 May 2014 - Maunus
2. User talk:Kumarila 22:45, 19 May 2014 - Maunus

• Comment - First above diff isn't to Kumarila's talkpage. Second above diff simply says "I have reported you." This diff is the warning:

1. 05:40, 18 May 2014 - Vanamonde93 (Warning: Removal of content, blanking on 2002 Gujarat riots. (TW)) Jsharpminor (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Recent_revert

Comments:

Talkpage show User:Kumarila's history of problematic editing. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC) -->

Blocked – for a period of 1 week by User:DangerousPanda. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:75.177.156.78 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: IP warned)

Page: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.177.156.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:18, 19 May 2014 - 75.177.156.78 (→‎melissajoanhart.ning.com: It is AGAINST POLICY to refactor others' talk page comments)
2. 16:58, 19 May 2014 - 75.177.156.78 (→‎melissajoanhart.ning.com: Don't change the heading as I ORIGINALLY wrote it.)
3. 17:07, 19 May 2014 - 75.177.156.78 (Undid revision 609261110 by Elizium23 (talk) Header as ORIGINALLY posted.)
4. 23:02, 19 May 2014 - 75.177.156.78 (→‎melissajoanhart.ning.com: Flyer22, please be thorough enough to look at the ENTIRE edit history; Elizium changed MY header and moved MY comments.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:03, 19 May 2014 - Elizium23 (Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (TW))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. User talk:75.177.156.78 - 17:01, 19 May 2014 (→‎WP:RSN: new section)
2. User talk:75.177.156.78 - 23:05, 19 May 2014 (→‎Order of comments on RSN: new section)

Comments:

This anon IP claims to have nine years of experience editing Wikipedia, and yet has remained bellicose and incivil throughout this entire dispute, while not having a single shred of evidence to bolster his case. I have requested that this user stay away from my user talk page as discussions are not productive at all. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Summary by uninvolved editor: Elizium23 and the IP editor got into it over whether melissajoneshart.ning.com, a fansite, is an official site published by the celebrity, and if so, if it is a reliable source or not. On 02:44, 19 May 2014, Elizium took it to WP:RSN. The IP editor created another section for basically the same discussion at 14:44, exactly 12 hours later. Elizium23 merged the discussions at 16:01. The reverts are the IP attempting to break the discussions apart. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, Elizium removed my header and (without discussing with me and another editor who commented) moved my and another editor's comments out of their original section. I invite any admin to also carefully review Elizium23's edits. Not that his edits justify any of my edits, but there may be a case of WP:BOOMERANG. Elizium appears to have a vendetta here because I justifiably challenged one of his sources as unreliable and he simply can't let it go even though other editors agree with me. Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • If you and Elizium were basically discussing the same issue, why would you have an issue with Elizium moving the comments? Also, why would you start another section to discuss the very same thing? In fact, it seems to me that the third opinion did not agree with that, or moving it back to its own section.

Whether or not the fan site is valid is its own question, and I think I'd have to agree with you on that point. However, that's not what we're discussing at AN:3. Here, we're discussing whether or not someone should edit war. The answer is almost always no. And it looks like you decided, for whatever reason, to edit war over the placement of your comments. I think that's a candidate for WP:LAME. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am the third party. Why I reverted the IP should be clear from the edit history; I also noted why on the IP's talk page. The IP placing his or her comments at the beginning of the merged section, and changing the original heading to the heading of the section that was merged, was completely unproductive. Like I told the IP, "Elizium23 merged your section with his or hers, which is allowed...per Wikipedia:TALK#Editing comments. Your order is not the original order, and you are making a mess of the section. STOP IT." The IP has now stopped reverting. It is a WP:LAME edit war indeed, but at least Elizium and I had very valid reasons for reverting the IP on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: IP warned. If they try to refactor again (without getting consensus) they may be blocked. See WP:REFACTOR for a help page on this topic. It makes no sense that the IP would revert more than once to put the posts out of date order. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:B88 reported by User:Hafspajen (Result: 36 hours)

• Page: Paul the Apostle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: B88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sigh, what am I doing on this page two times in 24 hours... I can put my (non-existing) Doctoral hat on that this analysis is completely wrong. Hafspajen (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC) [65]

Would you please include some diffs, or even the page you're referring to? As it stands this is a malformed report. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is one, [66] it is Paul the Apostle. Hafspajen (talk) 02:34, 20 May 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.

There have been three reverts in total done by three different editors -- two one way, and one the other.

• Also, this is a seriously malformed report. Please use the form for these reports, that's why it's there. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the so called malformation, not used to report here. Drmies told me that it was three, not four so, I figured... He is a respected administrator, he should know. Hafspajen (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• If the first edit is a removal--but their first edit was the addition of that, ahem, information. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. Anyway, not a very polite editor. Hafspajen (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 02:16, 20 May 2014‎ B88(talk | contribs)‎ . . (121,833 bytes) (+2,702)‎ . .(I don't discuss with hypocrits) and 3.

(cur | prev) 02:05, 20 May 2014‎ B88(talk | contribs)‎ . . (120,935 bytes) (+1,804)‎ . . (undo | thank)this is 2

(cur | prev) 00:28, 20 May 2014‎ B88(talk | contribs)‎ . . (119,221 bytes) (+90)‎ . . (undo | thank) This was 1, I thought, readding someting removed, .

(cur | prev) 01:07, 19 May 2014‎ ༆(talk | contribs)‎ . . (119,131 bytes) (-90)‎ . .(Undid revision 608002981 by B88 (talk)) (undo | thank)

Now Drmies, is it 3 or 4? Hafspajen (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, now I see--and that's why it's important to follow the proper formatting of these reports. I hadn't seen that +90 edit: technically, I'd say, that puts them at three, yes. But you know what, this really needs Bbb23; I'd still let this go by. By the way, I warned them on their talk page for this edit warring and the OR/SYNTH. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Yes, that was no good report, I agree. Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen:It's neither 3 nor 4. Edit-warring is edit warring regardless of how many edits have been made, and can be as little as 1 or 2. More than 3 is what we call a bright-line rule, and is usually sufficient evidence that a war is occuring.

It looks to me like he added some content at 01:58, added more content at 02:09 (which may or may not be revert 1 depending on if he just added the same stuff or not), then reverted the 1st or 2nd time, depending on your count, at 02:16. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit -- @Drmies: I hadn't analyzed that thoroughly. The +90 was part of a string of edits by B88, and a string of edits is counted for 3RR as one edit. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it was my fault. Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, the +90 was putting back this, removed exactly the same content, here 00:28, +90 - string or not. That will be one edit, with all the edits after, yes. Than came the different 02:05, and later 02:16. So it is three alright. Hafspajen (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Jsharpminor, no problem. They just reverted again, and I blocked for 36 hours. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Man, now he is back with a new account... [67]. Five. Hafspajen (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

And he's been given a new block by Drmies. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

[68] Hate being right, seven or? Hafspajen (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

With the page now semiprotected so only auto-confirmed users can edit it, that should stop the rampant sockpuppetry. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Windersteinburg reported by User:Zmflavius (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Second Sino-Japanese War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Windersteinburg

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Sino-Japanese_War&diff=609328447&oldid=609323165

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:46, 20 May 2014 (add cause of war)
2. 01:04, 20 May 2014 (re-adds on Tunchow Mutiny)
3. 00:39, 20 May 2014 (no edit summary)
4. 23:32, 19 May 2014 (adds Tunchow Mutiny)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASecond_Sino-Japanese_War&diff=609309640&oldid=599655685

Comments: For some four reverts, Windersteinburg has persistently attempted to re-add material with a dubious source with relation to the Tungchow Mutiny to the Second Sino-Japanese War page, including extremely lurid, dubious, and undue degrees of detail, blatant POV pushing, and poor grammar. The added material also bears a strong resemblance to content which another user, Banzaiblitz, attempted to repeatedly add to the Tungchow Mutiny page, for which he was eventually banned for a combination of edit-warring and sockpuppeting (in fact, the "source" used is the same which he used), and who thereafter repeatedly engaged in sockpuppeting in relation to this topic. However, while the content is similar, the posting style of the two is fairly dissimilar. In any case, despite opposition by another editor wrt to further attempts to add this content (for the above stated reasons) on the talk page, Windersteinburg has continued to edit in this material without concern for the other editor's concerns.
Zmflavius (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

In the upper comment, User Zmflavius couldn't show the details of his expression "dubious". He repeatedly erase and rewrote my edit with such poor reason. ~~Windersteinburg~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windersteinburg (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Der Golem reported by User:Liongrande (Result: Both warned)

Page: Czechs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Der Golem (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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: # diff

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

Comments:
A month ago I requested User:Der Golem to be blocked. But User:EdJohnston merely locked the page for a month. Unfortunately, even after a month, he keeps vandalizing the page. I therefore request the vandal to be banned for a long period to stop him for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liongrande (talk • contribs) 10:21, 20 May 2014‎ (UTC)

I would like to add a note here to make the situation little more clear: the user Liongrande is categorically against inclusion of any sort of Jews in the article about the nation of Czechs. Have a nice day everyone.--Der Golem (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not categorically against anything, I'm just responding to your blatant vandalism and disrespect of community consensus.--Liongrande (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. The next person who reverts the article may be blocked. Liongrande gets special mention for reverting the article while his own 3RR report was open, and for using the term 'vandalism' incorrectly. See WP:Dispute resolution for the steps you can follow. I'm also notifying both parties under WP:ARBEE since this is a dispute about nationality in Eastern Europe. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Einsteinbomb reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]
5. [74]
6. [75]
7. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Massyparcer reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Rail usage statistics by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Massyparcer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:31, 19 May 2014 (unsourced/outdated material and original research cleaned up)
2. 14:41, 19 May 2014 (reverting unexplained revert)
3. 12:31, 20 May 2014 (I don't think you have looked through the sources when you wrote that message to me. They're dead and unverifiable, I have removed them as per violation of WP:Verifiability. The last list is a self-created list, significantly violating WP:OR.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:31, 20 May 2014

• Comment from uninvolved editor: The "diff of edit warring / 3rr warning" above is the AN3 notice. The original edit warring notice chronology follows (a cute little edit war in its own right):

1. 16:40, 19 May 2014 (+944) - Placed by ZH8000 (→‎Stop edit warring - Rail usage statistics by country: new section)
2. 06:05, 20 May 2014 (-942) - Removed by YJAX (Undid revision 609258317 by ZH8000 (talk))
3. 12:32, 20 May 2014 (+942) - replaced by ZH8000 (→‎Stop edit warring - Rail usage statistics by country: new section)
4. 12:34, 20 May 2014 (-942) - removed by Massyparcer (Undid revision 609374531 by ZH8000 (talk) please do not repeat the same message.)
5. 12:36, 20 May 2014 (+944) - replaced by ZH8000 (Reverted 1 edit by Massyparcer (talk) to last revision by ZH8000. (TW))
6. 12:40, 20 May 2014‎ (-942) - removed by Massyparcer (Again, would you stop starting an edit war on my talk page please?)
7. 13:38, 20 May 2014 (+3,451) - replaced and added to by ZH8000 (Talk, explain, prove your position!)
8. 14:10, 20 May 2014 (-4,949)- removed by Massyparcer (I have no interest in talking to you.)
9. 15:31, 20 May 2014 (+5,534) - replaced by ZH8000 and added AN:3 notice (Undid revision 609384629 by Massyparcer (talk) an3-notice)

Jsharpminor (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

His last comment was: "I have no interest in talking to you." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Massyparcer&diff=609384629&oldid=609383564

Comments from same uninvolved editor as above:

It seems to me to be very much worth noting that the last comment on the talk page is from 2011.

Edit summaries are no substitute for discussion.

Massyparcer is under no obligation whatsoever to keep any 3RR warning notices on his talk page.

Massyparcer's talk page is not the proper place to have this discussion; the article talk page is. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My view: It looks like Massyparcer is basically blanking and removing large sections of content with little to no explanation as to why. YJAX seems to agree with Massyparcer's action. Chronology is Massyparcer blanked, then ZH8000 reverted. Two additional reverts on each side brings both to 3RR. The fact that there's nothing on the talk page means both ought to have talked about it by now, so both are kind of at fault there. As for the revert war on Massyparcer's talk page... well, that's another story. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This was a tough one. I think Jsharpminor summed it up pretty well. The bold, revert, discuss methodology is a welcomed one. After the first revert an effort should have been made to resolve the dispute. Three back and forth edits occurred before any attempt to discuss the changes occurred, when ZH8000 added this message to Massyparcer's talk page. Massyparcer responded by blanking the notice, which as Jsharpminor mentioned, is perfectly acceptable. Massyparcer, instead of trying to follow up with a legitimate attempt to discuss the matter, again reverted ZH8000's changes. I agree with Jsharpminor that the article talk page is a more appropriate place to discuss an obvious dispute rather than to utilize the edit summaries and continue to undo others' changes. It is often difficult to find consensus with only two editors who are at odds. If you use the article talk page, other editors familiar with the subject can chime in to help build a consensus.

The revert war over at Massyparcer's talk page only further delineates the two parties' refusal to engage in a civil discussion with one another. I'll also note that Massyparcer's third revert at Rail usage statistics by country occurred almost exactly 24 hours after the first. I feel no leeway should be given here under the aforementioned circumstances. The three-revert rule is in place to prevent disruption and help reinstate the collegial spirit of the wiki. We are here to work collaboratively to build encyclopedia, not dismiss others viewpoints - regardless of how much you may think yours is correct. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)