Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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:Sasata reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

This user has been persistently, blindly reverting all my edits to this article for the past two days. As you can see he has already broken the 3RR for previous reversions, which I did not report. At this stage he is refusing to discuss anything on the talk page. This persistent and automatic reversion of every single edit I make, forcing me to spend days to add a simple tag to the article has made if effectively impossible to edit.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The tag appears to be incorrect Mark. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've protected for three days to allow discussion in talk. Hopefully that is all that is needed here. --John (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Artpop - volume 2 reported by User:IndianBio (Result: Warned)

Page

Beyoncé (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Artpop - volume 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC) to 17:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
   1. 17:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
   2. 17:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
   3. 17:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
   4. 17:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album)*/"
   5. 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album)*/"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• I had just warned this user about their potential edit-warring, especially after I opened a discussion in hopes of the user to involve themselves. However, it appears this user be have showing potential signs of *owning* the article to show their own point of view and may be considered for some kind of discipline. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. It's almost 24 hours since their last revert. If they continue to revert about hidden tracks, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:65.95.122.31 reported by User:Bill william compton (Result: )

Page

India–United Kingdom relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I would have discussed the matter on the talk page but this IP seems to have already made up their mind that "[E]nglish people do not want to accept their responsibilities [during the British Raj]". Their edits clearly violate neutral point of view policy. — Bill william compton^Talk 16:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I agree the edits are disruptive but speculation about the outcome of a discussion is no reason not to attempt it. Also, with your experience at Wikipedia, you would think that you would notice that your report here is malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking for any kind of action to be taken against the IP, but rather an involvement of other user who could help them understand. Maybe, I haven't chosen the right platform. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Aerecinski reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Warning, Semiprotection)

Page

Philippe II, Duke of Orléans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586128460 by FactStraight (talk) - Plse respect other editor's work and stop agression"
2. 22:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586097683 by Kansas Bear (talk) STOP contemptuous and antagonist reverting"
3. 10:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 585966731 by FactStraight (talk) -plse stop harassing revert"
4. 20:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 585820644 by FactStraight (talk) - stop harassing and senseless reverting - respect work of others"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[7]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is not stopping despite 3RR warning. Edit-warring against two editors. Possible use of IP socks as well: [8] Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I just gave them a 3RR warning (not relying on the one from more than a month ago). If anyone (Aerecinski or an IP) reverts the content back in I'd be willing to block for edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Thank you Callanecc. I just had an edit-conflict with you, as I was about to add that this edit-warring by the reported user has been going on for a long time: November 2013, July 2013 and extends to other articles as well: [9] including attacking edit-summaries: [10]. Overall not a pretty picture. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding here to the allegations that have just been brought to your attention about my violating the WP.3RRN. The problem revolves around the systematic deletion of a paragraph I wrote over a year ago as part of Philippe II duke of Orleans' article. FactStraight and his wiki friend Kansas Bear seem bent on entirely deleting my edit although this paragraph is well referenced and relies on serious historical sources.

There has been no attempt of any kind of dialogue by FactStraight who merely keep deleting the paragraph every other month or so as the editing history clearly shows. Over the past days the party seem decided to upscale the problem into a full scale editing war but again without any dialogue. Kansas Bear merely left an agressive warning on my talk page, while deleting an edit I left on his page last night through the agency of a sock puppet (editWarrior) who merely justified his deletion with insulting comments.

A "new" editor has just surfaced: Dr.K again deleting my contribution to Philippe's biography and leaving an agressive title to his editing which I ask you to consider removing. Actually I start to wonder if Kansas Bear and FactStraight are not the same person... I do not understand the rites of agression that seem to characterize this editor's attitude in this after all very minor matter : we are talking about a long dead figure of French history (17th-18th centuries). And the party doing the reporting is the one actually eager to escalate a minor difference of opinion concerning what should or should not be included in a dead person's biography into a full scale editing war. Aerecinski (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Aerecinski, you do realize that according to WP:BRD, if you add a paragraph and it gets removed, you may never re-add it until you have discussed and obtain new WP:CONSENSUS for it ... no matter how wonderful and sourced it might be? YOu have to discuss your reasons for adding it ... not the other way around ES&L 11:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Aerecinski is warned. If he reverts the article again to restore his material (before getting consensus) he may be blocked. It does appear that he is using the article on Philippe II as a WP:COATRACK to insert negative material about his daughter Marie Louise. The scandals about his daughter are already well-covered in our article on Marie Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans. Aerecinski has also been coatracking at Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine, our article on the grandmother of the unfortunate Marie Louise. To forestall more IP edits to insert Aerecinski's material I've semiprotected Philippe's article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Katcheic reported by User:Tco03displays (Result: Declined)

Page: Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Katcheic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Edit Differences

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: His whole talkwage is filled with warnings of various degrees and 2 bans.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office

Comments:

Please refer to the whole Talk:Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office to see warnings and attempts at discussion with user.

I can no longer deal with this user. For almost 2 weeks he constantly deletes my edits, and reverts my work. He does not engage in discussion. It has been stated by User:Callanecc that all changes in the article must be previously discussed due to edit wars. The user has received handful of warnings and 2 bans so far. After being unbanned he came right back to the page and removed material that stated opinions of known journalists, (well-referenced and used to achieve a NPOV, it had been discussed in the talkpage) and added new material with no discussion. This user ha been warned for weeks, he is the only editor causing trouble in the page, he clearly tries to promote a specific point of view (look at the discussion in the article talkpage as well as the warnings on his talkpage) and has also vandalized the page Murder of Pavlos Fyssas in the past to reduce the information in regards to the anti-Golden Dawn protests that took place after the murder, while he added biased and misrepresenting information based on unreliable sources on the reactions to the murders of the 2 Golden Dawn members; exaggerating the public response. The two events are interlinked in Greek politics. At the moment Golden Dawn is being prosecuted as a criminal organization in Greece, and what the user is doing is to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool to affect the views of non-Greek speaking readers on Golden Dawn. It is also interesting to note that we had agreed that the murders cannot be considered a terrorist attack, that the information on the executioners is disputed and controversial; and thus the article should not be merged with Terrorism in Greece, but the moment I added skeptical statements by known journalists in Greece in regards to the organization that claimed the attack, to balance the scale with the opinions of Golden Dawn (that the murderers were leftists) the user decided that it should be deleted without notice. I've been trying hard to reach a neutral point of view on this article and it is not difficult, if I did not have this editor constantly trying to propagate.

All of the editors and the admins have been very tolerant with this user and tried to find common ground. But there is no ground left. I follow Greek politics closely and I was very suspect of this article popping up because I was afraid pro-Golden Dawn people would pop up to attack Pavlos Fyssas' article, turn Wikipedia onto a political boxing arena and propagate against the Greek left and in favor of the far right. In my opinion there was enough toleration, too much to be honest. Wikipedia has no space for the slightest propaganda and intended misinformation,

Its not up to me to deal with this from now on, but I will suggest an indefinite ban on the user and semi-protection on the article from IPs and very new users. Do as you see fit.--Tco03displays (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Extra note: I follow politics in Greece, and I write and checkout mostly political articles on Cyprus and Greece. This is beyond a simple difference in opinion or perspective of editors (as it happens in Turkish vs. Greece articles like the Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus), but clear motives of propaganda and restriction of information. For example, after I reverted the user's vandalism in murder of Pavlos Fyssas, the user went on to translate content from the Greek article (as asked from the appropriate tag). But he translated ONLY information that indicated that the murder carried no political motives, which reduces Golden Dawn's responsibility and moves the article closer to Golden Dawn's statement that it was a murder based on a disagreement on football. Which is false, based on the evidence and the statement of the murderer and the eye-witnesses. It is a given at the moment that the murderer was a Golden Dawn member, and that he was called to go to the area with the purpose of killing a political opponent. The whole case has been incorporated into the accusation of Golden Dawn for being a criminal organization, and has been added to a long list of accusations on manslaughter, violence, future goals of the overthrow of the democratic constitution, with gigabites of data being included in the court case at the moment. I'm only stating all this to get you further to understand with what we are dealing here and what the user's edits eventually accomplish even if they are not fundamentally out of the rules. There is an agenda here, and a very dangerous one as well. Wikipedia might be an encyclopedia, it is also the world's largest free database. That is why it is useful for propaganda, and control of opinion, in this case, for affecting the views on non-Greek speaking readers, and this is why from the article's creation I still follow it closely and try to eradicate such elements from it. --Tco03displays (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Please Read: Since it came unfortunetly down to this, refer to User:Tco03displays reported by User:Katcheic (Result: ) underneath. --Tco03displays (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep goning on to attack on me while i'm acting and talk objectively about a simply wiki-policy, your political extreme left propaganda is confirmed --Katcheic (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand the neutral point of view. Thankfully admins understand it. Again, you accuse me of leftist propaganda, when I have provided no propaganda in Wikipedia, I have added only views on a controversy from both points of view on the debate by notable organizations and individuals, backed up by references, written in the appropriate style as explained by the neutrality policy. You went on to remove only statements from the one point of the controversy. Really, you are only exposing yourself every time you comment.--Tco03displays (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You are the only one seems to not understand the wiki-policies, except your propaganda.--Katcheic (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. User:Tco03displays uses the wikipedia as political podium evening to move toward specific political direction Violating the Rules of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. I have already informed the ensuing debate in. --Katcheic (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You have little understanding of the rules of Wikipedia. I have in no way compromised the neutral point of view. The section you copied from refers to the language, statements and expression of the article itself when it does not state the origin of the statements made. The Neutral Point of View policy states clearly that in the situation where a topic is controversial, Wikipedia does not take a stand but reports what has been said on the controversy by various individuals/organizations. I provided to you a link to the policy. Now, we both agreed on the issue of controversy on the proposal with merging the article with Terrorism in Greece. We both agreed that the merge should not happen because the attacker's motives and the attacker's identity is controversial. These are your words. When I added statements (clearly defining the individual/organization who made them) on the controversy, all backed up by reliable references, you came up and removed ONLY what indicated that Golden Dawn's view might be fault.

What I added was discussed on the talkpage but you did not engage in the discussion and as soon as your ban was removed you deleted what disliked you with NO attempt at discussing it in the talkpage. This is called edit warring, the reason you have already received 2 temporary bans. You removed the content without allowing anyone time to respond to your comment in the talkpage. You have thus 1) again compromised the neutrality of the article, and 2) promoted Golden Dawn's views by selectively removing only the points of view that contradict their view. For the record I added information from the police, Golden Dawn and 2 notable journalists, one of which has his own Wikipedia entry. I specifically asked in the talkpage for further help in adding MORE viewpoints to further improve neutrality. You have received warnings in the past over your insistence in promoting a particular viewpoint, and compromising the neutrality of the article again and again. I've made clear to you your mistakes again and again, I've provided links to policies, Wikipedia guides and even other talkpages of Wikipedia articles so you can see how we handle things and reach consensus and decisions over controversies. I do not think you've checked them out, if you have, you are ignoring them. It has been made clear from your edits on this article, from your attitude in the talkpages, from your conscious ignoring of warnings and advice from editors and admins; and from your vandalism in murder of Pavlos Fyssas that you are have as a motive the promotion of a particular point of view and the exclusion of other information that contradicts it.--Tco03displays (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ιt is clear that Wikipedia isn't a podium of opinions. That is the base issue which are active. The proclamation, of Golden Dawn is a legitimate reference that must be referenced, associated with the issue in a first instance as an answer. So you 're just invalidity in this point--Katcheic (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your obvious statement on Golden Dawn. I was the one who added Golden Dawn's response. You have again not understood what I said above, and have not responded to the agreement we reached that the topic is controversial. If it is, opinions must be balanced. All my additions are notable as well. I had found a number of responses from blogs and social media, but of course rejected them on grounds of notability and unreliably of sources. In addition,User:Callanecc clearly stated that changes in the article must be discussed in the talkpage. You did not do that, but continued your edit warring. Even now, you have removed the material again with no discussion and no actual response to my comments in the talkpage.--Tco03displays (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Υou edit warring I explained you the legality about the wiki policies for the neutral point, what is not understandable? We don't not make political propaganda. Is it what you want, Wikipedia is not a podium of opinions. --Katcheic (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You explained nothing. You posted a part of a policy on the talkpage you seem not to understand, and then you immediately went on to remove content without waiting for a response or allow enough time (a day for example) to pass so other editors can have time to comment. Now that I have responded, you keep on repeating yourself with little indication that you understand what neutrality really means on Wikipedia.

You had added a copyrighted photoshoped poster of Golden Dawn in the article (Link), with the Greek flag in the background connecting the two victims with the "nation" and the word "Heroes" under them promoting a subjective value judgment of them! I wasn't even the one who removed it. Other editors and admins have been notifying you and reverting your problematic edits for weeks. And you have the nerve to accuse me of propaganda for adding statements of 2 notable individuals on a controversial topic while I added statements by 2 institutions on the other side of the debase as well? Only the Gods of Wikipedia know what would had happened if we had left this article to your hands. Not to mention your total misrepresentation of sources ("worldwide reactions"), the fact that you had cited sources to text that did not contain any such information and your selective cherry-picking from sources. When me and other editors clearly explained to you that this kind of information cannot be tolerated, and will be removed because of your inability to cite correctly your statements with reliable references, you accused us of acting as in North Korea and that we are criticizing ideology and not the references as sources in relation to the text you've added. You also clearly expressed anti-leftist sentiment and pro-right wing sentiment, which would not matter at all in Wikipedia, had that not affected your edits and had you not accused me and other editors of being leftist totalitarians for following the Wikipedia policies on referencing. Since you decided to bring this here, this is beyond discussion between you and me dear editor, it is up to the admins which will see all this information and arguments and judge accordingly. --Tco03displays (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you don't understand the policies, by using the wiki as a podium for leftist (or other) opinions and it's also you that remove content or conflict edits without waiting for a response, allowing enough time. example Let the admins to judge it --Katcheic (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted, dear editor, your own removal of material, and contributed to the talkpage explaining AGAIN to you not to remove information without discussion. For the record, lets go over some rules:

• A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant. - Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression
• The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution. In-text attribution to sources should be used where reliable sources disagree, not where editors disagree. Note that citations are a different matter: adding a footnoted citation to a fact or an opinion is always good practice. The text in the article, however, should mention the source only if the matter being described is an opinion, not a fact - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balancing_aspects
• The great thing about NPOV is that you aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. Even in the most contentious debates, when scholars are trying to prove a point, they include counter-arguments, at the least so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail. - Wikipedia:ASF#Writing_for_the_opponent
• Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight - Wikipedia:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view
• Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion

I've told you before. You do not seem to have any idea what neutrality means on Wikipedia. You haven't bothered trying to learn, because I did provide you with links to the NPOV article. Yes, Wikipedia accepts opinions. It is fundamental in achieving NPOV. I have done nothing wrong, added no propaganda, and have reverted your own vandalism. --Tco03displays (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No response, no argument, and a childish personal attack on my ability to read English with no support of evidence for that? I'm certain you have a good case going on here. --Tco03displays (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Learn the english laguage first. You are exposing. The rules that you copied and set here to me, act against you. To the WP:NP please. Wikipedia is not a pedestal. Wikipedia is not podium speeches , battleground , or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to sections , categories, templates, talk pages , and user pages . Therefore , the content hosted Wikipedia is not: Propaganda , recruitment or defense of any kind , commercial , political , religious or other. Of course, a word can refer to such things objectively , as the attempt is made to describe the subject from a neutral point of view. The entries must be balanced in listings, particularly hot topics in a logical perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view). Wikipidia is not opinion pieces. see also:

WP:Notability-pedium --Katcheic (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Katcheic, Katcheic. I added information on a controversial topic (agreed on the talkpage). On the controversy, I added the Greek Police and the Golden Dawn statement by name on the one side of the argument, and then added two notable journalists on the other side of the argument, again; by name. The name indicates that it is an opinion. Stating opinions is part of Wikipedia (I'm surprised I even have to explain this, it is all over the Encyclopedia). The statements I wrote clearly expressed that it was the opinion of these actors. I posted in on the talkpage, and it was discussed, alterations were made because another editor was kind enough to notice mistakes. Then the information was posted on the page. I openly asked for help in adding further opinions, and in fact, I asked specifically for opinions that belonged to the side of Golden Dawn and the police to be further added by anyone interested (that it was a terrorist organization, in GD's case a leftist one). Read the the above. NPOV indicates: reporting all possible notable opinions on a subject matter, especially if it is controversial. Indicating by name that these are opinions. Trying to weight them accordingly (that is why I asked for further opinions to be included, especially on the side I saw lacking them). This is what means, describing a dispute, but not taking sides. You accuse me of propaganda. Having noted the opinions by name, and including opinions from both points of view, precisely means that I have not tried to propagate, but reach neutrality. Now, removing information from only one point of view, and insisting on it to the extend that you do, even after all this information I have added here, precisely indicates the promotion of one point of view only, and an intended biased article. You could have added more points of view, you however insist on removing existing ones. I simply am waiting for an admin to read all this we have been discussing, I am sure it will be interesting. --Tco03displays (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The answer is about exclusively party's official reaction (Golden Dawn) that involved in this case. We do not set other opinions to formulate a political opinion or a point of view, because wikipedia is not a podium for this. --Katcheic (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

See? You yourself say it. You want to exclude any other opinion but the party's. You then have just stated that you consciously want to restrict, control and remove any other opinion on the matter. From the link you sent me yourself:

• Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view--Tco03displays (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You sir, are breaking the rules knowingly (it has been indicated above that you've been on the NPOV page), wasting everyone's time and trying to promote only one point of view and censor other views.--Tco03displays (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• For the sake of the admins/editors viewing this, the following is the text that I had added and that has brought this havoc! The last paragrapgh, indicated by the bold letters starting it, is what Katcheic wants so much to remove:

On the 16th of November Zougla announced that an unknown person contacted the station informing them the area where an envelope which contained a USB stick was placed; and that the digital proclamation was stored on it. Zougla uploaded the proclamation online, in which a newly found organization, The Fighting People's Revolutionary Powers, claimed the responsibility for the attack. The anti-terrorist branch of the Greek police announced that it considered the digital proclamation as authentic and is investigating the case. Following the proclamation, Golden Dawn stated that "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left".

Other commentators took a skeptical stand towards the proclamation. Journalist Anta Psara questioned the authenticity and ideological honesty of the proclamation by stating that previous far left armed groups sent their proclamations to the least politically biased mass media or to online anti-authoritarian sites, while in this case the proclamation was sent to a site with right-wing sympathies. She further questioned the proclamation by stating that the material included was copied from online sources and past newspapers, and that throughout the declaration the organization fails to provide information on itself or information in relation to the planning of the attack; which would prove its relation to it. Journalist Kostas Vaxevanis made similar observations, commenting that the proclamation is structured very similarly to a journalist article, that ideological analysis is missing, that it is historically rare for an anti-regime organization to treat mildly the political parties of the left; and that the proclamation provides no evidence that its authors were the same people who executed the attack.--Tco03displays (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Be gentle with policy. Wiki as an opinion-podium is irrelevant. WP:Opinion podium --Katcheic (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no point discussing with you anymore. Now I am not to follow the policies because you interpreted a particular point in a way that makes all of Wikipedia's policies on opinion, dispute, NPOV and handling of controversies as irrelevant.--Tco03displays (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

To sum up. The controversy is the following, in Katcheic's words, taken straight out of the talkpage of the article in regards to the murderers: "Since nobody is not sure about this murder how are we going to characterize it as a terrorist attack? So we can not merge it at this. anywhere - not many users agreed --Katcheic (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)". When it came to actually describing this controversy, I added multiple notable opinions by name, which expressed contradictory views, in accordance with NPOV policy. Katcheic stated above that only one opinion is to be allowed on the article, and that is of Golden Dawn - all other opinions contradicting it were removed by Katcheic. Not only this is a violation of NPOV, it is also a clear and conscious attempt to make the article biased and censor views that do not attack the far left. This is Golden Dawn's statement, an opinion: "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left". It is clearly subjective, attacks Greek leftist politics and the International left, but that is ok, it is perfectly fine according to Katcheic, as long as no other views are expressed; which might actually challenge it. All this, on a subject deemed by the very same editor as controversial. The editor has accused other editors as leftists, including me, only because we followed the referencing and the NPOV rules, and has expressed favor of right-wing politics, especially in the talkpage of the article. I am thus more than justified in saying that Katcheic is knowingly trying to compromise the article's neutrality, turning it into a pro-Golden Dawn article by censoring other relevant views, and wants the article to semi-conclude that the murderers were far leftist terrorists, even though he himself acknowledged that this is indeed very controversial. The editor is violating fundamental rules again and again (NPOV), from the begging of the article's creation (as indicated above and in the article's talkpage) to promote a specific point of view, wasting everyone's time in the process, compromising Wikipedia's reliably, and thus knowingly affecting the reader's access to information outside of his own preferred point of view. I indicate this clearly: I could care less of Katcheic's political views. If he had added material on the page according to rules (something that took us a long time to convince him to do so, including warinings, removal of material and bans), we could have had some aspects of the article's subject added, while we filled in the rest. But Katcheic removes, censors and has now reported users who do not add material that fit his point of view. I rest my case. This is the only editor that holds the article back and acts against the rules. Please, someone sort this mess out. --Tco03displays (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news about current issues. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Wikipedia has many encyclopedic entries on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated recently with accurate information. Although current issues and politics can root about passions and entice people to support passionately visual angle, Wikipedia is not a means to it. The entries must be balanced in listings, particularly hot topics in a logical perspective, and represent a neutral point of view.

Αs we know some opinions of what you set, are from far leftists or caracterized by politically propaganda and could be used for recruitment or defense of any kind, commercial, political, religious or other. Although details about the personal lives and thoughts can occasionally provide important or relevant to the topic, most often the authors include it as shocking or amusing sentences, or why personally find the most interesting gossip from the real object of the article. We will not break the rules. --Katcheic (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Αs we know some opinions are far right or characterized by politically propaganda blablabla..." When are we removing the Golden Dawn quote? See, your logic is that simplistic and subjective. You decided that the far right is more reliable than the far left (and for the record you have still to prove that these individuals belong to the "far left", not that it even matters on Wikipedia anyway), you decided that Golden Dawn's insults to the left are more reliable than observations and comments of notable journalists, to the point that the whole neutrality of the subject you stated to be controversial, has to be compromised. And you call me the one who breaks rules. You think the question of the existence or not of a new organization in urban guerrilla terrorism in Greece is actually gossip? The statements I added were clear opinions to a controversial topic, not used as sources for stating facts in an article. You still fail to understand the basics. You think your opinion on the far-left matters? Do we have to go over this again? Your subjective opinion does not matter. Get over it. I'll leave you with a quote in relation to Wikipedia editing, from someone who I doubt you know of: "The real struggle is not between the right and the left but between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks". - Jimmy Wales--Tco03displays (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Watch out your speak behavior. To create overly abundant links and references to entries journalists is unacceptable. The entries must be balanced in listings, particularly strong topics in a logical perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. More over, the authors of Wikipedia should try to write entries that will not fall quickly into disuse. Wikipedia is not a podium speeches, battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising of journalism/jornalists. It applys to sections, talk pages, templates and user pages. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Read also carefully WI:NO --Katcheic (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"To create overly abundant links and references" - where are the abundant references? I fail to see them. I have only used 2 and I have used no links. The WI:NO clearly states in the first paragraph that "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article". This, my dear editor, refers to the decision of creating or maintaining an article, and by no means excludes notable journalists' opinions, or the far left, or any other notable source of opinion for that matter; from being included in a controversial and disputed topic. Further on, "represent a neutral point of view" means precisely all the jargon of information I've been posting here. No matter how much you copy-paste from other Wikipedia policy pages, you won't be able to undermine the NPOV policy, nor your statement that your intentions are to censor information. That's because you are simply wrong on this; and what you are doing right now is trying to twist Wikipedia policies to support your claims. It won't work. It can't. The people viewing this play the Wikipedia rules in their hands. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Watch out your speak behavior." - Don't misunderstand, I tried to make clear to you through Jimmy Wales's quote the insignificance of political ideology in the logic of Wikipedia. The intention was not to insult you, had I wanted to I would had done so, and it would had gotten us nowhere. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has clear rules whatever across the spectrum and on this issue you're wrong. Υοu are not refuted any argument that I set you but you continue to see the case/article from the perspective of journalists and this is a mistake. Onother one I remind you that Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news about current issues and everyone know this. --Katcheic (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not. You took your information from "What Wikipedia is not". You again neglected the paragraph which sets out the context of the rule, and it is this "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The whole argument relates to the creation and maintenance of the article itself and not for what is allowed to be included in a controversial/disputed topic under NPOV. I do not see the article in "view of journalists" - or maybe all the information I have added and you decided to keep is the "view of journalists" too? You clearly lack any understanding in the distinction between primary source and opinion piece, especially in the context we are discussing. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, we've been going on for hours, I'm out for now. Post your reply if you want to, add your arguments and information, and let us let it be until the admins come and sort out the dispute. I think there's more than enough discussion above for them to reach a conclusion and decide. You and I can decide nothing and let's be honest, we are not reaching a consensus and we keep repeating ourselves. Adios for now; Katcheic.--Tco03displays (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jornalism/Jornalists incorporate-encloses in defending or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious or other advertising beyond the objectivity of the article, through the pedestal of the wikipedia. So the common conclusion is that it is arbitrary the reference on their ideas and beliefs. --Katcheic (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. If you folk think that any administrator wants to read this wall of text, you're mistaken. Sepaking for myself, I don't. This discussion should be taking place on the article talk page, not on this board. There haven't been that many reverts lately by either of you, so keep talking ... elsewhere. If you can't resolve your differences, use dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Born on Setons reported by User:Oosh (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Born on Setons (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. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]

Comments:
Pretty sure the this user is behind the IP reverts linked.

• Page protected. Semi-protected for three days by Acalamari.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: )

Page: Queen of Sheba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:يوسف حسين (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is discussed at Talk:Queen_of_Sheba#deliberately misleading

Comments:
Open and shut case, That user reverted identically four times in a short period of time, against the other editors, continuing after being warned at 3RR. That user is also known as User:Kendite, but no real abuse of the multiple accounts. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Jahbulon-13 reported by User:WegianWarrior (Result: Blocked)

Page: Royal National Lifeboat Institution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jahbulon-13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Royal_National_Lifeboat_Institution#Freemasonry

Comments:
Keeps reverting to material that bumps against WP:BLP and fails WP:RS. Similar behaviour in other articles as well, but not broken 3RR on those so far. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

All I have done is state a fact that is difficult to dispute: Martin Short did make that allegation and he did publish it, as the RNLI article says.Jahbulon-13 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for breaching WP:3RR at Royal National Lifeboat Institution and edit warring in other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Declined)

Page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Werieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Werieth (talk · contribs) has been accused of being a sock of banned user Betacommand (talk · contribs) on behavioural issues. They were recently blocked here at WP:ANEW for Beta-like edit-warring over an NFC enforcement issue (pretty much the only editing either of them ever did). An SPI has been opened at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand.

This SPI has progressed slowly. CU has been refused as "too stale". Diffs were reasonably requested, to address the behavioural issue. These have been provided. Werieth has now 4RR removed these diffs, from an SPI in which he is the chief suspect. Despite being 3RR banned just last week, Werieth still clearly believes that 3RR doesn't apply to him, as he has right on his side ^(tm).

One complexity is the origin of these diffs. It has been alleged that they were posted by a banned user, by a user discovered by checkuser to be a sock of a blocked user, and probably by an editor guilty of insufficiently enthusiastic applause during the recent Arbcom elections. These are untrue: I posted these diffs, under my own name. I am an editor of some history and I believe in good standing within the community, and also the instigator of the SPI.

As I have always made clear, I was supplied with these diffs via my talk: by another editor (not currently having the spare time to do such legwork myself). This editor is a new account with a substantial knowledge of WP practice. As such, they are generally assumed to be a sock. However AGF still applies, as does the greater good of exposing what I believe to be a major and harmful socking by Betacommand. I can certainly understand why any editor wishing to invoke the ire of Betacommand (if you're unfamiliar, it's a nasty history) might wish to do this from behind the shield of an anonymised account! More to the point, we have no idea who else is behind this user:Arnhem 96 account, and what their standing is otherwise. It is quite wrong to assume (on zero evidence) that anyone acting against Betacommand (who is thoroughly banned) must also themselves be subject to a ban.

3RR is, per our policy, wrong and unacceptable. Werieth appears to have almost free rein to ignore this though, having many breaches of it to their name (18RR?!). 4RR in such a clear case of self-involvement as an SPI against the warring editor is certainly not acceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Werieth might not be right on many of his 3RR violations, but he's bang on the policy on this one. Andy, you were previously warned by an administrator [36] to cease proxying for a blocked/banned editor. Which part of this is the bit that you don't understand? Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to note for the passing reader just how much involvement you have with the defence of Betacommand's socking? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, nice, accusations with no evidence whatsoever. Do carry on with that one, won't you? The Arnhem 96 account is blocked, regardless of who is behind it. You are proxying for a blocked account. QED. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yet more harassment by Andy Dingley. Werieth (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

So yet again, 4RR is just not applicable to Werieth? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:3RRNO, case 3. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Rqasd reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: Warned)

Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rqasd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]

Comments:
1RR violation. See Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not certain this editor, whose English is very poor, actually understands Wikipedia guidelines or the admonishments I have given now multiple times to avoid this repeated-revert behavior. That's not an excuse, obviously... -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Warned User warned regarding Syrian Civil War general sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Toccata quarta reported by User:107.214.30.15 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Deborah Voigt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toccata quarta (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] (I also tried to compromise by adding several reliable sources, per WP:PEA, and still the user ignored the guideline and reverted, removing those reliable sources)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:

In addition to edit warring, User:Toccata quarta has also removed several reliable sources because they do not conform to his/her POV. S/he has also ignored WP:PEA, the very guideline s/he relies upon: which requires only that you "use facts and attribution to demonstrate (that) importance." All because this user objects to a single word - "legendary" - which, in this case, is supported by several notable and reliable sources - like the official, government-sponsored, National Endowment for the Arts website; the Bangor Daily News; the Baltimore Sun; and the Metropolitan Opera, among several other less notable links I could have added, like: here, here, here, here and even the Wikimedia Commons among so many others. But despite all this, and even after I've conformed to the requirements of the [[MOS:]] guideline, the user still insists on continuing to edit war and remove reliable sources. This, in addition to being disruptive, uncivil and non-collaborative. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Oldhand 12 reported by User:Jack Greenmaven (Result: )

Page

Great Chinese Famine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Oldhand 12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Several editors are now attempting to discuss this editors reverts. He is making large changes to statistics and expressing unverified opinions about the actions of Western nations in the famine. Greenmaven (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:108.70.59.213 (Result: Nothing to see here)

Page:  
User being reported: https://twitter.com/Meepsheepy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9zFpuxRvjwwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_Shopper+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Notice it's being pulled from Google's cache.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

This type of content is very offensive and irrelevant to the title/content of the original atricle.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please link to actual Wikipedia pages, not mirrors hosted by other websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:TheFallenCrowd reported by User:HelenOnline (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15 December
2. 15 December
3. 15 December
4. 15 December
5. 15 December
6. 15 December

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:
TheFallenCrowd has repeatedly ignored consensus regarding the placement and prominence of information related to Mandela's Communist Party membership, accusing others who reverts their edits of "political censorship" and "vandalism". HelenOnline 07:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

HelenOnline has, contrary to Wiki guidelines, taken it upon him/herself to arbitrarily remove referenced sections concerning Nelson Mandela's membership of the South African Communist Party. These referenced sources are: (1) Nelson Mandela's autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom; (2) the December 2013 edition of the Journal of the South African Communist Party, Umsebenzi, and (3) South Africa's largest business daily newspaper, the Business Day in Johannesburg.

The topic of Mandela's Communist Party membership has been the topic of major news source coverage for a number of years, and the new information confirming his Central Committee membership of the South African Communist Party is of great historical significance.

HelenOnline's continual censoring of the new developments shows obvious politically-motivated bias and should not be tolerated.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And how is your edit-warring justifiable as per WP:EW or WP:3RR? Even if you're right, it's not an excuse. We have WP:DR for a reason ES&L 15:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As discussed on the article talk page, I and several others (NeilN, Midnightblueowl, AndyTheGrump) have not removed this information but kept it in the relevant section supported by consensus instead of making a newspaper headline out of it. I was actually the first editor to add the recent confirmation of this information. Please stop repeating your lies and personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you. HelenOnline 16:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As a major contributor to the Nelson Mandela article, and one of the two users responsible for bringing the article to GA status earlier this year, I can confirm that HelenOnline's assessment of the situation is correct, and that TheFallenCrowd has repeatedly behaved in a manner that requires disciplinary action. They have repeatedly removed referenced information on Mandela's Communist Party membership from the relevent sections and insisted on piling it all together in a newly created, and poorly authored section at the end of the article that comprises largely of quotes from other sources. They have no consensus for this, and have repeatedly resorted to wild, erroneous accusations against respected editors who have tried to revert their actions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that 's claim that "the new information confirming his Central Committee membership of the South African Communist Party is of great historical significance" is entirely unsupported by evidence. Unsurprisingly, given that it is hardly 'news' that at the time of the trial, Mandela had at least close links with the SACP. If the latest 'news' (sourced to the SACP, which has its own reasons for wishing to associate itself with Mandela) is 'historically significant', we should wait until historians tell us so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MythoEditor reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page

Ashok Sundari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 11:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC) to 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
   1. 11:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586315976 by GB fan (talk) As already said sources used here are not reliable and not academic sources."
   2. 11:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Significance */"
   3. 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "As already none of the sources used in the article were reliable sources and they were also not academic sources."
2. 09:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "We do not describe a tv series as successful. It is a praise and praise words should not be used on Wikipedia. Also I am going to propose this article for deletion and request the administrators to review this article for deletion."
3. 06:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586301065 by Redtigerxyz (talk) It's actually just an opinion. Opinions cannot be regarded as sources let alone be RS."
4. 06:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586300172 by Redtigerxyz (talk) Sorry but according to WP:RS only academic sources like books can be used as source for articles about mythology."
5. Consecutive edits made from 04:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC) to 04:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
   1. 04:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "Removing unreliable sources. Padma Purana is actually a main scripture. Also Nahusha married Viraja daughter of Pitrs not daughter of Shiva."
   2. 04:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ashok Sundari. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:DMB112 reported by User:Ryulong (Result: )

Page

Big 12 Conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DMB112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586354947 by Ryulong (talk)"
2. 16:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586357032 by Ryulong (talk)"
3. 16:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586357441 by Ryulong (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "/* December 2013 */"
2. 16:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "/* December 2013 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Inclusion of "Schools ranked by academic measures" sections within Conference articles
• User talk:DMB112#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Comments:

DMB112 has added massive tables to all NCAA Division I conference articles despite a consensus against him at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Inclusion of "Schools ranked by academic measures" sections within Conference articles but this is clearly a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on and he refuses to let the sections be removed. —Ryulong (琉竜) 16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have argued my point, through and through. Other members of the community have stopped arguing. Ryulong insist on reverting my edits. On the talk page, you will find a great deal of compromise. The tables add important information for the reader about member universities of the conference. Ryulong is being quite aggressive. I am currently creating a separate article for academics of all institutions, an the tables will be the only notion on the main articles. I will add a "main article" tab above the table in due time. DMB112 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your statement that "other members of the community have stopped arguing" is the exact definition of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is no compromise on the talk page. It is just massive amounts of essays from DMB112 and voices of opposition from several other editors who say that the academic measures of a school have nothing to do with the athletics teams.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that edit warring has also taken place at Big Ten Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Pacific-12 Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring has also taken place at Southeastern Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DMB112 communicates but continues to revert on these other pages because I did not use them as the examples in this report, which is even more disruptive.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have self reverted on the three most active pages but I doubt that will be of much help to my case.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:DMB112 (Result: )

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

1. 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586354947 by Ryulong (talk)"
2. 16:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586357032 by Ryulong (talk)"
3. 16:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586357441 by Ryulong (talk)"

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "/* December 2013 */"
2. 16:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC) "/* December 2013 */"

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Section_break

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

Comments:

I'm sorry if this report is broken. I am not sure on how to report this user. DMB112 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)