Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive184

User:El duderino reported by User:Kelly (Result: No action)

Page: Seamus (dog) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 16:52, 22 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 488667342 by Kelly (talk) no way, this has nothing to do with Seamus")
2. 19:08, 23 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* External links */ Undid 2 revisions by User:Arzel -- restoring 2 ext. links removed (again) without consensus")
3. 21:15, 23 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 488867868 by Kelly (talk) again, no consensus for this removal")
4. 03:21, 24 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 488888304 by Arzel (talk) it's not a violation. need consensus for your interpretation")

• Diff of warning: here

—Kelly ^hi! 03:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that User:Kelly did not notify me that she filed this report. Also, she and User:Arzel are removing content against consensus. But most importantly, there is no 3RR violation. This frivolous report is an obvious attempt to weaken someone whom she considers an ideological opponent at the article. El duderino ^(abides) 04:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have asked User:El duderino to agree to wait for consensus before adding his link again. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I will stop trying to add it in the current context (Wp:EL). For the record though I think there are more editors supporting it's inclusion, judging from edit history and talkpage discussion. It's clear that Kelly and Arzel are there to slowly break down the article -- see two related ANI threads for more info. For example, I offered a compromise of working it into the article text, as it is at the Romney 2012 campaign, but neither of them chose to even discuss that option. El duderino ^(abides) 21:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Closed with no action, keeping in mind El duderino's agreement to wait for consensus regarding the link. The editors can always open an WP:RFC to get more opinions on the value of the link. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Stoopsklan reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Christopher Walken/Archives/2012#Natalie Wood

Comments:
Continued edit warring despite requests to discuss the material being inserted. - SudoGhost 23:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I did head warning and was clearly not edit warring. As you can see in said article it's been appropriately resolved. I do apologize to SudoGhost for the inconvenience and assure you it will never happen again! Stoopsklan (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been resolved in any way, you inserted the same material with the same undue reference multiple times, without any discussion. This is the very definition of edit warring. - SudoGhost 00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The page has been protected, and there is a discussion at the article's talk page, so I don't think anything is required here, but instead of removing the report outright I'll leave that to the judgement of an administrator. - SudoGhost 04:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Page protected - For three days, by another admin. Use this time to try to reach consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:JTBX (Result: Protected)

Page: The Godfather (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is way too long for anormal complaint, so let me know if there is anywhere relevant I should go to post, or if you prefer as you are busy to let people like this get away freely.

Collapsed for brevity EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have now edited my complaint to a short version, I have added an addendum of a longer version if you are interested in the details: I realised The Godfather needed to be improved for details and chronological flow was missing. Ring-Cinema had also been editing it for some time. My plot draft included more words, but even though later I trimmed plot to 700 to better reflect WP:PLOT, changes were reverted with absolutely no good reason. Previous version reverted to: [7] Version before I officially began improving plot to better reflect film after watching it recently. 1st revert: [8] Complete revert of my work, I reverted it back here [9] and told him to discuss on talk page. 2nd revert: [10] reverts back immediately rather than going to talk page and tells me to bring draft to talk page and discuss. His double standards only begin here. I bring draft to talk page, he replaces it with article version. After wards I manage to make a copy on the talk page and edit improvements from there with another User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, making us 3 editors. As you can see from the editing history, he is clearly going for brevity rather than anything else, even sacrificing an improved plot. AT this point anyway, because as mentioned much later I cut it down to a lower word count than the current version and he still wouldn't accept.Note the talk page history [11], by 11:56, 19 April 2012‎. 3rd revert: [12] and proceeds to make his tiny changes, none of these are improvements. After confronting him on the talk page, the fact that the plot was more improved, concise yet included all details with flow, I added it again in the article this time, using this description for my edit, as the plot and edit actually conformed to this description [13] Well well well: 4th revert: [14] Again, rejected by whom? him of course. It appears he is violating WP:OWN, WP:EW, WP:DE and TE, possibly WP:SPA (his name). If that does not seal the deal, notice how I have not placed a warning on his page. Because he has already received not only warnings, but a one week block for the same activity some time ago. Carefully read through his talk and archives here and here as well as his block log. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Links provided above and below. Detailed version (Read if extra details necessary) Initially I began editing the article plot for brevity, but after watching the film recently a week ago, I realised it needed to be improved for details and chronological flow was missing. Ring-Cinema had also been editing it for some time. I would advise to open links one at a time to avoid confusion. My plot draft included more words, but as you will see later, even though I trimmed plot to 700 to better reflect WP:PLOT, changes were reverted with absolutely no good reason. 1st revert: [15] Complete revert of my work, I reverted it back here [16] and told him to discuss on talk page. 2nd revert: [17] reverts back immediately rather than going to talk page and tells me to bring draft to talk page and discuss. His double standards only begin here. As you can see from the editing history, he is clearly going for brevity rather than anything else, even sacrificing an improved plot. AT this point anyway, because as mentioned much later I cut it down to a lower word count than the current version and he still wouldn't accept. Anyway, at the time I discuss at the talk page citing Inception and Mulholland Drive as having longer than 700 words due to editor consensus but improved plots as a result. Note the first paragraph of Inception, which introduces concepts in the film. Following this model I placed the draft on the talk page introducing characters in the first paragraph to get the confusion out of the way. I admit I do not leave edit summaries due to rush of editing. Note the talk page history [18], by 11:56, 19 April 2012‎. At this time User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, another established editor of this article, joins and help me edit the draft, as well accepting the task I have placed forth. Him and I edit together, but see this [19] Ring replaces mine and Gareth's plot on the talk page with the exact copy of the article plot. Calling it "the best current draft". I confront him over this as you can see on the talk page several times [20]. To avoid conflict, I placed two drafts on the page, mine and Gareth’s collaboration, and the version he wishes. [21]. However, I later merged them incorporating the changes he wanted, and miraculously, making it 700 words rather than 750ish which it was. The plot now has the correct year (1945) when the story begins, and all characters etc. [22] [23]. I and Gareth discuss repeatedly on our talk pages, which you can see. User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones User talk:JTBX Now look at this ridiculous nonsense. [24] He states "other editors" but which, the only editors editing the plot are me Gareth and him, and if taken into account how regularly then only me and Gareth. If a consensus means anything on Wikipedia, 2 vs 1 pretty much seals it, plus the fact I incorporated his changes. When the plot was above 750 words, he had at least one leg to stand on, but now he has no reason at all and this reply was unwarranted. [25], I had not only incorporated improvements, but made the plot 700 words. [26], check it out, even though he originally wanted "brevity" he accuses me of leaving out information (specifically that Vito wanted better of Michael rather than join the Mafia) I deem superficial, even though (here's the kicker), that information was already in my plot, but better placed on a later paragraph, when it happens in the film. He obviously has not been reading my plot all this time, and has been caught with his pants down playing his usual semantics game. Either that or (jokes) English isn't his first language. And the fact that he kept the article stating the plot begins in 1946, when it is an obvious fact the plot of Godfather begins in 1945 and Gareth backed me up on this [27]. Seeing a practical go ahead from Gareth, who stated that he agreed and liked our version better (again read all of this), [28] I added it to the article. But of course: 3rd revert: [29] and proceeds to make his tiny changes, none of these are improvements. After confronting him on the talk page, the fact that the plot was more improved, concise yet included all details with flow, I added it again in the article this time as a test to see if he would revert it again, using this description for my edit, as the plot and edit actually conformed to that description [30] Well well well: 4th revert: [31] Again, rejected by whom? him of course. Gareth does not want to have a conflict and has edited the article going along with Ring since, but I have abstained until this is finalised. I wish for a temporary block because I simply cannot edit the plot without him reverting it. Comments: As a side note, If any of you have watched Godfather, please read the plot in the article, and the plot on the talk page. You make up your mind which is better and which has the larger word count. I sincerely do not know what he wants or wishes to prove with this, but is an obstacle to any improvement of a quality plot for the article. --JTBX (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC) JTBX has made suggestions for the plot summary. I have agreed with some and not agreed with others. I incorporated many of his suggestions and proposed areas where we are in agreement and further changes would seem productive. Gareth and I have a good relationship with plenty of give and take and there is nothing false about our collaboration as he has suggested. On Gareth's talk page, he tells JTBX that he "thought you [JTBX] were going to wait until you had some response to your posting on the article's Talk page. Then I found my friend User:Ring Cinema was on the case. I am sure we three can work well together. Cheers, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)" JTBX has been invited to contribute on the talk page of the article and his concerns have been addressed. For example, he thought that the city of New York should be mentioned in the plot summary; I agreed and found a very smart place to include it. He thought last week that we should include information about the years of the action of the film but there was information from Gareth that JTBX's information was inaccurate; only today we have cleared that up. There are many details but I won't waste time with that tedium. What is happening is that we are engaging in the give and take of trying to find ways to change the article for the better. As it happens, my recent changes are as often as not an effort to incorporate his suggestions into the plot summary. Sometimes he takes my suggestions, sometimes he doesn't. I think that is a normal way to collaborate. If he wants to discuss on the talk page, he will find that there will be views exchanged and he will be heard. That's how it should be and that's how it is with me. If he is upset that not all of his ideas were endorsed by others, I think he has an unreasonable expectation. As I mentioned to him already, I think he has good ideas and I am happy about his contributions. I'm not happy about this action, but nobody's perfect. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC) You can dress it up that way if you like, but written words and actions are totally different things. Do not fall for this nonsense, he writes well and so on to give this image, but his block log and interaction with others as can be seen by this page, is another thing. If I improved the plot, both by shortening the word count and by incorporating extra details, you have no right to revert without good reason (which as I stress, you have not, only that YOU don't accept it). The plot of my draft is 700 words, the plot in the article as a result of conservative reverts to keep that way on your part, again I stress for no reason, is 750 words and is a mess flow wise. Gareth can be thrown about between us and you must be cackling but I feel bad because he and I only want to improve it but you want ownership. I have been through many reverts for plot articles time and time again all provided with good reason from editors for me to accept, yours, frankly does not. It should be considered why I would take time to even bring up and write this complaint. A permanent block would be necessary, a temporary block would be fine though as you have experience of that. JTBX (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC) You are complaining because you don't like my edits, even though I have accepted many of your suggestions. Each time I reverted you, I immediately returned to adopt as much of your language as I agreed with. Then I found other places to put in the material that I agreed with you should be incorporated. I think you should have mentioned that in your complaint. So that is how the give and take works. You proposed many changes, I accepted some. I proposed a change that I think you accepted, too. That's how it goes. I agreed with you that we should take up the matter of Michael's transformation. Instead, you just returned everything to your previous proposal. And I asked you again to work with the other editors. But if you think that means all your proposals will be accepted, that is not a reasonable expectation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC) (Laughter) Really? "You are complaining because you don't like my edits, even though I have accepted many of your suggestions." Let me just say, you cannot actually believe that. A total falsehood. It's the other way around, I incorporated your suggestions into the draft plot as a result of compromise and cut down the words, it is you who keeps reverting it and placing very very tiny changes. You in fact, did not add most of the changes I asked for, but thats the point, I shouldn't have to ask you. You do not own the article. And as faras changes ago you didn't introduce anything to the plot at all. You simply revert and (maybe) add in something I have suggested. But you don't own it, again I stress. Just look at what he wrote above, here's the quote : "For example, he thought that the city of New York should be mentioned in the plot summary; I agreed and found a very smart place to include it." So I have to ask permission from him? He owns the article, my improvement must be reverted wholesale and put back in later by him? "He thought last week that we should include information about the years of the action of the film but there was information from Gareth that JTBX's information was inaccurate; only today we have cleared that up." Correction, it took over two days to "clear up", it was hardly a clear up because as you are too scared to mention, I was right the first time and Gareth backed me up, when Gareth it states in the novel the year is 1945, you tried to weasel your way out of it (read Godfather talk page). Two editors (me and Gareth) with correct information shouldn't have to wait two days for you to "approve", but then of course, to revert once we add it. You do not leave messages on the talk page regarding your edits, once we edit, you should coem to the talk page and discuss it, but the fact is me and Gareth agreed to that plot and added it, you don't but you simply revert. "There are many details but I won't waste time with that tedium. " Exactly. You are the only editor I have come across, and many others I presume have come across looking at your behaviour for over 3 years, to be this adamant and to flagrantly violate all the relevant policies. Again, you are warring and your reverts are not justified. You do this on purpose to annoy people for no reason. No reason. End of story. Block. JTBX (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC) You are accusing me of bad faith; that's over the line. At the risk of repeating myself, when I reverted you I then went back and included as many of your suggestions as I agreed with. Then I invited you to discuss it, which is normal behavior. Yes, I then followed up with some small changes because, as I mentioned to you, it is better to make small changes and see if they are accepted. This is a good practice for Wikipedia. Your words suggest that you think you have carte blanche to change the article; on the contrary, other editors have a say about your edits. That is why you were asked to work with us by both me and Gareth, consistent with policy. Everyone is edited on Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC) (I should mention that your recounting of the 1945/46 dispute is inaccurate. I don't know why you deny it, but it was unclear which date was correct until today. Yes, you said 45, I pointed out to you that Gareth said 46 and today Gareth confirmed that you were right. So what is your problem there?) --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC) You reverted me multiple times, as I have proven here, even when I improved the article. I edited with consensus from Gareth, but we had to wait for you because we knew you wouldn't accept in light of your recent reverts. Bad faith is a light way of putting it, but its rich that you would say I was accusing you of it. It is only me, you and Gareth actively editing the plot. The small changes you placed are void, because 1. They consist of slight trimmings of a 750 plot, even though my plot was 700 words which you keep reverting. 2. The details you did add were put forth by me and Gareth after literally arguing over it with you and after you revert my edits, so in affect what we have is you reverting my edits, then taking the ideas that do sit with you and adding it to the plot, though not accomplishing anything because the plot I have put forth adds missing details, chronologically flows and is 700 words. What more could you ask for. But you don't ask for anything, just keep reverting solely by yourself. Gareth is a neutral party who does not want you to be blocked because he's just too nice. But that doesn't matter, fairness and upholding Wikipedia policy matters. You are being unfair, and an obstacle to improving the article for yourr own ego. But you've heard this a thousand times before, because of numerous blocks and confrontations with adminstrators dating back 2009. Some people never learn. "I should mention that your recounting of the 1945/46 dispute is inaccurate. I don't know why you deny it, but it was unclear which date was correct until today. Yes, you said 45, I pointed out to you that Gareth said 46 and today Gareth confirmed that you were right. So what is your problem there?" It was clear the date was 1945 from the beginning, from factual internet searches, the novel plot and the introduction to the article itself (impossible to ignore unless you are a troll such as yourself). Gareth watched the VHS he has and proved me correct then days later backed it up with the novel. But you still didnt accept (see talk page) until now. Through persistence. Nice try but if anyone is reading this with open eyes they can see through your falsifications. Again I do not have time to waste with this clear troll who has been pushed into a corner with two templates here calling for his block. End his ridiculous charade so that real editors can get to work instead of wasting our precious time. JTBX (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC) This is a good example of the problem. The novel is not a source for the plot summary of the movie, but you don't know that. To know the year the film starts, the film must be consulted, in case they changed it from the novel. Gareth did that today or yesterday. So now we know. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC) So when Gareth consults the film/novel its some how acceptable (because you want to have good relations with him to use him), but when I, for over a week, have been stressing the same thing with many other improvements (that Gareth has helped me with because clearly you do not know what consensus means as you have demonstrated so elementarily here haha), it is not. Again, nice try. Keep digging your own grave. This won't end the way you would like. JTBX (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

break

• Comment: Please see WP:TL;DR "distill your thoughts into bite size pieces." And anyway I'm not sure this is the right venue, as EdJ said elsewhere. Full disclosure: I've had similar argument with User:Ring Cinema at another film article (No Country for Old Men) and I reported him to 3RRNB above (he clearly violated 3RR but it was deemed "Stale"[32]), so I generally agree with JBTX -- but J, I think you're spinning your wheels here trying to reason with him, and possibly hurting your case. If you want others to weigh in, don't continue the dispute here. If his current reverting is actionable, someone will step in. If not, other WP:DR steps are still open as I suggested on my talkpage. El duderino ^(abides) 04:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Page protected - Three days. I have resisted the temptation to block JTBX for personal attacks at this noticeboard. Both parties are well advised to ask the opinion of User:Gareth Griffith-Jones on any further changes they want to make, since he seems neutral and is willing to help. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. On balance, it's a fair decision. Thanks for your time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia dispute resolution methodology: TLDR any complaints, but if I happen to come across something that looks like a personal attack from the person being reverted by a disruptive editor they get blocked? Okay. Well I do not know what to say to that. Right now I am questioning what happens next after the 3 day protection. Isn't it better just to get rid of this claim and start afresh? I can make it concise if that is what everyone is after. Oh and elduderino, I did not start this cycle of abuse of the claim page, Ring-Cinema began commenting first and it warranted a reply. Other wise, which is what he wanted, adminstrators (who cannot read the whole claim TLDR) would have just picked up the manipulations he wrote as a justification for his actions and rendered it stale as happened to you. JTBX (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

EdJohnston advised both me and JTBX to "ask the opinion of User:Gareth Griffith-Jones on any further changes they want to make" (see previous paragraph). Since that time, JTBX has made at least two edits on the page in question without consulting Gareth. I suggested that the three of us proceed on the basis of unanimity for the time being and there was no objection to that proposal. However, Here and here, JTBX has made changes to the article without consulting and without consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I originally thought of engaging Gareth but as you can see on his messages to Ring-Cinema he has other plans, trying to court me along falsely so that they can continue editing the article as if they own it. Besides it was a suggestion and not written in stone. I have been busy but will open a RFc as that was the original plan. Ring's so called violations of mine are a joke. Look at the history, a user called Chaheel edited an improvement to the plot, cutting out two unnecessary words which I already had cut out in my plot draft I had put forward. But if I had put those improvements forward, I would have been reverted, (which actually heppened by Gareth), the acting neutral editor but in reality colluding with Ring to violate WP:PLOT and policy. Meat-puppetry?

If that isn't enough, Ring took the issue to the Adminstrators noticeboard wrongly, but admin Captain Screebo noticed he was a known edit warrior by looking through his history. We have already discussed it at Dennis's page, who noticed the same thing. Despite all of this, I still wanted to remain friendly with Gareth and reached out to him on his talk page, after editing The Godfather Part II, the second film, which had a plot of over 2,000 words. I cut it down after a lot of effort to about 1,200, but Gareth reverted my changes as unacceptable. Okay, I thought. And then saw this User Talk: Ring Cinema, he immediately notified Ring before anyone else, even though Part II has nothing to do with the conflict.

If personal attacks mean anything, look at how Ring responded on Gareth's page to me. Thanks JTBX (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Aworopaypbs reported by User:MarkBurberry32 (Result: No action)

Page: Phillips Brooks School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aworopaypbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

• 1st revert: diff 1
• 2nd revert: diff 2
• 3rd revert: diff 3
• 4th revert: diff 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

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

Comments:

This isn't actually 3RR, it's an edit war, we're removing copyvio from the article concerned, this user is intent on putting it back.

MarkBurberry32|talk 23:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if the warnings had an effect. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: No action. The editor ceased adding the copyvios within a few minutes of getting his first warning. If he comes back and continues an immediate block is appropriate. Let me know on my talk page or report it at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:ProfJustice (Result: STALE)

Page: Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

°Remember, you need only *2* reverts to violate WP:1RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule.°

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

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

Comments:
This article has a 1RR warning with no time expiration. I gave the user a warning on his talk page to self revert. He didn't heed the warning which can be seen here [39].

!This user had previous issues with the revert rules as seen, this year alone, here[40] and here [41] and here [42] and here [43] and here [44] and here [45] and here [46], etc...

Comments:

This user is upset because he was recently blocked as can be seen above (the case regarding him is currently 3rd from the top) and then had 2 unblock requests denied as can be seen here [47]. Regarding the material referenced, I initiated a discussion on the talk page on April 23 which can be seen here [48].

Nothing to be upset about. If the previous block re: the 1 RR is based on the proper application of that rule as you outlined in your complaint above, I accept that. There have to be some reasonable rules that we should all go by to keep the articles stable and make things fair for all editors.

On April 24, user:Isaidnoway, who was involved on the talk page, rewrote the sentence which can be seen in the article's history here [49]. As of this posting, her version is the version currently contained in the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This issue is whether or not you violated the 1 RR, not what the current version of the article is at any given time. I'd suggest this noticeboard may not even be the correct forum for this discussion (I don't know that, however). Wouldn't your user talk page be a better place for this sort of quid pro quo?

• I just noticed something that I'd like an admin to take a look at. If you look at this diff [50] from this noticeboard, user:ProfJustice replaced my signature with his and removed the administrator's comment stating that he was blocked. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

All this is irrelevant. The last statement, obviously that was an accident. I'm new to this process and was trying to get the formatting correct. Why would I replace that sig anyway? The block was already expired. I didn't mean to save that, sorry. If someone would be so kind as to correct it, I'd appreciate it. Unlike some editors who have chronic problems with revert wars, that was my first block and I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with this noticeboard or this process. If I had been, I would have seen the original complaint here and would not have submitted an unblock request. The reverts were more clearly posted here, than explained in the block on my user talk page.

Nevertheless, none of this has anything to do with somedifferentstuff's violation of the 1 RR. There is nothing wrong with me requesting a block for exactly the same violation I was just blocked for, is there?

I have nothing personal against you some, I simply checked the article's history because I think it is fair for the policy to applied consistently to all editors, that's all. If any of the other editors were violating it instead of you, I would have requested the same. I hope you understand that. Kind Regards, ProfJustice (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Stale. We don't typically go back in time - both of those are from April 23 - today is the 25th (at least where I am). Also, ProfJustice, please do not reply paragraph-by-paragraph by inserting your comments in the middle of theirs - always post below so as to keep signatures intact, so we can see who made the entire comment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Obviously I couldn't post this earlier since got a 24 hour ban for the same behavior I reported here. Well, I guess that's justice - Wikistyle. ProfJustice (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm never helps (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Factsonly94 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: pprot )

Page: Dartmouth College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Factsonly94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 20:32, 25 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489104850 by ElKevbo (talk)")
2. 21:10, 25 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* Student groups */ See discussion page for explanation")
3. 21:15, 25 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489217418 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) There should be... look at the post I just added at the bottom of the talk page")
4. 21:23, 25 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* Student groups */ The issue is with the phrasing. Such a biased reference goes against scholarship.")

• Diff of warning: here
• Talk page: [51] -- please note that although this editor is now participating, he/she is also continuing to revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Armbrust and User talk:78.147.184.47 reported by User:Ks0stm (Result: Both blocked)

Page: 2012 World Snooker Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 78.147.184.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52] (I'm not sure if this is what it's asking for, but this is the change that initially started the edit war.)

Armbrust:

• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]
• 3rd revert: [55]
• 4th revert: [56]
• 5th revert: [57]
• 6th revert: [58]
• 7th revert: [59]

78.147.184.47:

• 1st revert: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]
• 4th revert: [63]
• 5th revert: [64]
• 6th revert: [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Armbrust: [66]
• 78.147.184.47: [67]

Comments: I fully protected the page but would like outside input on whether more action is warranted. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The page that has been protected 2012 World Snooker Championship is an ongoing sporting event and needs to be edited. There are countless responsible editors who will contribute in the correct manner to this page. Why should we all be punished for the behaviour of two people? Spc 21 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:WLU reported by User:Bittergrey (Result: Stale)

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

• 1st revert: 21:26, 1 April 2012 WLU[68]
• 2nd revert: 01:11, 2 April 2012 WLU[69]
• 3rd revert: 11:00, 2 April 2012 WLU[70]
• 4th revert: 22:59, 2 April 2012 203.118.187.167[71] (SPI #1 archived with the conclusion "Definitely were socks". It was later clarified to include "Probably actually not socks. All IPs highly disruptive, but editing habits inconsistent. I should have checked more thoroughly." My comments below were correct at the time they were written.)

In the light of NativeForeigner's comments here and here, would the closing admin please strike through the 4th revert from the 203. from the April 1st set, and given I wasn't socking and the second SPI is not yet closed, I believe the 4th revert from the April 20th set should probably be struck as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the edit warrior concerned with an AN3 that accurately lists eight reverts himself filed one against me with eight reverts obscurely listed, when at the time I only made four reverts in three days[72]. BitterGrey (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1st revert (or 5th?): 18:04, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[73]
• 2nd revert: 20:59, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[74]
• 3rd revert: 22:55, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[75]
• 4th revert: 01:48, 20 April 2012‎ 203.118.187.226[76](SPI #2, filed before the alteration of SPI #1, was closed without conclusion about the IP:"...were closing this...")

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

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

Comments:
I know this is stale, but I wanted it on record that WLU, who reported me for making four reverts in 41 hours[79] himself made four reverts in 25 hours 33 minutes in the same conflict. He also used a sockpuppet to do so[80]. I didn't file this report before, since I was waiting for confirmation from SPI.

WLU wrote "I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in." Of course, were there any substance in his "thousands of words" he wouldn't have felt the need to resort to sockpuppetry and personal attacks. He hadn't shown any interest in this article (or several others he's fought me at) before his wikihounding campaign started over a year ago. I think it is best that he leave me and the several articles he hounded me to alone. BitterGrey (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: Another editor was kind enough to revert "203.118.187.167," so far the only penalty for WLU's use of sockpuppets in an edit war. Of course, when WLU hit 3RR again another IP showed up promptly to make the fourth. A second SPI was opened. I requested a 3O and it would appear that WLU doesn't want to risk the 3O seeing a version other than his own.BitterGrey (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Page is now protected [81]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• If any SPI clerk wishes to make something out of that case, good for them. This 3RR complaint has merit, but it works both ways: it takes two to tango and you two are the only ones doing this dance. You should both be blocked, maybe. A third (and fourth, and fifth) opinion would be very helpful, and possibly a topic ban for both of you specifically for this article, which has been a pain since at least 2006. It is obvious that the two of you cannot come to an agreement. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I requested a 3O yesterday. A topic ban on both of us would be unfair: WLU's only involvement in this page (and all but one of the others he's fought me at) was as part of his year-long wikihounding of me. Furthermore, since using puppets is nothing new for WLU(eg.[82]), and he already has three puppets in play[83] the ONLY effect of a topic ban would be to ensure control of the article by the puppetmaster. BitterGrey (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell that directs to that long discussion on the talk page, "Fruend and Blanchard's Paedophilia article doesn't belong here". I see the two of you, I see no 3--so it seems to me there's no 3O yet. What I see is a long and tedious dispute: that you think you're right is par for the course. I'm not even saying that you're wrong, mind you--it's just that everywhere I go--your talk page, the article talk page, this edit-war thread, the SPI, the SPI archive--I see the same things, links, accusations. It's depressing. And "three puppets in play"--that's rhetorical overkill. If it's him, it's a dynamic IP, so the number is meaningless. No, the only effect of a topic ban need not be WLU's control. There are ways to prevent that, short of going to their house and smashing their laptop to bits with a diaper. I don't wish to speak for other admins, but I think we're done here. Find someone to act on or render an opinion on the SPI, maybe. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

True, requesting a 3O and getting one are different things, but I think my request shows good faith. Also in good faith, I've made do with only one position per conflict. In contrast, WLU's position in this conflict changed last week (he'd "been reading the article wrong for a very long time.") and again in December. Oh, and you might find hammers or almost anything else to be more useful for smashing laptops, Drmies :) BitterGrey (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A hammer would work better, yes. And I'm not denying your effort in starting that 3O. The article needs help and attention from people who aren't you two, I'm afraid. Best, Drmies (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"people who aren't you two"? I'm hurt. If it weren't for me, the paraphilic infantilism article would be like the diaper fetishism article. (Well, worse actually, since the latter borrowed from the former back in 2007.) There is, however, an ongoing ownership issue that needs to be taken care of. BitterGrey (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the admin who looked into 203.118.187.167, .43, and .209 to look into .226 as well. BitterGrey (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Given NativeForeigner's comment here, the "definitely were socks" comment is now incorrect and all 203. edits are essentially irrelevant. Though there is edit warring, there is no 3RR violation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU attempting to close or modify my requests, as he's tried here[84][85], is typical. After he wikihounded me me to Sexology, he marked the resulting ELN discussion "resolved" not once(@500 words) but twice(@3K words) before accepting that I was right. BitterGrey (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My request seems reasonable since NativeForeigner has said in three places that his initial statement of "definitely a sock" is in fact wrong (here, here and here). It seems like common sense to make the section reflect NativeForeigner's actual, current conclusions and take out or strike through the 4th revert(s) rather than leave up an old and misleading summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review the difference between a "request" and an edit[86], as well as between 'probability' and "fact". NativeForeigner has now gone both ways on SPI #1, from "definitely" socks to "probably" not. Even before this, WLU wrote "NativeForeigner's comment is a single person's opinion that is not definitive". Let's see what becomes of SPI #2. BitterGrey (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see it as fundamentally dishonest not to note that the person who initially made the assessment has since substantially changed their mind to say the opposite of what is said above. Changing it to "probably not a sock" is fine with me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you raised the issue of honesty, WLU, I'll point out that you've claimed that WLU stands for both the initials of your alma matter "my userid is based on the university I attend", and also your own initials "My user name is actually my initials". Unless both claims are true, I would consider one or both statements deceptive. In contrast, what I wrote above was correct at the time I wrote it, based on the archived conclusion of an administrator serving as a sockpuppet investigator. BitterGrey (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should care where my user name came from and why I picked it - though obviously I chose a pseudonym for the anonymity it provides me, anonymity you keep trying to break through despite rules against it.

Your claim about what you wrote above being correct is in fact wrong - it may have been true when you wrote it, but it misrepresented the admin's comments for three days. The decision changed on April 22nd [87], but you didn't indicate this until April 25th [88] when the second negative sockpuppet report came back. I don't see that as a minor issue, I see that as fundamentally dishonest gaming - I could have been blocked on the basis of simply wrong information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:outing is irrelevant, since WLU posted the contradictory information to Wikipedia himself. In spite of his own self-contradictions, he persists in distorting my comments to accuse me of dishonesty. Regarding the gaming accusation, WLU reported me for four edits in 43 hours[89], when he had made four reverts in 28 hours[90][91][92][93] ... even if we don't count those above. WP:kettle at best. Unlike WLU, I had never even been reported here before. This clean record is something that I will never get back.

I have to admit some displeasure in watching WLU get away with sockpuppetry (according to the archived conclusion of the SP investigator, at least at the time). Perhaps vested contributors really can get away with anything. WLU seems to have some displeasure that I didn't update this frequently enough - even though apparently few if any were paying attention.

Now, since it seems to be the only way that debates between WLU and myself ever end, I'm going to let him have the last word. BitterGrey (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Since no action was taken when the SPI was definite that the IPs were socks, no action is expected now that the SPIs are inconclusive. As Drmies wrote (even before SPI #1 was modified), "...I think we're done here." BitterGrey (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Marked as stale. If warring resumes, rereport. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ElliotJoyce reported by User:Ackees (Result: 48h)

Page: Henry Morton Stanley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Asiento (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: British African Caribbean Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

According to my watchlist, the user ElliotJoyce is systematically going through my edits on as many pages as possible, (going back months in some cases) undoing them, even if they have been longstanding on the page. It is a clear case of harassment. This is not about a particular subject, it is a targeted campaign against myself. They have already been warned today by other users for edit-warring.Ackees (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the information that the Mr. Ackees has changed on the articles in question, you will find that it is often in direct contrast to the source provided. For example, on the African Slave Page, one source in question (Digital History from the University of Houston) stated that profits from the slave trade comprised less than 5% of Britain's economy during industrialization, but Mr. Ackees changed this first to read "at least" 5% and after I reverted it, changed it back to read "approximately" 5%, both false per the source. I investigated his other edits and it appears he is going from article to article, infusing subtle anti-European bias, often in direct contradiction to the source material. Another example is the article Racism in the United Kingdom, where Mr. Ackees changed the wording to say almost the opposite of what it said previously, contradicting the source again. I have gone through his recent edits and have noticed that much of his history here on Wikipedia is simply infusing POV statements and wording in various articles. This is unacceptable and violates a number of policies on the site. I am not correcting Mr. Ackees to harass him; rather, I am correcting him because he is, in essence, vandalizing the pages in question in a very subtle manner that is only realized when one looks at the entire history of edits Mr. Ackees has done. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – Already blocked 48 hours per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello; my block has expired and I would like to know if I am within my rights to report Ackees for making a personal attack against me in his edit summary on the Benin City article. Particularly, he has called me "neo-nazi", not to mention he removed accurate material which I have since restored and provided a reliable source for. Please let me know how I can bring this matter to the attention of the administrators- I am new to Wikipedia and I do not know how to report another user or where to report him/her. Thank you. ElliotJoyce (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:71.239.128.44 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 31h)

Page: The Passion of the Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.239.128.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

• 1st revert: [95]
• 2nd revert: [96]
• 3rd revert: [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:

The IP has already been blocked for edit-warring and now the block has expired has resumed with the same types of edits. Technically it is not 3RR and I've only included the reverts since the block, but the IP has failed to address the problems with its edits, so I think another block is the order of the day. The IP should have resolved the issues on the talk page before making further edits of a similar nature to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 31h after I filed a request at AIV. Doniago (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Betty: be aware that you too were edit-warring. If your revert is reverted, DO NOT REVERT AGAIN. If I had actionned this one, I would have blocked both of you - 3 reverts is not a right (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think three reverts over a period of 5 days is particularly excessive when you are removing clearly unsourced content and original research, the removal of which is supported by consensus on the talk page. It is certainly well within the remit of 3RR, so I'm interested how enforcing a consensus within the remit of 3RR (to remove clearly unsourced content) would constitute edit-warring in this context. By the same token would you have also have blocked User:Doniago (three reverts of the same editor for the same reason across 10 days) and User:History2007 (three reverts of the same editor for the same reasons across 8 days) and User:Musdan77 (two reverts of the same editor for the same reasons across 5 days)? Maybe we could have a few guidelines here. When the consensus supports the removal of unsourced original research how many times as individual editors can we remove the content within a particular timeframe? Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - 31 hours by User:Alexf. Second block in four days. Semiprotection might be considered for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I did request semi-protection but it was turned down on the grounds it was just one editor that could be dealt with directly. I would like to know where I stand in regards to further attempts to reinstate this material though, since I seem to be barred from removing it now. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Unsourced content" or "edits against consensus" are not listed as excuses for WP:EW. We follow dispute resolution, and tag-teaming to avoid 3rr doesn't work either (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is complete bollocks. The editor was adding unsourced original research; this is not a content dispute that dispute resolution can resolve. It's a clear cut case of violating Wikipedia policy, that four editors have independently agree on. I doubt a single editor on Wikipedia would back its inclusion! There has been NO communication between myself and the other editors, and no co-ordination of our reverts i.e. we revert the article to remove the unsourced illegible crap that keeps being added to the article. The problem with the edits is clearly explained on the talk page and no amount of dispute resolution can resolve the problem; it will simply come to the conclusion we have i.e. remove the material until the problems that are clearly highlighted on the talk page are addressed. I won't remove the edits from the article again given your threat above, but at the same time I'm not wasting my time writing up case histories and going to dispute resolution boards just to get a clear-cut case of policy violation removed. I suggest you take a look at the what was being added because tomorrow that will be back in the article and I won't be wasting any more of my time explaining to the editor why it is unacceptable, nor will be initiating any more action against them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

it takes 2 or more to edit war. Although I sympathize, you know the rules. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

While I don't claim to be a scholar of the Wikipedia rules, you're saying it is written down somewhere that if someone adds completely unsourced lies to an article, that if they continue to re-add it we should just stand by and leave it in place until the dispute over their incorrect action is "resolved"? I think you're grossly misinterpreting the rules and their enforcement, and find your behavior towards a tireless contributor like Betty to be entirely misplaced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not this nonsense again. It does not take two to edit war. When you have one or more long time productive, non disruptive editors who are following the guidelines by discussing things on the talk page who are also taking the page back to the WP:CONSENSUS version against a SPA editor with a POV axe to grind there is only one person edit warring. In this specific case the evidence shows that the IP has no desire to learn how things are done around here. Further in this case semiprotection was asked for and turned down. As has been said in other places this misguided protection of POV SPA's is only going to further this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Loss_of_more_and_more_and_more_established_editors_and_administrators problem. MarnetteD | Talk 22:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Protecting the encyclopedia is not warring. Editors working with the larger consensus should be encouraged to revert disruptive edits in an attempt to avoid even needing to file an incident here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:69.196.160.34 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 31 hours)

Page: List of countries by number of troops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 69.196.160.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 23:59, 25 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
2. 00:08, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
3. 00:23, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
4. 01:22, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
5. 01:42, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• User blocked by Nyttend for 31 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:24.247.125.237 reported by User:Al E. (Result: No action)

Page: Mr. Irrelevant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.247.125.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

• 1st revert: [101]
• 2nd revert: [102]
• 3rd revert: [103]
• 4th revert: [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:

The user is in violation of 3RR, and the content they keep adding is clearly unencyclopedic, but I thought it was worth noting that they have not continued to revert, and have engaged in discussion on the talk page,[107] for what it's worth. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now, since an IP is discussing. If this happens again, ask for semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:182.182.71.8 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Semi)

Page: Akbar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 182.182.71.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [108]

• 1st revert: [109]
• 2nd revert: [110]
• 3rd revert: [111]
• 4th revert: [112]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]

Comments:

Thats 3 reverts in 24 hours, with a reference that does not support the text. Akbar founded a new religion called Din-i-Ilahi. Therefore his previous religions should not be elavated in the infobox. He refuses to discuss anything on the talk page. Pass a Method talk 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months due to vandalism, including page blanking. No IPs have participated on the talk page in 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:91.63.202.190 reported by User:TheSoundAndTheFury (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.63.202.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: suggest just looking at history: [115]

• 1st revert: [116]
• 2nd revert: [117]
• 3rd revert: [118]
• 4th revert: [119]
• 5th revert: [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122] [123]

Comments:
New account leaps right into topic with a strong, fringe point of view. Happens one day after ban of AnAimlessRoad (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) whose editing proclivities and talk page forum-izing were similar. Whether the correlation is causal I have no idea. Yelling in edit summary, accusations of a conspiracy, failure to understand topic matter, immediate edit warring etc. etc. all don't bode well.

Note that 91.63.217.224 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) may be the same individual.

Update

Um sorry but I think he's already banned. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Drmies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Judgeking reported by User:Xida2001 (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [124]

• 1st revert: [125]

Previous version reverted to: [126]

• 2nd revert: [127]

Previous version reverted to: [128]

• 3rd revert: [129]

Previous version reverted to: [130]

• 4th revert: [131]

Previous version reverted to: [132]

• 5th revert: [133]
• 6th revert: [134] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xida2001 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

Although I followed his request to change my edit he still keeps deleting it, I asked for comments and discussion, no answer, if he would just have a CLOSE look at the links I provided he can proof that my edit is correct:

• Page protected - Three days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Promontorylink reported by User:Marie Paradox (Result: Indefinitely blocked for unrelated reasons)

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

Previous version reverted to: [138]

• 1st revert: [139]
• 2nd revert: [140]
• 3rd revert: [141]
• 4th revert: [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:

Promontorylink's edits and behavior are reminiscent of recent edit warring by Ghostprotocol888, who was blocked not only from editing articles but also his talk page: [145]

Marie Paradox (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI filed here regarding possible link with Ghostprotocol888. 213.177.248.120 (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry, that was me - got logged out by a server glitch. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by Elockid nearly three hours ago. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:MRC37 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Battle of Bint Jbeil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MRC37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [146]
• 2nd revert: [147]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]

Comments:

The article is WP:ARBPIA article and under 1RR.The revert was done of this edit [149]--Shrike (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Teflontanks reported by User:Shakehandsman (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [150]

• 1st revert: [151]
• 2nd revert: [152]
• 3rd revert: [153]
• 4th revert: [154]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155] (user was warned for vandalism and unconstructive editing, there is vandalism and edit warring occurring).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Many of the edits involve almost total deletion of the article so no really much to discuss. Others have expressed concern regarding the editors bias in the talk page. Multiple parties have restored the material, I have only done so once.

Comments:

--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Danratedrko reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 31 hours)

Page: The Avengers (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danratedrko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [156] 01:01, 28 April 2012‎
• 2nd revert: [157] 01:06, 28 April 2012
• 3rd revert: [158] 01:19, 28 April 2012
• 4th revert: [159] 01:23, 28 April 2012
• 5th revert [[160] 01:36, 28 April 2012‎
• 6th revert [161] 01:41, 28 April 2012
• 7th revert [162] 01:46, 28 April 2012‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danratedrko&diff=489557896&oldid=489557703

Multiple editors posted warnings on his own talk page, and multiple editors have reverted him. He's a serial vandal who after his 6th revert posted insults on my talk page

Comments:

Already blocked. Kuru (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:74.108.165.44 reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Page semi-protected)

Page: Ed Schultz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.108.165.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [163]

• 1st revert: [164], [165], [166]
• 2nd revert: [167]
• 3rd revert: [168], [169]
• 4th revert: [170]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [171], [172], [173]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [174]

Comments:
Page has been Semi-protected earlier this month to prevent WP:DE by ip-hopping contributor. PP requested again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Page semi-protected for a period of two months by Paul Erik (talk · contribs). --Chris (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:LuzoGraal reported by User:Ackees (Result: no vio)

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

Previous version reverted to: [175]

• 1st revert: [176]
• 2nd revert: [177]
• 3rd revert: [178]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [180]

I made serious edits removing obvious bias in the article. I also set up a discussion forum in the talk page and warned the user not to breach 3RR - the user removed my warning and went ahead with the breach

Ackees (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2012 (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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:RolandR reported by User:ElliotJoyce (Result: Submitter blocked)

• RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user User:RolandR is hounding me and reverting my edits, most recently on the articles Henry Morton Stanley and Afro-textured hair. My own edits were reverts of a previous user (User:Ackees) who changed information on those articles that was unsourced and violated neutrality POV, particularly in the Afro-textured hair article, where the word "mainstream" was replaced with "white."

If someone can please let me know how to proceed, and also let the user User:RolandR to stop reverting my edits without a justifiable explanation, I would greatly appreciate it. I was recently blocked for violating the 3RR, so I am well aware of it at this point and am doing my best not to violate it. ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation: "I've been Wikihouding another editor, but I don't like being Wikihounded myself. I've just come off a block for edit warring, so I'm making only two reverts on each page." I think that sums it up.

Recommendation: Please read WP:Boomerang. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I never Wikihounded anyone- my edits were to remove bias. If you look at the edits of RolandR, you'll see that they are mostly done to annoy and frustrate my own contributions to the site. And for the record, I am not aiming at making a certain number of reverts- I only know that I cannot and do not want to exceed 3 reverts. ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there actual proof of WP:3RR or WP:EW, or is this discussion going to turn into the one that should either be a) on the talkpage of an article in order to try and gain new WP:CONSENSUS, or should you two go talk it out and shake hands on one of your talkpages. Otherwise, dispute resolution is thataway .... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was neither hounding nor edit-warring. The editor, who has now been blocked again, returned from a 48-hour block for "persistent edit warring, Wikihounding and civility issues", and immediately repeated the same tendentious edits which led to the original block. There is no case to answer here. RolandR (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you were both hounding and edit-warring. If you look at your history, you reverted my changes on 5 different articles that you had never edited before; this strongly suggests hounding. Second, you continued to revert after I re-reverted your edits. This suggests edit-warring. ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: ElliotJoyce has been blocked 48 hours by Future Perfect, for "continued POV-driven edit warring immediately after last block, now on Henry Morton Stanley and Afro-textured hair". EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AA193 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 72h)

Page: Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AA193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [181]

• 1st revert: [182]
• 2nd revert: [183]
• 3rd revert: [184]
• 4th revert: [185]
• 5th revert: [186]
• 6th revert: [187]
• 7th revert: [188]
• 8th revert: [189]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Block because of edit warring on same article, same issue, 5th

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Afghanistan#Afghanistan in the Middle East (also the edit request sections above this)

Comments:
This is not a 3RR violation report rather a report of edit warring. User has been warned multiple times and blocked once for edit warring on the same issue and same article, but he/she is persistent in pushing his point of view without achieving a consensus on the talk page. --SMS ^Talk 16:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - Blocked 72 hours. Editor constantly reverts as to whether Afghanistan is in West Asia or in the Middle East. I notice a string of eight edit requests from him at Talk:Afghanistan. All of his proposed changes were declined as unsupported by consensus. In the light of these verdicts, he surely ought to be cautious about unilateral reverts. He was blocked for the same thing on August 26. If this continues a longer block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: No action)

Page: List of vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [190]

• 1st revert: [191]

• In this case I challenged the source that Slimvirgin used to source the entry. I reverted her and explained on the talk page that the source did not back up the claim. She subsequently reverted me, despite my concerns about her source. I challenged the source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#veggies.org.uk where my concerns were upheld. In view of this, I think SV should remove her entry and source unless someone comes out in its favor.

Previous version reverted to: [192]

• 2nd revert: [193]

• The second case is more disturbing. SV brought up the issue of the color codes on the talk page, and despite my wishes to discuss it further still went ahead and removed them. These color codes have been a long-standing feature of the article and were backed by four editors at the time (see Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Change_of_formatting_to_match_List_of_vegetarians). I subsequently reverted SV and pointed her to this consensus, but she still went ahead and removed them again.

This behavior of pushing through your own edits against an established consensus and against advice at the Sourcing board is simply not acceptable. Do we edit by consensus here or not. WP:BRD does not state, be bold, revert, discuss and then do what you want.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195]

Comments:

• SlimVirgin has taken exception to my reversions on that article. However most of my reverts are:

1. Removing unsourced entries
2. Removing non-RS sources
3. Restoring sourcied content that is removed without a source being provided.

In most of these cases, these are single reverts, and I think are valid if you actually look through the reverts. In some cases the sources were restored so I requested an objective opinion at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_used_at_List_of_Vegans. In the cases were my objections were upheld I have re-reverted. The article has real sourcing issues and it is unfortunate I am being forced to keep having to go and get rulings at the RS noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm only going to comment here once. Betty Logan has been reverting all and sundry at List of vegans for over a year, often going up to 3RR, then resuming the next day, which has somewhat halted the page's development. I have only occasionally tried to edit the page, and almost every time I've done it, he has reverted me. I respect his desire to keep the page tidy, but he extends this to reverting known vegans and acceptable sources, so it is causing a problem.

Today, he reverted two editors three times in all (and yesterday I believe the same), so I asked him on his talk page to stop. [196] He responded six minutes later by posting a warning template on my talk page. [197] I replied by advising him that, if he continued to revert, I would reluctantly report it here, but stressed that I didn't want to do that and would prefer to work with him. [198] He responded 15 minutes later by reporting me. [199] So we seem to be in the playground. I'll leave it at that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• First of all I cannot help it if editors add entries using sources that are then overturned at the RS noticeboard. What should I do, leave them in? Similarly I cannot help it if an editor removes a sourced entry from the list. I reverted them and asked them for a new source so we could move the entry to the "former vegan" section. Also, I cannot help it if four editors formulate a consensus to have color codes and an editor decides to go ahead and remove them. What should we do in that case? Am I more wrong for suggesting to SV I am open to the possibilities of removing them but would rather have more discussion, and reverting the article to what was agreed by four editors, or is SV more right to say he doesn't like it, and then to overrule the wishes of four editors and take them out? Another editor has joine dthe discussion now and objected to SV's unilateral action: [200]. I would liek to point out that reverting is not the same as edit-warring (edit-warring is singularly reversing the same edit. I revert a lot on that article because a lot needs reverting; if someone reverts my reverts though I go over to the RS noticeboard to get a ruling, and if it comes out in my favor I revert again. Also, just check out Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#veggies.org.uk to see what SV's notion of a "well-known" vegan and an "acceptable" source is. I am following proper procedures: revert, and if that is reversed I get another opinion. Not my fault if third opinions go against SV and his sources. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

And just to elaborate on what SV said about "reverting all and sundry" for a year, it's actually more like two years, and yes it is sometimes up to three reverts a day. I appreciate that 3rr is not a right, but it is admin discretion and up to them to determine if the application is justified within that 'quota', so I hope the outcome of this isn't justified solely on the amount of reverting I do, but based one what I revert, and the accompanying action I undertake with those reverts i.e. entering discussion on the talk page/taking sources to RS/N. There are actually many good additions to the artile I leave well alone. Betty Logan (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: It's not clear that this is a matter suited to WP:AN3. This is a long-running content dispute between two experienced editors. There is no RfC on the talk page about use (or non-use) of colors in the listing, and there is no RfC on the sourcing standards which ought to be required to determine if someone is a vegan. I perceive that both SV and Betty are attached to positions which don't have universal support. SV thinks that we should avoid "large numbers of templates, which make the page slow to load for readers and editors". Betty Logan seems to require ironclad sourcing standards for whether someone is a vegan. To SV, I would observe that some articles on Wikipedia have templates and they still survive. To Betty, I note that relatively light-weight (non defamatory) bits of information about people are sometimes taken from what appear to be their personal websites. Since it is not always easy to recruit outsiders to an RfC to settle that kind of a dispute, both parties should consider backing off a little from their positions to maintain harmony on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Ed, there was a discussion about the format of the list and four editors agreed to implement it (see Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Change_of_formatting_to_match_List_of_vegetarians), and it was in the list for over a year with no complaints. SlimVirgin has disregarded that and removed all the styling. On the talk page three of those four editors including me were open to dropping the colors, but not in the way she did it; we all agreed there should be some other organizational structure, and one possibility discussed was a sortable table (mine and Muleattack's preference—see example formats here). Considering that we were all willing to consider possibilities that were open to dropping the color codes, then I think it was inappropriate for SlimVirgin to go ahead and remove them anyway without engaging in discussion and agreeing to a direction for the list. It was just exceedingly premature, and the discussion at Talk:List_of_vegans#Legends.2Ftemplates shows that no-one was happy with these color codes just being pulled in the way she did it. The sourcing issues are being resolved at RS/N btw, and I am prepared to stand by their judgment either way. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I have opened a DR case about this which I hope will resolve the issue, so this case is somewhat stale now, and can probably be closed. I have been very disappointed in her approach since we were willing to engineer a solution that would have accommodated her wishes, and all we needed was a bit of time and discussion to do that (heck I even knocked up a mock table without the color codes!). That said I request that now the DR case is open, that any further major structural alterations that are undertaken not in the context of the DR process will be dealt with severely, and I would like you to formalise that and add it to both our talk pages and the talk page of the article if that is possible, because I think it is imperative that any major alterations are carried out with a consensus. As for the sourcing dispute, then I am happy to tackle that source by source at the RS/N, and let a completely third opinion resolve that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: Closed with no action, but with suggestions to the two parties, both here and at User talk:Slim Virgin. At present there are reasonable discussions at Talk:List of vegans#Reverting and at Talk:List of vegans#Removing names. If either SV or Betty reverts before the Talk discussions reach a conclusion they will find themselves on tricky ground. Betty seems eager to pursue all possible forums (RSN, AN3, DRN), but before going to ANI I suggest she should ask an admin to review the talk page to see if a consensus exists for one view or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jogytmathew reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jogytmathew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [201]

• 1st revert: [202]
• 2nd revert: [203]
• 3rd revert: [204]
• 4th revert: [205]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [206]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Entire of the contributor's talk page - User_talk:Jogytmathew

Comments:
This is a newly registered contributor but they are not communicating, and in their latest edits they are not merely adding dubiously sourced information but also removing large chunks of sourced info without explanation. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The situation on this article regarding the reported contributor is now becoming very silly. There is still no communication and they are mass removing cited content, much of which has been the subject of discussion. I have taken the rather dramatic step of restoring to an earlier version on the pretext of vandalism, which is not something that I usually do. They almost immediately reverted me. This might be a situation that takes more than the usual 24 hour block to resolve. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• LadyofShalott 23:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by User:JunoBeach (Result: Page protected)

Page: War criminals in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Initial placement of +tag: 22:49, 28 April 2012‎ first post — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunoBeach (talk • contribs)
• 1st revert: 09:04, 29 April 2012 diff 1
• 2nd revert: 10:17, 29 April 2012‎ diff 2
• 3rd revert: 18:59, 29 April 2012‎ diff 3
• 4th revert: 19:06, 29 April 2012‎ diff 4

Diffs by two different editors giving edit warning on article talk page: Diff 1 & Diff 2

Comments:

I was the editor that created the article. User:Youreallycan has been tracking/stalking me for a couple days now through my edit history. JunoBeach (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I should block the bloody 3 of you. A quick read of the "article" shows it's nothing but a single POV, and not even worthy of an encyclopedia article whatsoever. I was tempted to AFD it - but perhaps you guys can work out something that makes any degree of sense as an article on the talkpage. When protection expires, DO NOT remove the tag - period - or I will consider it a continuation of the same edit-war (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:24.179.138.53 reported by User:Grapple X (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: The Smoking Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.179.138.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [207]

• 1st revert: [208]
• 2nd revert: [209]
• 3rd revert: [210]
• 4th revert: [211]
• 5th revert: [212]
• 6th revert: [213]
• 7th revert: [214]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [215]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. Have not attempted to discuss on article talk as this is simply a WP:CHEESE situation, with false material being added (unsourced, obviously) repeatedly; stopping to discuss the merits of incorrect information is a step I'd rather not be forced to condescend to. GRAPPLE X 18:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Page protected for a period of 1 week. All the issues seem to be with anons, so hopefully a week of semiprotection will deter them. (By the way, the essay you pointed to officially made my day. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'd just like to point out that this anon did the same thing to Fox Mulder here.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Xmike920 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 1 week)

Page: Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xmike920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [216] 22 April, fourth revert of that series, blocked April 23 for edit-warring
• 2nd revert: [217] 27 April
• 3rd revert: [218] 28 April
• 4th revert: [219] 30 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [220]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [221]. My follow-up question, which went unanswered [222]

Comments:

Resumption of a slow edit-war over times of 9/11 aircraft impacts. Xmike920 was blocked on 23 April for this, which has been going on, on and off, for a year. I've attempted to engage the editor, as has Tom harrison, with no response. Others have warned too. Resumption of changes without discussion doesn't seem to bode well: other editors have given their reasons for preferring the more recent NCSTAR source for 9/11 times: Xmike 920 just removes the sources and substitutes times from the earlier 9/11 report and ignores attempts at discussion. Much the same thing has been happening at American Airlines Flight 11 [223] (an FA), and now we're seeing unexplained changes to casualty counts [224]. Acroterion (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – One week for long-term edit warring on the Timeline article. Notified under WP:ARB911. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jakebarrington reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Warned)

Page: Cannabis (drug) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 19:25, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489200325 by Last1in (talk) Sources have been cited and are in alliance with standards.")
2. 20:17, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489520960 by Muboshgu (talk)These sources come from 2 places: The government, or healthcare professionals. I am reporting any further actions to a moderator.")
3. 20:29, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489523818 by Muboshgu (talk) These sources are valid, nothing wrong with them. Reporting to moderator.")
4. 21:23, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489529546 by Muboshgu (talk) Info is valid and inline citations are correct.")
5. 13:50, April 28, 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489650187 by KDesk (talk) Sources are in fact reliable medical sources. Written by doctors or members of academia holding MDs or PHDs.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [225]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [226]

Comments: This user is pushing a negative POV on the page. Further, the user in question followed me to a different page to undo a contribution to simply be disruptive. —– Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring behaviour continues with two new reverts on 28 April at 20:42 and 15:50. Jakebarrington has finally responded to repeated invitations to discuss and reach consensus, but continues the edit war without modification of the disputed content and without addressing any of the core concerns. Please take this page back to the prior consensus and help us get this talented and passionate editor back onto the WP:5P path. Cheers & Thanks, Kevin/Last1in (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:David-golota reported by User:Oleola (Result: Protected)

Page: Ekstraklasa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David-golota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [227]

• 1st revert: [228]
• 2nd revert: [229]
• 3rd revert: [230]
• 4th revert: [231]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [232]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [233] in (in Polish)

Comments:
Some background: Normally Ekstraklasa champion receives also Polish Football Championship title per rules. The only exception was 1951 season when PZPN reopened Polish Cup competition and under the existing rules the title of Polish Football Champion went to the Polish Cup champion, not to the Ekstraklasa(league) champion. This is explained in the reference(official Wisła Kraków website) [234], which User:David-golota constantly deletes. Many, mostly IP users don't know about it and think that if Ruch Chorzów was Polish Champions in 1951, it means that they won the Ekstraklasa. We have problem with such users also on Polish wikipedia, but never so persistent. I explained this to User:David-golota in Polish as he is Polish[235], send him there also a link to the article scan from "Piłkarz" newspaper from October 1951[236] titled "Cracow or Warsaw would be the seat of the league champion" to convince him that 1951 Ekstraklasa season was not played for nothing, but for a league championship. David-golota replied with[237]](translated): "I only have one question: You're a fan of Wilsky Krakow.? Just tell the truth." - substantive response don't you think, and then made unexplained revert[238]. Since then, he continuously changing this information despite the fact it's proper and referenced.--Oleola (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:David-golota left a message in Polish on my talkpage[239], which can be translated:"OK. Let's make an agreement. Remove your accusations from administrators' noticeboard and I'll never edit Ekstraklasa article again", but subsequently he started to inexplicably changing the word "champion" to "league winners" in the article. I really don't understand his behavior.--Oleola (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: Article protected one week. Any block would need to be given to both parties. Why is there no discussion of this dispute in English on the article's talk page? (Expecting admins to read Polish is probably optimistic). If consensus is reached, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

User:24.20.93.232 reported by User:AV3000 (Result: 31h)

Page: David Barton (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 24.20.93.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 08:33, 30 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 23:05, 30 April 2012 (edit summary: "The removed sections are not simple fact giving but are instead ad hominem attacks. Simply saying "scholars" leaves the implication of "all scholars". Opinionated critiques are just that, opinions and as such, should not be written implying fact.")
3. 23:22, 30 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490031704 by Harizotoh9 (talk) Speculative, ad hominem attacks. For example, saying "many" to quantify an opinion that is unverifiable..")
4. 00:48, 1 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490038321 by NatGertler (talk) There is a specific "Criticisms" section. Unverifiable quantifiers should not be used. Also, a link was inserted to replace a dead link.")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:The editor's reverts are not identical, but substantially similar; this report omits editor's smaller related removals in the same period.

—AV3000 (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked - 31 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:24.179.138.53 reported by User:Gen. Quon (Result: Semi)

Page: Fox Mulder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.179.138.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [240]

• 1st revert: [241]
• 2nd revert: [242]
• 3rd revert: [243]
• 4th revert: [244]
• 5th revert: [245]
• 6th revert: [246]
• 7th revert: [247]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [248] He had been doing this to an earlier page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] He's done this before, and, as Grapple X put it, I don't want to stoop down to that level.

Comments:Obviously, based on his past experience, this IP is either a troll or highly confused but stubborn. He has refused to discuss his edits and while his attacks against The Smoking Man have stopped, he's taken to other articles. I feel he probably should be blocked

--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• IP is clearly intending to disrupt, article history shows trivial reverts such as the re-instatement of a misplaced space between a full stop and a ref tag. Indef block, please, so we can get on with useful work. GRAPPLE X 04:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. Gen. Quon should avoid violating 3RR himself, but bring the issue to a noticeboard first. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Irelan12 reported by User:Youreallycan (Result:Blocked 48 hours )

Page: Dave Winer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Irelan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of offer to the user to self revert - diff - offer was not taken - there are multiple objections to the removal of this content on the talkpage and more than one request to the user to stop reverting and move to discussion - the user has a single focus on this living person and has a previous account that was blocked in relation to it also - the account has recently just been unblocked and the disruption has immediately resumed - I don't have the specific details - but I have glanced at comments on the talkpage that the user has a real life COI against the subject of the article - Youreallycan 19:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked 48 hours by User:JamesBWatson - Youreallycan 19:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

User:HJawad reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: 1 week)

Page: Compact executive car (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 19:35, 1 May 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 19:35, 1 May 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 19:48, 1 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490178188 by CZmarlin (talk)")
4. 19:48, 1 May 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 19:55, 1 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490179083 by CZmarlin (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here by CZmarlin (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

These are exactly the same changes and behavior as were previously conducted as 86.28.143.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and the report on 22 April 2012, and administrator's action on 23 April 2012, is here. CZmarlin (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – One week, for edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. It would be helpful if the submitter could open an WP:SPI about this because there is no sign this guy is going to stop anytime soon. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Shanedoe reported by User:B (Result: 48h)

Page: John Harington (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shanedoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [249]
• 2nd revert: [250]
• 3rd revert: [251]
• 4th revert: [252]
• I count 17 total reverts, going back over approximately three weeks.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [253], [254], [255], et al.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above

Comments:

Several weeks ago, there was an episode of South Park that parodied John Harington (writer). Shanedoe, essentially a single purpose account, has repeatedly added a passage about this incident to the article. Another user - TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) - has attempted to discuss the issue with Shanedoe both on the article talk page and on Shanedoe's talk page, but Shanedoe's response is to blank the message and revert the article. Though clearly not three reverts in any particular 24-hour period, 17 reverts over three weeks and a refusal to discuss the issue constitutes problematic behavior. --B (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User:190.98.50.178 reported by User:Aspects (Result: 48h)

Page: American Idol (season 9) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.98.50.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [256]

• 1st revert: [257]
• 2nd revert: [258]
• 3rd revert: [259]
• 4th revert: [260]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [261]

Comments: This IP-hopping user has been making the same edits over and over again on both this article, American Idol (season 10) and Lauren Alaina for over the past month. Another IP address in the same range was blocked for edit warring in April, User:190.98.10.89. Aspects (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - 48 hours for long-term edit warring. This user never engages with others on article talk pages. A rangeblock might be considered if the same war is continued by another IP from the range. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Equazcion reported by User:Amadscientist (Result: no action)

Page: Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Equazcion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [262]
• 2nd revert: [263]
• 3rd revert: [264]
• 4th revert: [265]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [266]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [267] Uninvolved editor with this edit war, but not the information. I did edit this once from another editors contribution (Sindinero). Some discussion has been undertaken in regards to edit warring with this editor in the past in regards to him and he in regards to this editor.

Comments:
At first I thought it was just three but the third does appear to basicly revert the same material in question in order to place a desired version of the section.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Equazcion#3RR. I made only two actual reverts here, and each were of different edits. I explained this on my talk page. Aside from repeating that I violated 3RR, there wasn't much of an attempt to address this.

• [268] - User AKA had inserted a redundant statement (which he later admitted was by mistake), and I removed it. This wasn't a revert. He did other things with this edit which I didn't touch.
• [269] - This was a revert of [270].
• [271] - This was not a revert. User AKA has removed a reference for being a blog, so I added a different reference instead.
• [272] - This was a revert of AKA's removal of that reference.

The final edit here was indeed a revert of a revert, but if you look at the talk page and history of this article, user AKA doesn't tend to abide by BRD, and several of us have grown tired of trying to force the issue. He's also been admonished for this numerous times on his talk page by users and an admin, though he removes those warnings, so you'll need to check his talk page history. Either way, 3RR wasn't violated here. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Declined As noted, one revert appears to be "consensual", and reverts that are an attempt at iterative improvement (making the requested change in the ref) are iffy. Since this is a little stale, I would suggest no other action. Kuru (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Dencod16 reported by User:James26 (Result: Warned)

Page: Agnieszka Radwańska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dencod16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Agnieszka Radwanska

• 1st revert: 1
• 2nd revert: 2
• 3rd revert: 3
• 4th revert: 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk page

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

Comments:
I'm attempting to maintain a concise version of the Agnieszka Radwańska article. Dencod16, who has a history of disruptive editing, keeps restoring a far longer version which contains unverified claims about a living person (heroics regarding qualifying matches and other "accomplishments"), and is full of grammatical errors, over-linking, and comma splices. I've tried explaining multiple times that Wikipedia is not a diary, and that all of this statistical detail about matches is unnecessary. Dencod has ignored all of these points and resorted to uncivil insults. -- James26 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. Left a message on user's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He at first said that scores should not be placed. And then he stated that it should be done like Roger Federer's page. And then he stated that Roger Federer's structure page doesn't matter after I pointed out that Federer's page is very detailed. And to say what i did was a diary is untrue, as with other tennis player's page it is important to state there whole season as it shows how they have done, every round they have lost and tournaments won. It is our responsibility as editors to provide as much information as possible to the viewers. At least my informations are true to WTA Activity Section of Radwanska. For example he placed Myskina as the seventh seed as she was really the sixth seed. Dencod16 (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Denny reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Stale)

Page: The Avengers (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Denny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here are five links to the version before the reverting took place, made by three different editors to remove OR fancruft from a comic-book movie article.

• [273]
• [274]
• [275]
• [276]
• [277]

• 1st revert [278] 22:40, 1 May 2012
• 2nd revert [279] 23:13, 1 May 2012
• 3rd revert [280] 23:24, 1 May 2012
• 4th revert [281] 00:39, 2 May 2012‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [282]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There has been a discussion for two days, with no consensus to add the OR/fancruft version Denny is edit-warring about. Rather than discuss issues, he simply said, 'This is what I'm going to do," despite at least four other longtime WikiProject Comics editors in opposition to him — and myself offering a compromise solution with three or four posts beginning here that he dismissed in order to edit-war his version.

• Discussion beginning 07:22, 30 April 2012: Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#Thanos
• Discussion beginning 12:44, 1 May 2012: Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#Post Credits Scene

Comments:

• This is not a comment by the reporter but by the reported. I obviously disagree with Tenebrae's assessment, especially on the ground that I have added, for the first time, the debated statement with a reference. This was reverted with reasons. I changed the statement to incorporate the given reasons, i.e. a stronger citation for the statement. I was continuously giving my reasons on the article page, but Tenebrae only added comments to it after repeatedly removing my work. I hope this adds a bit light on the issue. --denny vrandečić (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Stale – Consider reporting again if the problem continues. From the talk page it is not clear there is any ongoing dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Beagel reported by User:Smm201`0 (Result: no violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [283]

• 1st revert: [284]
• 2nd revert: [285]
• 3rd revert: [286]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [287]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [288] [289] Comments:

I may have jumped the gun, but if this isn't yet 3RR, it is likely edit warring. Beagel is not the only editor deleting content and sources. There have been repeated attempts to remove sources and large chunks of information that mention negative aspects of hydraulic fracturing. I'd like to see the article present the positives and negatives with sources and let readers decide. When I arrived on the page, it was very pro-industry. I added info about the concerns and fixed errors. This is the first time I've reported anyone. Hope I'm doing this right. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested to have any edit warring and therefore I stopped edit that article at the moment, although there is no violation of 3RR. However, the Hydraulic fracturing needs more close surveillance by administrators and it needs some dispute resolution. The current deletion of information is not deletion as such: the environmental information was split to two different articles but the existing section was never summarized and duplicates existing articles. The information still exists without any changes at the separate environmental articles (all details are at the article's talk page) This is discussed several times at the talk page; however, summarizing is blocked by User:Smm201`0 backed by user:Sindinero and user:Iloveandrea. There have been requests for comment; however unfortunately it seems that there is no intention to take account comments by non-involved parties. I know that this is not the right place to ask this, but any suggestion how to resolve the dispute between different parties, is the most welcome. I also hope that this discussion here will stop the name calling as all editors having different opinion as User:Smm201`0 are labeled as "business involved" or "paid editors".[290] This is serious accusation and I am glad if any non-involved editor will check all my edits to make clear if there is any bases for these accusations or not. I can honestly confirm that I don't have any involvement in the hydraulic fracturing business, don't have any relation to any oil and gas company other than filling my car at the petrol station, and I never did any paid edits in Wikipedia. I don't know how I can prove this but I hope that my edits will be sufficient proof that these accusations are baseless. I hope also that also User:Smm201`0 will agree if his/her edits will be reviewed. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The second revert listed is not a revert at all, but a condensation of a section present in full in the more specific article, linked from this article at the top of the relevant section. Mikenorton (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• No violation After reviewing all of Mr. Beagel's edits on that page, I'm not seeing it. You'll need to provide four reverts within a 24 hour period; and they need to be actual reverts. If you're asking to review the page for general edit warring, you may not like the first person I'd single out. Kuru (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:Smm201`0 (Result: no violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [291]

• 1st revert: [292]
• 2nd revert: [293]
• 3rd revert: [294]
• 4th revert: [diff]

The next day - mass deletion: [295]

This was addressed on the talk page and removed as synthesis of material. Smm should be warned about making allegations such as this. Arzel (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a series of early deletions on the Philadelphia Water Department page [296] from 04/28-29/2012:

• [297]
• [298]
• [299]
• [300]

Unrelated to this issue and additional issues of synthesis of material and undue weight. Arzel (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [301]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [302]

Comments:
This user has a history of disruptive editing on this and other pages. She/he has been the subject of several ANI discussions. Her/his comments are throughout this talk page. She/he is on the verge of violating 3RR on the Seamus page as well. I may have jumped the gun, but if this isn't yet 3RR, it is likely edit warring.Smm201`0 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This was 1 revert, the second and third claimed reverts were completed unrelated. Additionally, this editor made another spurious report immediately prior to this report. If WP really wants to address a problem on WP, they should review editors like Smm201`0 who are using WP for there personal activism. This editor has been on a vendeta against Hyrdraulic Fracing, not to mention accusing editors that disagree with him/her of being paid editors for the industry. Arzel (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, if an Admin would really like to review something, perhaps they can ask Smm201'0 why they have this statement on their user page. Due to some wikihounding, I have a different username on certain pages, but never more than one name per article (unless I log on before coffee and it is accidental). I am based on the East Coast of the US. Claims of wiki-hounding or not, the use of multiple accounts to edit different topics sounds like sock behavior to me. Arzel (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• No violation Reverts with no intervening edits count as one. Kuru (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Muktar allebbey reported by User:Gyrofrog (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [303] (April 30 version, i.e. before most recent reverting took place)

• 1st revert: [304]
• 2nd revert: [305]
• 3rd revert: [306]
• 4th revert: [307]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [308] (edit warring); [309] (3RR)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [310] (User:Middayexpress, May 2)
2. [311] (me, May 2)
3. [312] (me, May 3)
4. [313] (User:Middayexpress, May 3)

(These are just since May 2; the dispute has gone on since March 2 4)

Comments:

This has gone on for two months. User:Middayexpress, User:CambridgeBayWeather and myself had all pointed out concerns with User:Muktar allebbey's edits. Muktar allebbey acknowledged some points, and made some adjustments to edits, but has essentially pushed the same version. Most recently, though, he's been reverting back to even earlier versions, re-introducing problems that he had addressed in the meantime (along with undoing unrelated edits that other editors had made). Gyrofrog (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Notified all parties named in this discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The post above pretty much sums up the situation. The user Muktar has been repeatedly shown what are the specific problems with his edits. His attempts at fixing those issues, however, have been either minimal or ineffectual. He has essentially been reverting back to the same problematic edits. There have also been some civility issues along the way. It seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE matter more than anything. Middayexpress (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Long term edit warring; multiple previous blocks. Kuru (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Dmugar reported by User:Cresix (Result: Indef)

NOTE TO ADMIN: After I made this report, Dmugar was given an indef block for abusing multiple accounts. Cresix (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Page: David G. Mugar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dmugar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Article prior to first revert: [314]

• 1st revert: [315]
• 2nd revert: [316]
• 3rd revert: [317]
• 4th revert: [318]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [319]

Cresix (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef by another admin for abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner and User:Yopie reported by User:Sherlock4000 (Result: page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [320]

• 1st revert: [321]
• 2nd revert: [322]
• 3rd revert: [323]
• 4th revert: [324]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [325] [326]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [327] [328] [329] Comments:

As you know, the Argentine energy firm YPF was partly renationalized recently. Obviously, this has become a subject of some controversy. I'm reporting repeated attempts made to insert anonymous, unsubstantiated claims at the YPF article that "Spanish executives of YPF were hunted down by Argentine officials" and that "armed guards used physical violence and threats."

The two users who insist on adding this to the page cite a source (Financial Times), but the source is a restricted site. BobRayner believes we are to take the FT at its word (if we could access the word, of course) because they are "surely a reliable source on Argentine economic issues."

My questions as to verifiability of BobRayner's version of what was published in a restricted site quoting unnamed sources are "excuses" according to him, and citing a restricted site while inserting contentious, anonymous claims should not challenged.

Verifiability does matter, of course. This is all the more so when we have numerous freely accessible news reports that directly contradict the version of events these users are so partial to; these are in Spanish, but are from outside Argentina and with the wonders of Google Translate, are a cinch to read. Here's one written from a decidedly anti-nationalization viewpoint in ABC, a conservative Spanish periodical (there are similar stories in Mexican publications).

The source reads (I'm translating): Operation YPF found no resistance in any of the executives, Argentine or Spanish. Nor in Sergio Resumil, then-Director of Communications (spokesman). They complied with instructions given to them by Baratta (Roberto Baratta, state representative in the YPF board of directors prior to the takeover) who (according to Resumil) "was formal in his demeanor. There was no physical struggle, no pushing, or violence of any kind. The 16 dismissed executives left in their respective company cars, chauffeured to their residences."

Here we have a first-hand account from Repsol's own spokesman in YPF who, while sparing no misgivings about the nationalization itself in the interview, describes the dismissal of YPF executives (the very people in question) in no uncertain terms.

BobRayner's unverifiable source to the contrary is based on anonymous claims, for otherwise we would see a person's name attached to the claim being inserted into the article, rather than "According to the Financial Times." This anonymous claim is not only unsubstantiated, it directly contradicts first-hand accounts by Repsol's spokesman at YPF himself.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected I'm seeing multiple 3RR problems, so I've locked the page for a short period to encourage all parties to finish the discussion on the article's talk page. If you resolve the dispute before the protection expires, please contact me or leave a request at WP:RFPP and it can be removed. I don't buy the usage of the BLP policy in this instance, and there is nothing wrong with using sources that may or may not be easily available. Others can verify for you. Kuru (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:theredpenofdoom reported by User:Shanedoe (Result: no violation)

Page: John Harington (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [330]
• 2nd revert: [331]
• 3rd revert: [332]
• 4th revert: [333]
• There are 18 total reverts.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [334]

Comments: A user added a popular culture South Park section to the article John Harington, and I came back to the article and the section was entirely gone with the reason being there were no references, so I found references and wrote a new section and added it to the article, references included. The user theredpenofdoom removed my section, and continued to so, even though I pointed out several articles have a popular culture section, he made a remark about it being "crappy", and continued to remove it, even though the part of the article is well-written, and has good references. I started ignoring him because he began constantly harassing me, and clearly just wanted to pick a fight with me, even though my points were valid. I'll admit, I have edited the article a lot, but if you look closely, I just edited things that I myself had previously written. He's the only user that had a problem with the pop culture section, short of one or two people I assume are his friends.

I see nothing wrong with this being added to the article, other than some user with something to prove doesn't like it. It's well written, and has more than one reference included.

• Declined The editor you're reporting has not touched the article in several weeks. I would encourage you to use WP:DR. Kuru (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Jlgowls reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: blocked for an indefinite duration)

Page: Richard Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 06:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 01:50, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")
2. 03:54, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")
3. 19:58, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")
4. 22:39, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Update -- here is another one, same edit. It's obvious it will continue, unless... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite. This is an edit warring-only account, and what they're removing is cited to a reliable source which clearly supports what's in the article. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Tertoger reported by User:Clivel 0 (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [335]

• 1st revert: 1 May 2012 [336]
• 2nd revert: 1 May 2012 [337]
• 3rd revert: 2 May [338]
• 4th revert: 3 May [339]
• 5th revert: 3 May [340]
• 6th revert: 3 May [341]
• 7th revert: 3 May [342]
• 8th revert: 4 May [343]
• 9th revert: 4 May [344]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [345]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [346]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. While that material is negative about Mr Galtung, it is cited to reliable sources (I checked the Haaretz article) and there's consensus on the talk page to retain it in some form, so WP:BLP is not an excuse for this behaviour. Block duration set at a relatively short length given the extent of the edit warring as this editor has not been blocked previously and is probably editing in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:X Nilloc X reported by User:Nick-D (Result: )

Page: War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: X Nilloc X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [347]

• 1st revert: [348] (10:51, 2 May)
• 2nd revert: [349] (03:16, 3 May)
• 3rd revert: [350] (14:12, 4 May)
• 4th revert: [351] (15:40, 4 May)
• 5th revert: [352] (02:32, 5 May)
• 6th revert: [353]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [354] (3 May) and [355] (4 May)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox, notifications of the discussion also posted at WT:MILHIST and WP:RSN#Discussion about Taliban/Insurgent casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) infobox.

Comments:
This is a report of sustained edit warring against the majority position rather than a 3RR violation (though the editor seems well on the way to this). On 29 April I removed a casualty figure for total Taliban deaths in this war which was cited only to a Wikipedia article (which doesn't actually provide this figure) and provided a reference to a reliable source which states that there are in fact no reliable estimates for Taliban deaths. When doing so I also started a discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox where this position has received support from most of the editors who have commented. X Nilloc X (talk · contribs) is participating in that discussion, but keeps reverting the unreferenced figure back into the article despite being asked to stop this. I and two other editors have been reverting his or her changes. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I should note that I'm up to three reverts in 24 hours in this article myself (two reverts of X Nilloc X and one of Stumink (talk · contribs), who has been twice invited to join the talk page discussion but has edit warred instead). As noted earlier, two other editors have also reverted X Nilloc X within the last 48 hours. I will not be making any further reversions of the article this weekend. Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

X Nilloc X has reverted me again since I posted this report and notified them of it (added above as the 5th revert), and has also started a spurious discussion at WP:DRN. Nick-D (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mirror89 reported by User:Judgeking (Result: )

Page: Noelia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mirror89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [356]
• 2nd revert: [357]
• 3rd revert: [358]
• 4th revert: [359]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [360]

Comments:

Judgeking (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Materialscientist (talk · contribs) may have also violated the 3RR here. I'll leave it for another admin though. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The editors of that page tend to revert without explaining anything, or leaving a vague explanation (like "it was agreed on the talk page" whereas it was not). After a few reverts with Mirror89, I've managed to get into a conversation with that editor on the article talk page, understood his/her claims on birth date, diplomatically changed it, and we seemed to agree on that (birth date). Then there were some other unexplained reverts forth and back, and frankly I've lost interest in fixing that article (which suffers from a usual problem of hypes sourced to gossip sites) .. Materialscientist (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:99.237.236.218 reported by User:L.tak (Result: both blocked)

Page: List of sovereign states in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.237.236.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [361]

• 1st revert: [362] (note: 3 May)
• 2nd revert: [363] 5 may 6.36h
• 3rd revert: [364] 5 may 2003h
• 4th revert: [365] 5 may 2132
• 5th revert: [366] 5 may 2218

It is a classical discussion: is Palestine a sovereign state. The IP states it's not.

• The examples are from List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_2010s, and exactly the same happened at List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_2000s and List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_1980s
• The user is familiar with the israel-palestine discretionary sanctions; and I warned about getting close to edit warring on List of world map changes‎, where he has not stepped over the 3RR line formally
• As my focus was List of world map changes‎ (where 3 individual reverted), I didn't investigate these Lists of sovereign states-articles and thus did not warn/discuss this with user:Spesh531, who was the only counterpart in these actions.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [367]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [368] (in 3RR warning; also a small exchange on my talk page)

Comments:

L.tak (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked The IP editor has form with this kind of stuff, so I've blocked them for two weeks. Spesh531 has also been edit warring across multiple articles for the last few days on what's a sensitive topic instead of seeking admin intervention, so I've blocked them for 24 hours. Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Agent00f reported by Mtking (Result: blocked)

Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 04:30, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "The Seeds of Tomorrow")
2. 04:40, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Disallowing an integral party to every previous failure from preventing a real solution.")
3. 04:49, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Just the same 3 people (Mtking, TreyGeek, Haseur) who've betrayed the process again and again trying to prevent resolution that's not controlled and failed via them.")
4. 07:17, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "The clique of Mtking/Treygeek/Hasteur clearly _hate_ any attempt at a process not under their direct control. They'll do _anything_ unsavory possible to prevent.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Mtking ^(edits) 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now self reverted his fourth revert, will withdraw this if Agent00f undertakes not to redo the edit at some later time. Mtking ^(edits) 07:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this rule exists and I've reverted last change. However, this prompted me to also look at the rulebook and see if there's egregious violations by Mtking. This is directly related to another AN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Agent00f. It's blatant forum-shopping. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP#FORUMSHOP As noted on other AN and edit notes direct this is simply collusion between 3 editors to single out, harass, and drive off (esp new) users who do not wish them to dominate the discussion. That's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BITE. There's a consistent history of their behavior over months if anyone needs evidence. Agent00f (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You failed to read the rest of WP:FORUMSHOP Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.; the issue at ANI is your soapboxing, the issue here is WP:3RR and you will see that on the ANI thread I posted a link here.

As for you claims of ignorance (of the 3RR rule) that does not hold given the notice placed on your talk page over 2 hrs before you made your fourth revert. Mtking ^(edits) 08:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Clear sign of WP:BITE again and not assuming good faith. Mtking's posse's posted so much trash to my talk page I don't even look at it anymore. The two AN attempts also clearly involve the exact same material deleted wholesale in blatant violation of WP:TALKO, but I'm not going to start an AN over it like Mtking and hope for another admin to cut me a break. In good faith instead of just pretending I won't put it back again until the other AN is closed. It's also notable that Mtking is already in violation of about 5 other wiki rules at the other AN board, but keeps up this kind of behavior.

Also, note that as a veteran wiki editor, you should be aware that 3RR as a brightline rule is more easily applied, so please post links going both ways next time, esp when you posted this later. Agent00f (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mtking is now trying to negotiate in bad faith by offering to withdraw this AN only if I accept his wholesale deletion. The only reason I've reverted this is to avoid a quick brightline block by a hasty admin while a block against Mtking is being consider at another AN.

This is simply more unethical behavior on Mtking's part and has been noted to the other AN. Agent00f (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Already blocked by someone else. --slakr^\ talk / 05:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Colton Cosmic reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: stale)

Page: Phoenix Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 19:35, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Okay, I'm deleting this based on WP:BLP, see discussion.")
2. 19:49, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undo, does not address WP:BLP violation")
3. 21:01, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "undo, previous edit did WAY more than comment indicated, and deleted valid reference")
4. 15:33, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "occupation: previous editor of this deleted reliably-sourced information (and reliable source), just restoring")

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my first post to talk-page, which is active

• Note that this editor is claiming BLP, but there is a clear consensus on the talkpage that there's no BLP violation whatsoever here.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I believe I am in the right and that the last of those edits is not edit warring but a straight and independent restoration of referenced material that was deleted (and the reliable source was deleted) in favor of a tendentious and wholly unreferenced epithet ("vigilante"). It is accurate that other editors there have disagreed with me, premising their positions in part on inaccurate information (see "press conference"), as Nomoskedasticity did, but there has not been enough time or comments to have a "consensus." And any rate, should it be found that there's a violation, I assert a WP:BLP exemption, and am ready to explain and defend that, and I further note that editors at the article have gone so far as to link a private individual's personal Facebook page and purportedly his traffic offense record. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't been reported before, and I wasn't really familiar with how this noticeboard works, but it looks like each complaint calls for a resolution, and presumably the admin is not going to want to go back and forth on it, so I better get my side out now. As briefly as I can:

• I don't think the *first* of those edits linked above is edit-warring. It was the eighth of the first eight edits, none contested at that time, I made to the article. I did not know it would be so contentious. If you go back far enough on the talk page then yeah, people are quarreling about it, but I did not know this. There was a recent discussion about whether to name the article by the superhero persona or by his real name but that's a little different than my position at the time that the real name should not be included at all, and as far as I know I have not run afoul of either of those editors in that recent discussion ("Why is this page listed as Phoenix Jones?").
• Yeah, the edit *deleted* text, and arguably any time you delete *anything* you're "reverting" *somebody* but I viewed the edit as non-adversarial at the time and I duly explained myself on the talk page.
• I'll own up to the fact that the second and third edits linked above are reverts.
• Although now it's clear it has not gone in my favor, at the time I was making the WP:BLP case that we don't need to be disclosing the identifying information about "the man behind the mask." I made this case that BLP protects this information at several points, and I'm not going to re-recite them here. I still believe that but I accept I haven't persuaded anyone to agree with me. Of course this is clear now, it wasn't at the time of the above-linked edits. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That last edit is undoubtedly a revert. It appears to me that you're saying you believe you're entitled to violate 3RR as long as you think you're right. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you give somebody else a chance to consider your "report?" Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your bullet points above -- the first edit was undoubtedly a revert as well. What's annoying about all of this is that I warned you when you were at 3 and you persisted anyway; it results in a waste of time, when we would spend our time better working on articles. That said -- you seem to be getting a clue about how edit-warring is understood and I suspect you'll merely be warned. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stale — user stopped edit warring after being notified of the WP:3RR. --slakr^\ talk / 05:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Clivel 0 reported by User:Tertoger (Result: WP:BOOMERANG)

Page: Johan Galtung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Clivel 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [369]

• 1st revert: [370]
• 2nd revert: [371]
• 3rd revert: [372]
• 4th revert: [373]
• 5th revert: [374]
• 6th revert: [375]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [376]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [377]

Comments:

Edit warring to repeatedly insert libelous material into the article Johan Galtung, with the libelous, POV and UNDUE title "accusations of anti-semitism". The material has been determined to constitute a BLP violation at the Norwegian Wikipedia, removed by an administrator and the article protected there to prevent its readdition due to it being libel. Specifically, inserting a separate section with a title containing the word "anti-semitism" was deemed to be a BLP violation as it made the subject look anti-semitic. Nevertheless, the user continues his edit wars on other language editions, after he didn't get it his way at the Norwegian Wikipedia.

Someone inserting a separate section (grossly undue) titled "accusations of anti-semitism" in Barack Obama's (or any other public person's) biography (even if there were some sources) would be blocked instantly.

Also, it is It Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified, per Wikipedia:Libel and the policy on biographies of living persons.

As the talk page demonstrates, there is no consensus to insert this material in the article in this form and with such a title, and as a separate section, i.e. in the form determined to constitute a BLP violation at the Norwegian Wikipedia. Tertoger (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Tertoger Blocked – for a period of indefinite for returning to edit warring as soon as their block expired and lodging this bad faith report. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bigshowandkane64 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: blocked for one week )

Page: Thomas & Friends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 10:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: See evidence presented by AussieLegend below

1. 13:24, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "") reverted to this.[378]
2. 22:01, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490700120 by CourtneyBonnick (talk)Carlin died, so i think we should leave it the way it is.")
3. 23:11, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490708422 by 70.61.72.50 (talk) That's not even a thomas movie. False info")
   Contact was made with editor regarding his edits here, although other editors had been communicating with him previously.
4. 03:05, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490731160 by Trivialist (talk)") was immediately followed by 03:07, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490731429 by Trivialist (talk)")
5. 23:04, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "") This edit restored content previously removed in this edit making it a partial reversion.
6. 23:22, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490873549 by CourtneyBonnick (talk)That's important info.")
7. 00:01, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490877637 by CourtneyBonnick (talk)")
8. 01:14, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490903265 by Trivialist (talk)")
   Editor was given a 3RR warning at this point.
9. 03:37, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "") immediately followed by 03:43, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "") - combined these edits reverted to this.[379]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:45, 6 May 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page: 23:28, 4 May 2012

Comments:
I became aware of problems at Thomas & Friends, with unsourced content being persistently added and restored after removal when it was reported recently at WT:TV by User:Robsinden. The page history reveals an ongoing edit war between IPs and registered editors. This report concerns one of them, User:Bigshowandkane64, with whom Robsinden and others have had an obvious running battle over sourcing. After reviewing the page history I reverted some edits made by Bigshowandkane64 and explained why on his talk page.[380] This was deleted 3 minutes later,[381] and Bigshowandkane64 continued restoring the offending content over the next 24 hours, despite reversions by other editors. After Bigshowandkane64 had made at least 8 reverts in a little over 38 hours a warning was clearly warranted so one was given.[382] Six minutes later he removed it from his talk page,[383] and 3/4 of an hour after that made a series of edits, restoring previously removed content,[384] the first two of which constituted his 9th revert.[385] --AussieLegend (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week while this editor has been edit warring despite a 48 hour block for this in February, this diff from those listed above definitely wasn't edit warring! Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Shanedoe reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 1 week)

Page: John Harington (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shanedoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [386]

• 1st revert: [387]
• 2nd revert: [388]
• 3rd revert: [389]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [390] and [391]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:John Harington (writer)#South Park just referenced this page

Comments:
This is not a 3RR report, but a general (long term) edit warring report. User was recently blocked for these same edits on the same article, and their first edit after being unblocked was to continue to edit war without discussion, and all edits since being unblocked have been to continue this edit war (except for filing this edit warring report). They finally left a message on the talk page failing to address anything presented in the discussion, and then immediately continued to edit war. Saying "I don't see what's wrong with it" and then clicking 'undo' yet again is not a discussion, it's an attempt to continue to edit war without actually discussing anything. and the user has demonstrated they have no intention of ceasing to edit war. - SudoGhost 13:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

i have actually discussed this on my own talk page before, but just removed the discussion. it's a referenced pop culture section, but apparently it's vandalism? there are several pop culture sections for all sorts of tv shows. this isn't any different. Shanedoe (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was vandalism; I said it was long-term edit warring. What exists on some articles is not a framework to create content on other articles without regard to weight or relevance, and it is different at any rate; see the talk page discussion. You have made exactly two comments on either your talk page or the article page, both of them in essence saying "I don't see what the problem is", as opposed to actually addressing or discussing the issues being presented. - SudoGhost 02:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked --slakr^\ talk / 05:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:149.154.159.142 reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Moot, the article is deleted)

Page: Islamists in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 149.154.159.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [392]

• 1st revert: [393]
• 2nd revert: [394]
• 3rd revert: [395]
• 4th revert: [396]
• 5th revert: [397]
• 6th revert: [398]

Comments: Obviously an IP sock of the blocked User:ChronicalUsual trying to keep one of the pages his other socks created from being speedy deleted. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual for the discussion we had about this disruptive editor, whose confirmed socks now number well above 60 not including the IP accounts he's used through an open proxy to disrupt this website.

1: The administrator has not linked me to this case even when you tried to add me. I am not ChronicalUsual no matter how much you try to believe it. 2: I have not done an edit warning since I just removed a template and did not touch the content of the article. 3: I had the right to remove the template, it is written black on white in the template. You are clearly the abusive user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.159.142 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Stale - the article has been deleted, so the issue is moot. If this user is a reincarnation, that's a question for Sockpuppet investigations, not this forum. B (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ackees reported by User:ElliotJoyce (Result: reporter blocked)

Page: Benin Expedition of 1897 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ackees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

The user Ackees has recently returned from a 3-day block. The first thing he set about doing is reverting edits on articles that he was participating in edit wars in. Those include Benin City, African Slave Trade, and Benin Expedition of 1897. He continues to add personal attacks against me in his edit summaries. In his most recent edit on the Benin Expedition of 1897, he called me a "white supremacist", and in the Benin City article he accused me of being part of a "colonialist propaganda". In previous edits, this user has called me and others "neo-nazis", "racists", and other such offensive appellations. One example of when he called me a "neo-nazi" is also on the Benin City edit history page, in one of Ackees recent edit summaries. Below are the links I've included to the reverts this user has been perpetrating now that he is back from his 3-day block.

• Reverts on the Benin Expedition of 1897 article: [399]
• Reverts on the Benin City article: [400]
• Reverts on the African Slave Trade article: [401]

Blocked the reporter, ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs). I'm not sure about how much responsibility Ackee bears for all this, but ElliotJoyce was also just coming back from a block for tendentious edit-warring, and I only looked at African slave trade and saw that ElliotJoyce removed valid cited material twice within the last day, for obvious POV reasons, and was also misusing the talkpage for some rather repulsive soapboxing [402]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Ahmad Shah Massoud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JCAla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [403]

• 1st revert: [404] (JCAla removes disambiguation hatnote put in by Fut. Perf.)
• 2nd revert: [405] (JCAla reverts Fut. Perf.'s rewrite of the lead and placement of an NPOV tag on the article)
• 3rd revert: [406] (JCAla reverts Fut. Perf.'s addition of a "dubious" tag)
• 4th revert: [407] (JCAla reverts Fut. Perf.'s rewrite of a paragraph)
• 5th revert: [408] (JCAla adds back text that Fut. Perf. removed in this edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [409]. JCAla has been blocked several times for edit-warring, so he knows the rules.

I haven't been involved the article talk page, but this matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Ani#User:JCAla.2C_source_falsification_and_tendentious_editing.

Comments:
I've blocked for 72 hours. I can't remember if this is a violation of 3RR (does that require reversions of the same thing or not? I can't remember), but this is unambiguously edit warring on JCAla's part and complete innocence on FPAS's part, since all reversions by JCAla were of different edits by FPAS. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Gmonasco & 94.11.182.193 reported by User:Berean Hunter (Result: 24h)

Page: Anthony Hopkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gmonasco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is also 94.11.182.193 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

• Diff1
• Diff2
• Diff3
• Diff4 (now as Gmonasco)

• Talk page attempt: Here (also issue discussed in archives)
• Warning

User is edit-warring over identity/nationality and just created an account to place 4th revert after receiving warning on IP talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked — it's apparent he created the account right after you warned him of the impending 3rr violation should he continue. --slakr^\ talk / 05:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Sudar123 reported by User:SriSuren (Result: protected)

Page: Vijayabahu I of Polonnaruwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sudar123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [410]

• 1st revert: 02:09, 30 April 2012‎ [411]
• 2nd revert: 08:22, 30 April 2012‎ [412]
• 3rd revert: 14:42, 30 April 2012‎ [413]
• 4th revert: 18:51, 30 April 2012‎ [414]

4 reverts within c. 17 hours

• 5th revert: 20:01, 5 May 2012‎ [415] (After specifically asking to discuss in the talkpages and me waiting almost 5 days for his reply in one of the talk pages).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Chola Invasion and your edits in the article king Vijayabahu I - I didn't place any of those standard warning signs, but told him specifically, that I am writing that post in his userpage, since it is required that he must be warned before complaining about his reverting.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [416] The discussion was started first in his talk page. He replied with one short comment on 30 April 2012, 18:36 (UTC). The discussion in the talk page of the article was started after his 4th edit. He reverted again, after I posted a couple of more posts in his userpage explaining to him what is wrong with his reverting and refering to the discussion which was started in the article page. On 3 May 2012 at 05:40 (UTC) I gave him 48 hours to reply, since he went completely silent. He never commented in any of the talk pages, but reverted again. He does not want to discuss at all, nor does he have any references. Please read the comment below.

Comments:

User:Sudar123 keeps reverting edits without stating any valid reason and I do not know where to take this issue, since it is more than just reverting, as he is not clear on what he means and he is not giving any references. He is also provocative in his edit summaries. He just keeps reverting without giving any references or for that matter anything else to defend his views in the discussions. Please also note the words and the terms he is demanding references for, namely "occupation" and "invason/invaders" and check the references I have given, or do your own Google book search and see whether there are any scholarly references which says anything else about this event, than that it was an invasion and occupation.

When asked for explanations he goes completely silent, and then comes back and reverts. How am I to handle this, without breaking any rules myself?

I have given the user an explanation in his talk page and ample references with over 200 results for the exact occurance of the term in question "Chola Occupation" from Google books, which was the first term he wanted references for. He reverted even after I gave the references, but he realized that he couldn't ask for more references for his first demand, so he shifted his attention to another word, namely "invasion" and reverted my edit, this time around and stating in his edit summary that "one source is contradicting in the referred page itself by the terms, "Conquest" and "Invader"! (please note where he is saying that there is a contradiction and think how anyone is going to defend that there is a contradiction in that..... Also, if he bothered to read some of the references then he would have also found ample references to the words "invader" and "invasion" too.). He did't even bother to state which source he is refering to, or what this socalled contradiction is. When this is pointed out in the discussion in his talk page, he goes completely silent. I waited almost another 2 days for his reply, but since he didn't reply, I gave him a more thorough explaination, and asked him to state his views, with references, within 48 hours. But even then he did not reply in his talk page or the talk page in the article. Therefore I reinstated my edit, after the 48 hours had passed, that is almost 5 days after his last revert and him completely ignoring the call to state his views and references. But when I reverted his edit, he was back within hours and without any explanation in the talk pages, reverted again stating in his edit summary "Can you please explain on which Wikipedia Policy, you have set the 48 hours ultimatum?"

Can he keep the article on hold and a dispute going on indefinitely like this? Sudar123 is not backing any of what he is saying with references and he is trying to deliberately extend and expand the problem, into other articles related to this particular topic as well, namely the Chola occupation of Sri Lanka, while keeping this dispute alive indefinitely. I mean that, if 48 hours is not enough he can either state that he needs more time, or just state his views in short and that if he has time to revert edits, he must have time to defend his reverts and points too.

As the edit summaries in the article will show, user Sudar123 took up this issue where User:Tamilan101 left, after pestering and reverting edits continuously, and demanding references for the occurance of the word "island"!! and reverting even after references were given. This kind of "editing" and demands for references for obvious things is really unnecessary and then even after references are given, they continuously revert, either by picking another word, or trying to question the references. This is exhausting and it is hard to get any useful editing done.

I need advice as to how to settle this particular issue, as I really do not know how to handle this or if I revert now, whether I will be breaking any rules. As for the content Sudar123 is disputing, there's absolutely no scholarly dispute, that the event was an invasion and occupation. I do not want a quick block of Sudar123 as I do not think it will not solve the problem, since he will do the same thing again, if not in this article, then in other articles. I just want someone to explain that he has to explain why he is reverting and give references to reliable sources, and that if he doesn't have reliable sources for his claims, that he can't revert or write what he would like to hear about the topic. He is not giving any references since he has no sources to back up what he is telling. SriSuren (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

When I do a search on Google Books, I too get more than 200 hundred results that Chola rule' in Sri Lanka[417], [418], [419], [420]...etc.

Chola were there in the island more than 84 years (993—1077) and given importance to Hinduism and not Buddhism. If they had given importance to Buddhism, their rule might have been celebrated by most of the scholars as "Golden Rule" in contemporary Sri Lanka.

Even in South India once Buddhism was flourished in the Pandya, Chera, Chola and other areas. There were many Tamil Literature on Buddhism in South India and were destroyed on various religious grounds than the rulers personal wish or it is not particularly attributed to Pandyas or to Cheras or to Cholas that they are against Buddhism.

According to the Mahavamsa – a historical poem written in the Pali language, of the kings of Sri Lanka – King Vijaya (543 – 505 BCE) married a Pandyan Princess. Along with Vijaya, all the men in his crew got married to Madurai girls and arrived Srilanka with a great celebration.[421]

If that is so, then the Sinhalese claim that they are descendants of King Vijaya implies that they are the descendants of South India matrilineally.

You haven't mention in the Chola occupation of Sri Lanka (993–1077) article the collaboration of Sri Lankan Kings at that time with Pandya Kings to oust the Chola power in various territories.

Just shouting "South Indian Invasion" and "Chola Occupation" by most of the Scholars who identify themselves with King Vijaya are, shouting at their very Own ancestors from South India and hiding the geo-politics at that time among Pandya, Chola and the island's Kings.Sudar123 (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So you decided to state your views finally... Anyway what exactly is the relevance of all the diverse origin theories for the Sinhalese and all that other stuff? What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that the Chola rule was a legitimate rule and not an occupation, because some south Indians migrated to the island and got assimilated into the Sinhalese population, or this semi-mythical prince Vijaya married a Pandyan/Pandu princess? This kind of thin irrelevant arguments do not make your case, but break it. Even if that story is true that was almost 1600 years prior to the Chola invasion and the Cholas were a different kingdom than Pandyans!!!! Also do you think that the Sinhalese would have accepted Chola rule, if the Sinhalese were Hindus? All the other kingdoms the Cholas invaded in India were Hindu kingdoms. Did they accept Chola rule? Also, the Cholas didn't destroy the Buddhist temples and monastries because they were against Buddhism, they did it because these things belonged to the country they had invaded. So, please not try to distort facts and take things out of context. Just read what your search results say:

Eg: He (Rajaraja Chola) captured the island of Sri Lanka ....

...intermittent armed resistance to Chola rule continued there throughout the Chola period.

Therefore it is very likely that this monastery too did not escape the ravages of Chola rule.

I can't use more time to copy and paste links - just read yourself.

Please note that an occupation is also a type of rule, as stated in the discussion page of the article, but do not try to camouflage this brutal invasion and occupation, as a legitimate rule; it wasn't a legitimate rule, and that fact must be clearly stated in King Vijyabahu's article, since it was he who liberated Sri Lanka from the Cholas.

And about the other stuff u mention about King Vijaya marrying a Pandu/Pandyan princess etc. - they are totally and completely irrelevant. Whoever he married is not relevant to this discussion, and there are no Sinhalese who claim descent from king Vijaya and the Pandu/Pandyan princess, since that marriage did not produce any children. And Pandyans were the allies of Sinhalese and enemies of the Cholas for long periods. Cholas were always hostile. Also the Cholas didn't only invade and occupy Sri Lanka, they invaded most of the kingdoms in India and also countries in the far east. So what you are trying to present here is totally wrong.

Just a comparision so that editors who might follow this discussion and do not know the details about this history can understand some of it - the Princes and princesses of England married Princesses/Princes from France, but that doesn't mean that France can invade and occupy England and start destroying everything in England, and later turn back and say that it was a legitimate rule. Also if some French people settled in England and got assimilated into the English population, that doesn't give France the right to rule England nor does it make the English people into French people.--SriSuren (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Page protected --slakr^\ talk / 05:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Before the page was protected and after this complaint was posted here the following reverts have been done:

07:44, 6 May 2012‎ by Univolved editor Darkness Shines Edit summary -That internal is entirely fine. difference

21:21, 6 May 2012‎ by Tamilan101 No Edit summary difference

01:21, 7 May 2012‎ by Univolved editor He is coming for you next No Edit summary difference

04:28, 7 May 2012‎ by Sudar123 Edit summary - That is not giving the real scenario difference

As it is shown above user Sudar123 has reverted the page again, ignoring the discussion. (The page has been protected after that ). His edit summary says "That is not giving the real scenario". This is just another evasive and ambivalent statement, without any description of what this scenario is, since he does not have any references. Can an administrator please ask him to specify what this scenario is in the talk page of the article with third party references to whatever he is claiming ?

A note to Sudar123 - There's absolutely no references to this event being anything else than an invasion and occupation. The Cholas themselves left inscriptions where they boast about defeating the Sinhalese in war and conquering the country of the Sinhalese (Ila mandalam/Sri Lanka). Please state your views within 48 hours in the talk page of the article. Failing that I will get my edit reinstated (If 48 hours is not enough then state so in the talk page - this complaint here will soon be archived as it seems).--SriSuren (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)