Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive182

User:70.66.196.240 reported by User:Trivialist (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User persists in adding link to http://www.kevinkatovic.biz/blog/april-fools-day-pranks-for-2012/, in some edits replacing an existing link while claiming to be deleting spam. Trivialist (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the continued reverting and spamming. Kuru   (talk)  03:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:McKhan reported by User:Baboon43 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=484873085

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=484919375
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=485059179
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=485067638
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=485082112

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Ahbash Comments:

Mckhan broke the 3rr rule and he has been warned previously by others to not revert other peoples work on his talk page Baboon43 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you feel this way but I have not broken the 3RR rule. Thanks. McKhan (talk)
 * Technically true, but the pattern of reverts is clearly edit warring. A really bad idea on an article that being closely watched. Kuru   (talk)  03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * . Warning left on article talk page for future discussions.  Wifione  Message 03:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AmandaParker reported by User:Baboon43 (Result: Reporting editor blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=484806958
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=485047664
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=485066436

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Ahbash

Comments:

user will not discuss in talk page just edits and reverts work and has been warned about reverts previously Baboon43 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reporting editor . See above report. Wifione  Message 03:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jaychandra reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: There are warnings and explanations all over their talk page over the last few days

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kurmi and subsequent sections.

Comments:


 * Four clear reverts in the last 24 hours; was warned. Kuru   (talk)  11:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Greyhood reported by User:Malick78 (Result: Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

The links at times contain a lot of info, but the main points that have been reverted 4 times are in the cruft-filled "Symbolism" section; about the gait of a troika, a "troika-bird" and some references to Gogol and Dead Souls. The first "revert" has a summary of "expand, add sources" - but readds sections from a previous version word for word - and hence I think I'm right in considering it a revert.

As can be seen here, there were two other reverts at 17:33 and 17:53 of a huge amount of material which partly overlaps with other material in later reverts, all within the 24 hours, but not the material I'm primarily reporting about.

The page is up for a DYK, which could be why the padding keeps being readded.

I previously warned Greyhood about 3RR here two months ago regarding a different page. That time he self-reverted, but not without an accusation or two of his own.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments.

Update: Greyhood has just self-reverted here. I feel he doesn't particularly feel sorry though - shown by his accusation (again, like last time) - that I am "gaming the system". I'm not. On Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video, on Putin, and 2011–2012 Russian protests, Greyhood has over the last few months consistently engaged in nigh-on edit warring (sometimes in conjunction with the about to be banned Russavia (btw, Greyhood provided the anti-Polish cartoon which is partly leading to Russavia's ban)) and should learn a lesson from this.

Malick78 (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made a technical self-revert. The other editors asked me for the sources - I've provided them. If the sources were asked in correct and respectful way, that is by adding "citation needed" tags, I'd simply replace the tags with sources. But instead the whole material was outright deleted. So how could I have provided the requested sources without restoring it? Note that the editor Toddy1 on the talk found my addition of sources OK and helpful. Grey Hood   Talk  13:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that editor Toddy1 reverted my self-revert . Grey Hood   Talk  13:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hang on. This looks like gaming the system.  User:Malick78 generally agrees with User:Mootros and both of them usually disagree with User:Greyhood.


 * A neutral person would also have noted that User:Mootros is deleting the same material, over and over and over again. Notice how the paragraph explaining the naming of the donkey keeps being deleted (along with other stuff) in the following four edits
 * 16:13-17:10 1 April 2012.
 * 17:40 1 April 2012
 * 06:54-07:43 2 April 2012
 * 11:23-11:43 2 April 2012


 * Whatever is done to Greyhood, should also be done to Mootros and Malick78.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Erm, hang on: I've never had any contact with Mootros ever on WP. This is the first page we've ever been on together (as far as I know). I've never sent Mootros a message, and I don't think I've ever addressed Mootros directly on the talk page. How exactly have I gamed the system? This is an absurd, disingenuous, wild accusation. If you're suggesting that he and I both dislike cruft, then erm, I can't deny that. I haven't yet checked his edits above - but from what I've seen his edits have generally been fair and constructive. I'm still puzzled by how I've been accused of something. Are you saying I've coordinated edits with him? If so, that's simply a huge mistake (/barefaced lie).
 * "both of them usually disagree with User:Greyhood" - Greyhood argues with everyone except the about-to-be-banned Russavia, and Toddy1! There are a dozen editors out there who, using your definition, are coordinating against him. He has weird views and likes to goad people. Check out the Putin talk page, for instance, or his co-authored with Russavia Polandball article, designed to goad Poles.
 * The fact that Toddy1 accuses me of "gaming the system", the phrase Greyhood used on his talk page regarding my actions, suggests Toddy1 and Greyhood are very close and, erm, gaming the system. As for me and Mootros, as said above, - don't know the guy/girl, never interacted with him/her. Feel free to prove me wrong. But don't make unfounded accusations to get Greyhood out of a jam.
 * Oh, and lastly, I see Toddy1 readded the material Greyhood deleted with his self-revert. Shame you couldn't have waited for an independent view of things here. (Btw, one problem with the info added is that it's sourced to an article which contains anti-semitic comments, showing it's not RS. On the talk page, Greyhood says he "can't see anything anti-semitic there" (I'm paraphrasing him). This is the level of discussion on the talk page, unfortunately :( And why there's an edit war going on... ) Malick78 (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Malick78, your usual accusations on my part are irrelevant here. You have a long history of personal attacks and harassment against me, and please don't add more harassment on every next opportunity. I had no off-wiki contacts with user Toddy1, and whether you had contact with Mootros is really irrelevant - you game the system in the sense that you try to preclude me from editing some articles when you know perfectly that sources and editorial reason are on my side and you could do nothing about this except of accusing me in minorish mistakes or a breach of technical rules - in which case I'm always ready to self-revert and to concede I was wrong in overdoing with reverting, as well as I always recognize my mistakes. Another your attempt to undermine mine edits is your made-up claim of "anti-semitism" in one of the sources - the source just mentioned the Jewish ancestry of a subject of the article in a neutral way (is any mention of someone's Jewish ancestry antisemetism?), and the source is taken from the official site of the Club of the Heads of Regions of Russia, which is a high profile political institution, and mind you, Russia is multinational country with one of the regions being the Jewish Autonomous Oblast whose head is a Jew, Alexander Vinnikov - and after that you expect to see anti-semetism on the site of the Heads of Regions of Russia? Of course there is no anti-semitism, and overall there could be no anti-semitism on official high-profile political sites in Russia - otherwise there would be a huge political scandal. So please stop your gaming. Grey Hood   Talk  16:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A good faith warning of edit warring and reporting here would have warned and perhaps later reported both editors. Unfortunately Malick78 only reported the editor he disagrees with across a number of issues.  This was not a good faith way to behave.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice Mootros's alleged breaking of the rules. I just noticed yet another revert from Greyhood, and focused on that. But the fact that Mootros may have broken the rules, doesn't let Greyhood off the hook. Please assume good faith, btw. Both of you.
 * As for racism (and I'm sure this isn't the place to go into it in depth), the source says "True, [Zhirinovsky] says everywhere, that he's been baptised, but it's not been excluded, that the leader of the LDPR, himself not realising it, is affected by rudimentary Judaism. He has not changed his genes." ("Правда, он везде говорит, что крещен, но не исключено, что лидер ЛДПР, сам того не осознавая, находится под влиянием рудиментарного иудаизма. Генетику никто не отменял.") I defy any non-involved editor here not to find an unsavoury anti-semitic subtext there. The subject of the article is Orthodox Christian, and the source is making snide comments about the fact that "really, he's kind of still Jewish". Malick78 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a goal of finding an antisemitic context at whatever cost, surely you would be able to find it. As I said: if some ancestors of the protagonist of the article would have been in some way associated with troika harness (another subject of the article) - for example they would have been troika keepers or troika riders - and if some source would have written about those "troika genes" in connection to the subject of the article - would you call that racist? Of course not. Grey Hood   Talk  16:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The guy is whipping a donkey in the video, and he compares the donkey to Russia! His Jewish ancestry (from just one side, his father), is completely irrelevant.Malick78 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The source analyses the symbolism of the video - and yes the video is symbolical - the guy claims that and multiple sources agree, and most educated persons in Russia or specialists in Russian literature would easily recognize that symbolism. That you deny it just show that you have not studied the subject and available sources well enough. The source analyses different aspects of symbolism in intricate detail, and in one aspect finds a possible connection to a Biblical subject, Messiah, and focuses on the fact that Messiah is relatively more important for the Old Testament and for Judaism, reminding that the author has Jewish background. This one is excessively intricate and loose connection in my view, but not entirely unreasonable - who knows what family traditions were in the guy's family, and as an Orthodox Christian and PhD in philology he must know the basics of the Old Testament anyway. The same source quite reasonably claims that the guy has a Soviet school background and that's why he must know the troika symbolism from the Russian literature course which includes Dead Souls by Nikolai Gogol which includes a famous "troika-bird scene".
 * Really, all this pretty irrelevant to the 3RR, except for the fact that you have reverted me on a made-up pretext of non-existing "anti-semitism" in a source of a kind where anti-semitism is prohibited, and then I had to restore my edits adding more sources by the way. Grey Hood   Talk  17:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the source is anti-semitic is not relevant.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is worth adding that Mootros and Greyhood are both good editors, who in their zeal to improve the article made a mistake without realising it. It would have been right to have warned both of them equally, and to report the first one who continued edit warring after the warning.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I and others have previously warned Greyhood about edit warring. It has made little difference to his editing. Mootros seems more intent on constructive editing.Malick78 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not want to talk about Mootros here, since I believe he finally has engaged in some form of dialogue with me, but you provoke me, Malik78, with your phrase "Mootros seems more intent on constructive editing." On 27 March, after Mootros started mass unexplained removals and ignored the call to respect WP:BRD, I proposed to avoid edit warring and said I would wait for the explanation of Mootros removals: "Mootros, I would not like edit-warring and I'm waiting for explanation for your removals (why this stuff was irrelevant) and why the used Russian sources were not good enough." Since that moment I ceased editing the article until the 1 April. In my second to last post in this section, I explained in detail why the removals by Mootros were wrong. I waited almost 5 days until the 1 April for explanations of these removals from Mootros, but the answer to my concrete and detailed post never came in that section. And subsequently he simply continued his removals, unexplained or poorly explained, even though an uninvolved editor came and asked him Why did you revert to the crappy version? Grey Hood   Talk  17:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at Greyhood's talk page and found the following:
 * "Warning' at the same time as reporting here, 12:37, 2 April 2012.
 * Warning regarding Protests following the 2011 Russian elections 23:12, 5 February 2012 . This resulted in Greyhood self-reverting, but protesting that Malick78 had also made 4 reverts.
 * --Toddy1 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, I totally forgot of that. Malick tried to game the system even then, with BLP, as now with anti-semitism. Grey Hood   Talk  17:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted 4 times because Greyhood was adding material that suggested living people, Russian opposition activists, had visited the US embassy for nefarious reasons (the wording made it sound like they had something to hide). It violated WP:BLP, and therefore there was no limit to reverts. That's not gaming the system Greyhood. That is the system.Malick78 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That time, on the my last revert I removed the name of the video which was for some reason the source of concern to you - I thought that would be a compromise. But your aim was obviously to remove the entire section, that's why you gamed the system and made me to make revert, himself reverting 4 times on the pretext of BLP. Later the section was restored, but you removed the "embarassment" part from there. Basically, you made those two minor points the pretext for removing the entire section, which you did not like as a fan of the Russian opposition activists. Yet both the video title and the embarassement were all reflected in multiple reliable sources - including the source currently in the article, and there was no point to conceal those facts or to involve WP:BLP - which only states that "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." - these conditions were fulfilled. I could have refused to accept your unjustified censorship and your irrelevant BLP excuse that time, but I chose to avoid the dispute. But it was clear that you didn't think about improving the article on the whole - your point was to remove the entire section inconvenient to you by whatever means, and you gamed the system, using a small part as a reason for wholesale removal, misapplying BLP and ignoring the proposed consensus.
 * This time you again asked me to revert - despite the fact that it was already clear that such a revert would turn the Symbolism section into nonsense lacking cohesion and important context. Possibly you hoped that I would even remove the entire section in my self-revert. You ignored that in my last edit I added new relevant sources proving that I was right and that the material included to that section was all relevant, justified and needed in the article. Toddy1 did a right thing to revert my self-revert with a summary "this is silly - gaming the system", because by making me do it you degraded the article and disrupted the work on it - again, your aim was to game the system and to remove the material you did not like.
 * Basically you, Malick78, as well as Mootros, did not show any respect to the editor who created the article and added 99% of stuff and all sources - i.e. me. Instead of placing tags you constatly deleted the material completely, refusing to pre-discuss your removals on talk, to respect WP:BRD and to wait until we would reach consensus on talk  or until I would provide sources- which I provided excessively. Mootros further complicated this by continuous placing of irrelevant tags to the article - which he was not able to justify. His/her constant merging of sections which should not have been merged also was no good, and (s)he did not discuss it. That all turned the article into a mess (noted by uninvolved editors). I waited for the explanation of Mootros's removals for 5 days - (s)he did not wait, ignored my arguments, ignored calls to discuss on talk until the end of the day today, and ignored WP:BRD. Yes, all that continuous mess resulted in some improvement of the article because I brought many new sources - but that could have been reached in a decent, constructive and respectable way, without constant removals, without reverts of referenced stuff, without ignoring the talk page or not waiting for the answer there. You call Mootros "constructive" - well, could you please name what (s)he or you have actually constructed in the article, other than several misapplied tags, undiscussed confusing merge of sections and constant disruption, which prevented me from adding new sources because you kept deleting the stuff? He got as far as nominated a plausible redirect for deletion, (s)he opened the 2nd and the 3rd standing requests for move on the article's talk page which totally confused the situation with current and future naming, (s)he tried to delete the more images and more text as possible - all ignoring calls to discuss and to reach consensus, ignoring proposed compromises. And I had to work on the article, to try to make a title matching to the name, to search and to add sources despite all this artificially created, disrespectful, and totally unneeded confusion. I was constructive - I created the article, I added sources, I added images, I structured and formatted it - you were just removing, placing unhelpful tags, ignoring BRD and talk page, refusing to wait, to discuss, to seek consensus, trying to delete more and more and more and overall being disruptive.  Grey Hood   Talk  21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You mention "disrespect", "BLP", and making the article a "mess", yet this is the article you started with the joke name Zhirinovsky's ass! It was an article named in such a way as to maximise the mocking of the target. How can you use the word "respect"?
 * Oh and here, Greyhood has removed a ref after I pointed out the source article was written before the subject of the WP article (the video) was ever made, and therefore couldn't have referred to it (his edit summary goes thus: "indeed, thanks for catching this - I was confused with the combination of words Zhirinovsky, troika, Chichikov and election campaign.. perhaps might be added later as an interesting fact that this comparison preceded the donkey ad"). It just proves my point that Greyhood is taking random articles that mention Zhirinovsky (in passing) and adds them to the article as if they contain notable content. They mostly don't.Malick78 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already explained why I created the article under such name - I was using exclusively Russian sources for the coverage of recent events, and I only briefly glanced on the title of the first English-language source which I encountered - that was this: Zhirinovsky Explains why He Swatted Ass. So I used this term.
 * I've made a mistake with that source, because it was all pretty confusing and because I had to find new sources in haste - because you guys refuse to wait and just remove stuff and revert - and see where your disruption leads. I still consider this source interesting and worth adding to the article, though in a slightly different capacity - 1) as a source for the novel contents 2) as an interesting fact that the comparison made by this source happened long before the main event of the article, and later was repeated by other commentators. If you can find I've done something wrong with other sources - go on. I do not claim my work was all perfect, but I await constructive help, not unfriendly criticism.
 * Yes, everyone should be respectful and follow WP:BRD and never make personal attacks. In particular, you should be grateful to me that I created the article in the first place if you are so interested in it. I really hope that you are interested in improving the article rather than in finding yet another place to conflict with me. Grey Hood   Talk  22:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, saying "I've made a mistake with that source, because it was all pretty confusing and because I had to find new sources in haste - because you guys refuse to wait and just remove stuff and revert - and see where your disruption leads" is not good enough. If you aren't able to be accurate on an encyclopaedia, maybe you should rethink your participation? Blaming others isn't good enough. Here I caught you misrepresenting sources as well, and you just said: "I just used the first figures in the article, without reading it properly." Unfortunately, a pattern is emerging (there was one more time I caught you out doing exactly the same thing on another page, but I haven't yet found it. I'll keep trying).
 * As for you innocently calling the article Zhirinovsky's ass, I don't believe that for a second. It was a premeditated joke and was why you had a DYK associated with it for April Fool's Day. Malick78 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made 90,000 edits on Wikipedia. 90,000 edits. Some of them were later deleted, reverted, contested, discussed, fixed, improved, expanded. Just as is typical in collegial editing. For some edits I was baited and for some I received barnstars and congratulations (sometimes those were the same edits actually). So, Malick, you seem either not to understand that all people sometime make mistakes (you too, remember that) and not to understand what is collegiality and collaboration, or simply you are too fixed on a conflict with me. If you have nothing else to do, go search further my mistakes or just things that you do not like or do not understand. I'll continue prefer constructive and productive editing (with inevitable share of mistaking), you may prefer WP:PAs, WP:HARASSMENT and WP:BATTLEGROUND - but where that would lead you?
 * As for the Zhirinovsky's ass, I know the double meaning of the word "ass", so what? In my personal experience "donkey" may be rather loosely interchanged with "ass", and the mention of the synonym in the donkey article as well as the existence of such articles as African wild ass all show that the term is acceptable on-wiki. And the first English-language source which I saw suggested me that usage is appropriate in political context too. Grey Hood   Talk  19:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe he reads English? RIANOVOSTI 7 February 2012 has an article entitled "Zhirinovsky explains why he swatted ass".--Toddy1 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * - Self-revert. If the dispute continues, the article may be placed under full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ashrf1979 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Thread of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bahrani people and Talk:Bahrani people

Comments:

The editor has not breached the 3RR in 24 h, but engages in a long-term edit war on this article (see hist), showing clear indications of article ownership. He/she has been warned of edit warring and/or page ownership at least four times. All attempts to resolve the issue (on the article's talk incl. 3rd opinion, on Ashrf1979's talk page and on my own one) have been effectless. Co-operation and communication with the user seems impossible. --RJFF (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * – Two weeks. Long-term warring to insert unverifiable material about the history of the Bahrani people. This is an important article and we need to be vigilant about its correctness. Any admin may lift this block if the editor will agree to follow consensus in the future. If the editor really can't understand the problem, the next step is probably indef. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

66.108.2.128 reported by User:Acps110 (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff
 * 5th revert: diff
 * 6th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

66.108.2.128 seems hell bent on including a POV external link to the High Line article. Thus far has not responded to any messages left for him, but just continues to revert. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(And he reverted a 6th time.) Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * - 72 hours. The editor made no attempt at discussion, but just keeps restoring his own external link. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:174.98.141.237 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Article semied)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:10, March 31, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
 * 2nd revert: 16:14, April 1, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
 * 3rd revert: 21:29, April 1, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
 * 4th revert: 05:41, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
 * 5th revert: 16:07, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
 * 6th revert: 18:50, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
 * 7th revert: 18:52, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
 * 8th revert: 21:54, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
 * 9th revert: 22:29, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This person who edits from North Carolina under various IPs including 174.98.141.237 and 174.98.138.223 is a music fan who has very poor English skills and a wish to insert original research about Latin music topics. He was blocked for vandalism by Spencer on March 31. The article Bolero is but one of the targets of this person: he has been edit warring on Salsa romántica, Timba, Cha-cha-cha (music), Guaracha, Pachanga, Dominican salsa, Johnny Pacheco, Mambo (music), Son (music), Son montuno, and Salsa dura. Recently, Drmies protected Salsa music for one month because of this guy. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Second that. Refuses to discuss his edits despite multiple warnings in user talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexf blocked the IP for 24 hours. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (not by me) Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Vikramadityabushahr reported by User:Sitush (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - entire talk page consists of warnings

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

Comments:


 * Update - this edit summary is perhaps significant. I had already raised the issue of weight, WP:BLP etc on the talk page but this contributor simply is not responding ... and now there appears to be a conflict of interest. The article needs to be adjusted, sure, but using consensus and with regard to our "not censored" stance. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * . But I believe a trip to WP:COIN might be useful... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:Skyring (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 23:29, 2 Apr 2012  (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485246938 by Ianmacm (talk) grow up!")
 * 2) 23:35,  2 April 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485248144 by Ianmacm (talk) by what authority do you claim to know who this IP actually is?")
 * 3) 23:54 2 April 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485251182 by Skyring (talk) please stop")
 * 4) 23:56,  2 April 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485251182 by Ianmacm (talk) Ho hum, here we go again")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

BLP article has been used to attack subject, who requested deletion. An IP editor, presumably subject, complains that harassment continues through minor edits by two editors previously advised by GK to cool it. Subject of article described as idiot by User:Malleus Fatuorum. Sigh.

—Pete (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This article has never been used to attack the subject, who has simply objected to the inclusion of his date of birth (now removed, and never added by me) and made vague and unsubstantiated claims about its innacuracy. And since we don't know who the IP is I have called nobody anything. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue here is your behaviour in edit-warring. I note that you added the word "allegedly" on the fourth and fifth reverts, whilst retaining the wording objected to by other editors. --Pete (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But the issue really ought to be your behaviour in edit warring. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think people can see quite well. And reverting BLP violations is exempt from WP:3RR anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There were no BLP violations. Malleus Fatuorum 05:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reliable source for your repeated assertions that Hawkins was 'an idiot'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The "reverts" are to restore a comment made by the editor on an article talk page -- as refactoring comments when the poster objects is considered improper, and repeatedly doing so when it is clear the poster objects to refactoring the remarks is improper, the person who is most culpable on that end is Ianmacm -- not Malleus. The proper course if it was seen as a WP:BLP violation would be to report it at BLP/N instead of edit war over what appears to be a fairly mild "claim" on a talk page. Search shows on article talk pages an innumerable usage of "idiot" -- I suggest the word is, in fact, in common usage and is not something which is a BLP violation on an article talk page. I would also note that I !voted "delete" on the article at issue. Collect (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Declined. The phrase which led to complaints is no longer on the talk page, and the dispute seems to have quiesced. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:76.97.19.69 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Three months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

Comments:

I'm not reporting somebdoy who has broken the 3rr rule, but somebody who has been edit-warring even when he has been told to not do so. This IP has been blocked three times and, due to the existing evidence is why I'm reporting him/her immediately. User:Qwyrxian warned him about this "game" he's been playing, but as he was unblocked, the edit-war returned. Further information can be found at User talk:76.97.19.69. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  05:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * by . Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Cmach7 reported by User:Agricolae (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reverting a consensus of several editors, no edit summary given. Part of a larger pattern of slow edit-warring on this page to insert various parts of this larger reverted edit, in spite of numerous requests in edit summaries not to make these changes without Talk (See page history: ). Same editor similarly edit warring against consensus on other pages (i.e. Henry III of France), but hasn't violated 3RR.


 * Clear reverts at 00:15, 00:57, 13:27, 14:13. Was warned by Agricolae at 13:54.  Kuru   (talk)  02:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:24.114.252.234 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Article semied)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * This has been going on, literally, for months. This IP, as well as 24.114.252.240 and User:OttawaGreek have been adding material against consensus.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (not by me). Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:173.228.226.58 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Review&diff=prev&oldid=485434063]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Clear reverts, was warned. Kuru   (talk)  02:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Wisdomtenacityfocus reported by User:DVdm (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * on 26-Jan-2012, without edit summary. doubling a half live/half studio album.
 * on 24-Feb-2012 with edit symmary "reverting vandalism"
 * on 24-Feb-2012.
 * on 31-Mar-2012}},
 * on 1-Apr-2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See and long thread at Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 7., involving several users.

Comments:

User seems to behave in a rather disruptive way at Template:Frank Zappa and Frank Zappa discography. Yesterday I put at user's talk page.

Recent behaviour at Template:Frank Zappa is i.m.o. wp:disruptive.
 * Against strong consensus (see talk page Talk:Frank_Zappa and Template_talk:Frank_Zappa), user have made 5 reverts of a long standing and stable version of the template:
 * on 19-Jan-2012, followed by by 113.117.201.52 on 26-Jan-2012
 * on 26-Jan-2012, without edit summary. doubling a half live/half studio album.
 * on 24-Feb-2012 with edit symmary "reverting vandalism"
 * on 24-Feb-2012.
 * on 31-Mar-2012}},
 * on 1-Apr-2012 <== New


 * Meanwhile, concerning placement of album Sheik Yerbouti:
 * on 21-Jan-2012
 * on 25-Jan-2012, followed by on 25-Jan-2012
 * on 25-Jan-2012, followed by on 26-Jan-2012
 * on 4-Feb-2012
 * on 4-Feb-2012


 * Meanwhile, on 11-Feb-2012, in response to to Frank Zappa discography,  and shortly after,  of the discography article.

User was pointed to the following items at wp:disruptive.
 * Disruptive:
 * "Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."
 * Disruptive:
 * "'...'continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.''"
 * "repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits."

I asked to user to please not continue this form of slow edit warring by reverting again, unless they can establish a strong consensus on Template_talk:Frank_Zappa and/or Talk:Frank_Zappa.

This resulted in
 * with edit summary "First of all, if you have no problem edit warring without consensus, why give me shit when I clearly do have consensus to do this?", also undoing two formatting issues by different users
 * with edit summary "No consensus? BULLSHIT."
 * of ignoring consensus and of changing the template (which I have never reverted), with edit summary "Wrong. YOU are ignoring consensus. Stop making the template look worse..."
 * , undoing, with edit summary "rv to last good version".
 * at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Apparently this is not the first appeal over there, see also on 2-feb-2012, which got no response.

DVdm (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User was notified of this thread. - DVdm (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not edit warring. This is a content dispute. Handle these things the way they're supposed to be handled by trying to seek opinions from outside of the small circle of editors that usually care about the content. All my edits were justified by style guidelines. Yours weren't. Also, I have every right to say what I want in edit summaries on my own talk page edits. Why are you giving me shit for something that I have a right to do? When I improve articles, you should respond by thanking me, not harassing me because someone else besides you edits an article you're engaged in. YOU don't own articles. Let someone else contribute to the process. --WTF (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - After having this entire tread, user Wisdomtenacityfocus opened a dispute resolution noticeboard case,. I merely made a short remark there, as I don't think this is a content dispute, but rather a user who refuses to respect talk page consensus. Note that user also accuses me of, which is by no means the case. - DVdm (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - User has of original discography, with edit summary "Since vandalism, quality of list has gone down, thus downgrade.", again labeling an edit with which they disagree as vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You removed massive chunks of the discography, clogged everything together despite clear distinction between compilation, studio and live releases, added links to articles which don't exist (Greasy Love Songs, a redirect to Cruising with Ruben & the Jets, the album of which GLS is an alt-title reissue) and an album which is claimed as a Zappa covers album but is actually a distinct solo album by Flo & Eddie which has only one Zappa song (Illegal, Immoral and Fattening). You reverted an article based on your belief that you own the article. That is vandalism. --WTF (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, the quality of the article was downgraded by your edits. Look at Dream Theater discography. Look at The Beatles discography. Look at Miles Davis discography. See a pattern? Notice how these artists' albums are not grouped together regardless of whether it is a live album, a studio album or a compilation produced either for promotion or after the artist's death? There are sources categorizing Zappa's albums thusly. Clearly this is not edit warring, but a content dispute on behalf of your attempt to own the article, list and template. --WTF (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed nothing of the discography. Please stop accusing me of things I did not do. I tried to have a conversation with you on the talk page about what other editors prefer. I never reverted anything regarding this issue. You also accused me of "aggressive attempt at article ownership" . Please retract those accusations of bad faith. - DVdm (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - I have put a 4th level warning for personal attacks at User talk:Wisdomtenacityfocus:. - DVdm (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - In this statement at Dispute resolution noticeboard clerk  wholly agrees with my analysis  that "that it is incumbent upon WNT to build a new consensus if he/she wishes to change the article, that he has not yet done so, and that pursuant to the consensus policy that the template and discography must retain the same organization as they had before he/she began making changes." Clerck requested WNT to produce a policy or guideline that would overrule the quoted policy regarding an established consensus of the community. - DVdm (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - Again, after having removed my warning on their talk page, user has (this time on my talk page) falsely accused me of vandalism:. See my reply. Can someone somehow stop this? - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - The case about this matter at wp:DRN was closed. See closing note. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:71.22.156.40 reported by User:216.16.232.250 (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The dispute is about whether HK416 should be mentioned in the article. My argument is: ''It's an M16 variant only in the same sense as Bizon is an AK-47 variant. The crucial part of the rifle design has nothing to do with M16, despite it having many interchangeable parts.'' The reported user has not countered that and resorted to insults. Note: user has been warned about edit warring on the article page before. He appears to regularly blank edit warnings on his talk page. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The following is a transcript of discussion in question....

Removed paragraph about HK416 - basically, it's a G36 with AR-15 furniture. It is only an M16 variant in the sense of large number of interchangeable parts. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk)

Again,removed HK416: a manufacturer is not an undisputable source - it's a business; it's an M16 variant in the sense of large number of interchangeable parts - not automatics (crucial for reliability) finally, the HK are the legal holders of the rights to the design, and that trumps all. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You removed three reference stating that the H&K 416 is an M16 variant...even you stated that it has large number of interchangeable parts...in fact, with the exception of the gas system all of the parts are in interchangeable...even the H&K 416 names reference that it's and M16 variant...I challenge to provide a reputable source to prove otherwise. Also you stated that " manufacturer is not an undisputable source - it's a business" then you stated that"...HK are the legal holders of the rights to the design, and that trumps all" you can't have it both ways. Clearly, you made a mistake and you are now doing everything in your power to spin-it your way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

you stated that " manufacturer is not an undisputable source - it's a business" then you stated that"...HK are the legal holders of the rights to the design, and that trumps all" you can't have it both ways. 1) A business can claim things that aren't true in the literal sense for advertising purposes. 2) If an invention is a variant of another invention but possess significant difference it will be issued a separate patent; the HK are the license-holders for HK416. It's a variation, but it's irrelevant. You could add as much sources that refer to HK416 as an M16 variation - it would still be irrelevant. Especially in the reliability section - which has nothing to do with the M16 design. Clearly, you made a mistake and you are now doing everything in your power to spin-it your way. HK416 has to be mentioned in the article, alright. But in a different light - the US Army has finally realized that AR-15 is beyond salvation and purchased a foreign design instead. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You removed three reference stating that the H&K 416 is an M16 variant...it is up to you to provide a references that say that it is not an M16 variant...those reference also stated that the H&K 416 is used by the U.S. Military which is indeed relevant to the article...the burden of proof is on you...before you can remove reference content, you have to prove your point and you have offered nothing but your personnal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute it's an M16 variant. But I've given valid reasons why it's not relevant - 1) the design rights belong to Heckler und Koch 2) crucial part of the design - the gas system - has nothing to do with M16, and, consequently, it's reliability.216.16.232.250 (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter who holds the design rights to the HK 416's short-stroke gas piston...this aricle is not about design rights...it's a "Comparison of the AK-47 and M16"...The reliability section content is based on the AK-47 long-stroke gas operation system and the M16 direct impingement gas system and the fact that the new HK 416 (which you now admit is an M16 variant) is using a short-stroke gas piston is totally relevant.

The facts speak for themselves... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to continue the content dispute. Since both parties are edit warring, I've protected the page for a short period to encourage discussion.  Please get consensus before making any other changes to the page. If the edit war continues after the protection expires, both parties may be blocked.  Kuru   (talk)  11:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've only started editing the article. There are still some blatant innacuracies that need to be fixed. I would abstain from editing the HK416 part until the issue is resolved on talk page, if the article is unlocked. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Von Restorff reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continues to revert despite consensus on talk page.

Response


 * Consensus reached on talkpage on 13th. We have a majority on one side of the debate, supported by the likes of Jimbo Wales ( "I think that on balance, we should follow the sources, and view his manner of passing as not worthy of mention." ) and WP:Persondata ( "Be specific, but not to the point of listing a street address. Usual formats are City/Village, State/Province, Country; or City/Village, country; or State/Province, Country; etc." ). Naraht & TerriersFan responded to Jimbo's comment, but he did not respond back and the debate died down a bit. It seemed like they would accept it and drop their sticks. On the 17th TerriersFan wrote: "Since no objection has been raised after over four days, I have added the cause of death as reported by The Times". I wrote: "Against consensus. Bad move.". He wrote: "I made a proposal to put Drivers suicide in the article, in a way as Jimbo says "the way the best sources have handled the question" - no objection, except from you, has been made." My response was: "Where? And where is the consensus? If you would've had consensus for the changes you made it would've been easy to answer these two simple questions.". It is probably a good idea to protect this page; that gives us time to focus on using the talkpage instead of reverting. Von Restorff (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * , you are clearly edit warring and you could be blocked right now for that. And the fact that you claim you have consensus on your side in no way justifies your actions. I understand you're acting in good faith and doing what you think is best for the encyclopaedia and, therefore, I'm not going to block you for the moment. Please realise, however, that a. another admin may decide to block you, even if I'm inclined to let this one slide and b. if you revert once again, I'll have to sanction you. Please, discuss on the article's talk page and follow WP:DR, but do not revert any more. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Von Restorff (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:184.2.174.194 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Article semied)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User talk:184.2.174.194

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP editor has just returned from a 24-hour block and begun the same behavior, at the same article, that led to the previous block. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Oda Mari reported by Y00tu (talk) (Result: Boomerang)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 13:53,  4 April 2012  (edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by Y00tu (talk): KPOV The Korean interpretation of the report is not needed. (TW)")
 * 2) 13:59,  4 April 2012  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Y00tu (talk): POV If you think the addition is needed ask for consensus first on the talk page. (TW)")
 * 3) 15:52,  4 April 2012  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 485526364 by Qwyrxian: restore. That's what the report said. (TW)")
 * 4) 20:04,  4 April 2012  (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by Y00tu (talk): POV and undue weight. (TW)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Y00tu (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reporter blocked. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Y00tu reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: taken care of.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk: Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East

Comments:

Note, first, that diff 4 above may not count as a revert, as that could arguably be adding new material. But that still leaves 4 reverts in 24 hours. Also, I'll file an additional report on the other part (User:Oda Mari) next. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, content existed long before my edit. On this case, POV pusher is Oda Mari. Second, You have no clue what is POV pusing. Adding changed US. govt. stance is not POV pushing. Deleting Changed US. govt. stance is Japanese POV. Third, My edit are adding, correcting, by discuss of talk page, Those are not violate 3RR rule. However, Oda Mari exactly reverted 4 times without any consensus. Even his last reverting is no discuss at talk page.

By the way, I know both are Japanese editors. But attacking one editor by tag play is possible case of Tag team or meatpuppetry.

Tag team Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus") is a controversial[1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV). --Y00tu (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * as a pov-pushing, edit warring single-purpose account. This circus has gone on long enough. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Oda Mari reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: done.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: While I did not warn Oda Mari directly, 1) she was participating in the thread on User Talk:Y00tu where xe was warned (see report on Y00tu above) and, more importantly, Oda Mari is a very experienced user with lots of DR experience, so I am certain she is aware of the 3RR rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East

Comments:

Note that I make this report with great regret. Oda Mari is a very good editor. Furthermore, in this case, she is 100% correct: the versions that Y00tu is attempting to revert to are direct and fairly obvious violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Unfortunately, such violations are not an exception to WP:3RR, and since it is necessary that I report the other user to stop disruption, I am compelled to report Oda Mari as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I commentes above. By the way, "Oda Mari is a very good editor. Furthermore, in this case, she is 100% correct" Because You agreed his POV pushing ? Wow. How neutral point of view you have. Because your POV pushing is OK. Adding changed US govt. stance are violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR? I think you misleading seriously. --Y00tu (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian reported by Y00tu (talk) (Result: Boomerang)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 21:39,  2 April 2012  (edit summary: "/* After the Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East */ First, much of this is directly copied from one of the refs; second, there's no clear evidence it's about this report; finally, it's POV")
 * 2) 21:41,  2 April 2012  (edit summary: "This is all basically a copy of the report, including some EXACT copies. That's not how WP articles work. I will rewrite")
 * 3) 21:57,  2 April 2012  (edit summary: "Timeline was unreferenced, and not really about this report. cut this down to a 2 sentence summary; see talk")
 * 4) 22:04,  2 April 2012  (edit summary: "add section on LR, since a little focus seems ok")
 * 5) 14:32,  4 April 2012  (edit summary: "/* U.S. government stance */ You cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that the documents are not the us stance. see talk, and stop edit warring")


 * Diff of warning: here

User:Qwyrxian reported me 2 times on this page. so I reported him just as he did. He ignored fact that the editor also violated same rule. —Y00tu (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * . Reporter blocked. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:NeoRetro reported by User:Shrike (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: The edits in question talks about Christian Zionism[] in one dif and about Arab-Israeli conflict/pro-Israel in other so the edits clearly falls under 1RR because of WP:ARBPIA as was politely explained to user.Instead of reverting himself he left personal attack on my talk page , Even if I was not correct in my assesment of the edits its still didn't warrant his personal attack on my page.--Shrike (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * . I don't believe that the article falls under WP:ARBPIA and I don't think that NeoRetro's edits to your talk page are egregious enough to warrant a block. I have, however, left a warning per WP:BLPSE, as those edits contained WP:BLP violations. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the editor were under a ARBPIA topic ban, those edits, or at least the second diff, would be probably be regarded as a topic ban violation. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that it would be covered by ARBPIA 1RR.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, no, because the ARBPIA 1-rr applies to all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, whereas a topic ban usually applies to all edits'. In this case, while the edits were related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the article was not and, so, the revert restriction was not applicable. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 18:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, Salvio. This is truely ridiculous, since the article doesn't have anything to do with Israel/Palestine. NeoRetro (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See here. This isn't about you. It's about the rules that govern ARBPIA. The topic area is not in a good shape. If there are ways for people to exploit loopholes in the rules governing editing, they will find them and exploit them.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If my edit confuses you on the topic of ARBPIA rules, I think it should be made very clear that pages that don't have anything to do with ARBPIA, are NOT ruled by it. Expanding ARBPIA to include non-related subjects would be very destructive to Wikipedia. NeoRetro (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on the scale you look at things, whether the word "subject" applies at the article level or the edit level. This case for example highlights a mismatch between the scale used for a 1RR violation and a topic ban violation even though the actual edit could be identical. If you decide that "subject" is at the article level, then you need a criteria that allows you to decide, in every case, whether or not an article contains sufficient material for that article's "subject" to qualify as being related to ARBPIA. It is not always obvious. There are many articles that are not directly related to ARBPIA but they contain material that is related to ARBPIA, sometimes substantial amounts of it. Edit warring is destructive to Wikipedia. Editors who make Arab-Israeli conflict related edits (which are covered by discretionary sanctions), no matter where those edits are, article space, talk pages etc, not knowing what rules they are obliged to follow because the rules are unclear is not good, hence my interest here. People who come here to fight for their side in the Arab-Israeli conflict don't just do it at the article level, they do it at every scale, anywhere they think it matters, often in very surprising places.


 * Here's an example. Imagine someone believes that there are no Palestinians. It's a big lie. They are just Arabs. There are many, many people who come here who believe this. One of these editors systematically works their way through articles about Palestinian artists, footballers, writers etc deleting the word Palestinian and replacing it with Arab. They edit war over it but don't break 3RR. Should these kinds of edits be covered by ARBPIA or not ? The articles aren't related to ARBPIA but the edits clearly are. Anyone familiar with the topic area can easily think of many more examples because the conflict never stops, it's highly distributed, and it's conducted at every available scale from entire categories of articles right down to individual word level no matter where that word is.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear it applies to the article level. If the user has not been found in violation of ARBPIA (on article level) before, why on earth would he need to get a topic ban? What if some makes an edit that might be distantly related to ARBPIA, like the one I made, on a completely non ARBPIA-related page? Does that qualify him for a topic ban immediately, even if he has never been found guilty of a single obstructive edit on a ARBPIA related page? Of course not.NeoRetro (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, of course someone wouldn't be topic banned for that but we aren't talking about the rules used to decide whether someone receives a topic ban. People have to break the rules over and over to be topic banned. But what you have said kind of illustrates my point. A person (not you) could edit war without breaking 3RR, replacing words they don't like, such as Palestinian with Arab, Israel with Palestine, for partisan reasons related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, in 100 articles about people and places, none of which are "articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". If things apply at the article level only, that editor's actions are out of scope of ARBPIA. They haven't broken any ARBPIA rules. Of course, do that to 100 articles and the editor will just get blocked, but it illustrates that there is a loophole in the protection that ARBPIA is meant to provide to content at the edit level (when the editor isn't already under a topic ban). Anyway, I'll post a clarification question at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification some point soon and you are welcome to comment there.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:98.234.235.21 reported by User:Warriorboy85 (Result: already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=450177055&oldid=430997476

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=423125015&oldid=423118689


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=485637787&oldid=485636890
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=485628446&oldid=485628243
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=485513814&oldid=485513209
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_Artists_International&diff=485460241&oldid=450177055

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

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

Comments:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriorboy85 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 5 April 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Kuru  (talk)  02:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

75.10.101.32 reported by User:Cntras (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

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

Comments:

3RR violation on the hip hop page with regards to the disputed lead. IP in question has made no attempt to discuss despite messages left on article talk page and the user talk page. -Cntras (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:173.116.161.246 reported by User:PPdd (Result: reporter already blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here, and here, and here

Comments:

This anonymous IP is a meatpuppet of Warriorboy55, aka Kimball Dean Richards, the president of Allied Artists International who is menioned in all of the newspaper stories they keep reverting out of the article, as in the reference section here. Every one of these LA TImes articles was deleted and replaced with self promiting wesbites and unsourced material.

Warriorboy55 has a history of edit warring on this particular article, and has made threats and other inappropriate behavior, such as here, and here. PPdd (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PPdd has already been been blocked for edit warring, then for socking. Kuru   (talk)  02:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:173.22.215.234 reported by User:Blackmetalbaz (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * No reverts after the warning you gave him. Protected the page to encourage discussion from both of you.  Kuru   (talk)  02:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Chicagoexchanger reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: done.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: and blocked for 3RR violation:
 * 7th revert: After block resumed the edit-warring 5th April
 * 8th revert: 5th April and this after I gave him a warning that a report has been filed at 3RRN
 * 9th revert: 5th April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

SPA, only contribution made is erasing a single cited fact without engaging in talkpage discussion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Please note: This is not a usual case of 3RR in 24 hours but of consistent edit-warring over a net period of 2 days without discussion. User was blocked for 3RR but resumed the edit-warring soon after their block expired. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Three more clear reverts of the same material he was edit warring over from his last block. Kuru   (talk)  03:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Rwenonah reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

has been inserting a personal POV sourced to dubious references, concerning the role of conservation organizations in wildlife protection. By Rwenonah's lights, any hunting is just killing animals, and any conservation organization made up of hunters or fishermen isn't practicing conservation. Slow-moving edit war with no explicit breach of 3RR, at least not in 24 hours, slight re-ordering between reverts 3 and 4. As they were blocked for the same reason and subject. The previous account has three blocks for edit-warring in all.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple continuation of his edit warring from the previous account. Kuru   (talk)  03:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:31, March 31, 2012‎
 * 2nd revert: 17:50, April 1, 2012
 * 3rd revert: 21:57, April 1, 2012‎
 * 4th revert: 10:00, April 2, 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:01, April 2, 2012
 * (Note the absence of edits between 11:01, April 2 "warning" and AN/3RR filing. BitterGrey (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Perhaps your timestamp is different, mine shows the warning as appearing at 07:01 on April 2nd. WLU (t) (c)Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-checked, and the timestamp quite clearly gives 11:01, 2 April 2012BitterGrey (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can set your time and date offset in your preferences. My offest appears to be four hours earlier than yours.  If you check the reverts above, I'm guessing they show the following:


 * 1st revert: 11:31, March 31, 2012‎
 * 2nd revert: 13:50, April 1, 2012
 * 3rd revert: 17:57, April 1, 2012‎
 * 4th revert: 06:00, April 2, 2012
 * And for you, the 3RR warning lists 11:01, April 2, 2012] while mine is 07:01. If you check my contributions, you clearly see the warning on your talk page appearing exactly one minute after my third revert.  So there is no timestamp debate, we simply have different offsets.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So WLU was at 3 reverts in 14 hours when placing the warning... Talk about WP:Kettle! Then he filed this complaint knowing that I hadn't violated 3RR, hoping only to ruin my clean record of never having even been reported here, to make my record more like his.  Can I get this complaint stricken from the record? BitterGrey (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Diff of most recent attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * (Link to whole discussion, which I started, including WLU's week of silence. BitterGrey (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Previous attempts are found in the following archive sections:
 * FTN 1
 * RSN
 * FTN 2
 * FTN 3

Comments:

It's not a clear three reverts in 24 hours, but I think it's pretty obvious there is a problem. For anyone interested in the content issue, a brief summary follows. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey has claimed that the source Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) states that pharaphilic infantilism is pedophilia. The actual statement is from page 531 and says: The erotic fantasies of persons with erotic identity disorders pertain less to any sexual partners and more to their transformed images of themselves; some authors refer to these paraphilias as autoerotic...[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia. A literal reading of the statement is that paraphilic infantilism is a form of pedophilia but within the theory of erotic target location errors, the intent of the actual statements are to clearly distinguish between the two. The theory of "erotic target location error" when discussing paraphilic infantilists is that paraphilic infantilists are aroused by the idea of themselves being children and does not to say paraphilic infantilists wish to rape children. Quite the opposite.

The statement on the old version of the page summarized this as follows: "An additional theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centered on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child." (Unsigned comment by WLU)

Sorry for the awkward response: I've never been written up here before, unlike WLU... WLU also seems to have received not just any interaction ban from arbcom, but the archetype of interactions bans.

My Attempt at Discussion
My attempt at discussion started last week. WLU made edits to the article and to the rest of Wikipedia, but ignored the discussion until I edited. He has edit warred, because the material doesn't support his position. He has yet to counter or even address the points I raised. His post here includes only a summary, since three locations of the article are affected. To highlight previous discussions:
 * Aerobicfox of RSN wrote "Per WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources I would like better sourcing for this claim '...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia' "


 * Fifelfoo of RSN wrote "Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."


 * Even WLU's past-supporter FiachraByrne didn't agree with WLU's reading of F&B: "They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children." That is, F&B wrote about pedophiles, not infantilists.  This is why much of the text now being fought over was hidden from August to December.


 * Please note that WLU's comments above focus solely on one source (CB&B) when the issue is with another source (F&B). F&B discuss pedophilia.  It doesn't mention infantilism, and so should not be cited in the paraphilic infantilism article.  CB&B is cited in the article either SEVEN or NINE times in the article, depending on which version is active.  (Given that CB&B has only one page that mentions infantilism, this seems undue, but isn't the current issue. Outside of this article, CB&B is only cited ONCE in entire English Wikipedia:  One of the authors self-cited at courtship_disorder.)BitterGrey (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My reply to the substance of these is here, the summary above isn't really a good summary of the actual discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU's Year-Long Wikihounding of Me
The real problem is that WLU has been wikihounding me since a debate in Feb 2011. Here is a list of the other articles he and I have had conflicts at, with the dates: (For clarity, I've omitted noticeboards, etc.) As you can see, with only one exception, he came to articles that I was already involved with.


 * List of paraphilias(my first edit 2009-05-05 / WLU's first edit 2009-07-13) - WLU edited before conflict, but still not first
 * Wikipedia talk:Conflicts of interest (medicine) (my first edit 2011-02-19 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-21) - WLU rushed to support a friend's user space ownership rights when the article was not in user space. He ended up "nuking" the talk page.  He has been hounding me ever since.
 * Paraphilic infantilism(my first edit 2006-01-20 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-28)
 * Adult diaper(2010-09-25 / 2011-03-01)
 * Diaper fetishism(2006-07-10 / 2011-03-03)
 * Infantilism(2007-12-13 / 2011-03-02)
 * Talk:Homosexuality(2010-09-27 / 2012-02-05) - WLU reacted to my comment by doing the opposite ... at the less-defended paraphilia article
 * Paraphilia(2009-06-25 / 2012-02-05)
 * Talk:Andrea James (2012-03-02 / 2012-02-10) - another editor moved the entire discussion from ANI while I was typing
 * Sexology(2009-07-06 / 2012-03-04)

WLU has been following me to articles and going out of his way to pick fights.

WLU's most recent attack, at sexology, is a good example because it is easy to follow. I made a comment to the talk page, and WLU reacted by doing the opposite. A link that I thought should be kept, Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology, was removed, making the link I thought should be removed, Sexualmedicine.org, the only non-DMOZ EL. I opened a discussion at EL/N that WLU hijacked, closed, and hid. After asserting that Sexualmedicine.org was "the international page" and "a world-wide agency", WLU checked the EL, and concluded that my original comment was correct. The other external link, the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology was previously re-added by another editor and used as a reliable source by WLU. As usual, WLU wasted the time of good Wikipedians fighting for a bad position, that now not even he holds.

A more complicated attack started at homosexuality. As usual, I made a comment on a talk page, and WLU reacted by stating his determination to do the opposite. An author had proposed a paper to two articles, with the primary discussion at homosexuality. WLU wrote "I'll read and integrate it". Please note that again, this was not about the paper, which WLU had not yet read. Homosexuality is a well-watched article, so there wouldn't be an opportunity to single me out there. WLU fought to add a new paragraph dedicated to that author at paraphilia and cite his article in multiple locations in the article. After the edit war, WLU claims to have re-read the article and accepted one of the reservations I raised in my initial comment. Again WLU only succeeded in wasting the time of good Wikipedians.

I and two other editors got involved. KimvdLinde considered the source primary but kept one citation to it to try to make peace. She quickly announced her retirement from Wikipedia. The other was Jokestress, also known as Andrea James. WLU reacted by deleting her from one article and adding negative material to her BLP. WLU hadn't edited Andrea James or Blanchard's transsexualism typology before.

Most of his efforts are still harder to follow. An absurd example of WLU's argument-for-arguments-sake is his fighting to cite 47 pages of the DSM, then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours), (and hijacking a 3O), then zero (0) pages,, and then finally one (1) page at the same article. He claims to have read that source seven months into the conflict.

We can set aside the entire debate about whether or how the DSM discusses infantilism. Even if one of the positions WLU fought for is right, the other contradictory positions he fought for were wrong. Had WLU read the source before edit warring, we could have skipped months of fruitless arguing. Fighting for unchecked sources is common for WLU. In a better example, after two thousands words of pointless debate WLU read the text and admitted "Oops". A more humorous example is this edit, where WLU cited a Wikipedia printout as an RS without knowing it.

After removing the DSM for lack of specific demographic information on infantilism, WLU argued for replacing it with FB&B, even though it too lacked specific demographic information on infantilism. Initially he argued "they do make a statement explicitly about all paraphilias". Then I pointed out that CB&B list three exceptions on the very next page. WLU waffled to there being three and only three exceptions. Again, arguing seems to be his main goal.
 * There are not one, but two lengthy discussions indicating the DSM is largely irrelevant to paraphilic infantilism, here and here. But you are correct, when I make a mistake I do admit it, correct it, and do my best to avoid repeating it.  I even apologize .  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. That time, after arguing for9,000 words, you tried to shun me .  You never admitted to having been wrong there.  You just kept arguing and reverting.BitterGrey (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For someone who is apparently shunning you, I've spent an awful lot of time interacting with you. I never admitted I was wrong because I don't believe I was wrong - you were arguing to remove two sources for reasons I consider illegitimate, and still do.  In fact, they are the exact same sources responsible for this very discussion, the same sources currently taking up 12,000 characters on the RSN and the same sources that spawned four sprawling noticeboard sections in December, 2011 (FTN, FTN2, FTN 3 and RSN, all linked above).  I did make a point of ignoring your comments when you were repeating your illegitimate claim the sources should be removed, it's only when you started edit warring to remove them that I bothered to address them again.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

His frequent waffling has even complicated this issue. Those reading WLU's version of the article before Dec 6th would see pretty much the opposite text cited to F&B than they would in WLU's current version. Before Dec 6th, WLU fought to have the article include the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(quote is from the last altered section) (The F&B-related text in the pedophilia section was commented out until Dec 6th.)  After Dec 6th, he waffled to "infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child." (that is, NOT a form of pedophilia). . He also now blames the non-politically correct version on me. Here too, we can set aside the discussion of what FB&B actually say. WLU has fought for contradictory positions, so he is wrong either way.

Where will this stop? WLU believes it necessary to drive me off Wikipedia. Were any of my editing practices the issue, I would have the option of changing that practice. He doesn't see this as an option. Towards this goal, he's been maintaining not one but two attack pages against me, started in 23 March 2011 and 15 December 2011‎.
 * "he'll either stop editing and his problems go away, or he'll end up blocked or banned."20 August 2011
 * "I think wikipedia would be flat-out best served if he were site-banned."2 March 2012

Of course, given what he thinks of me, he ignores my comments and edits:
 * "...I can just delete this without reading it" 25 February 2011
 * "I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading."22 August 2011
 * "Oops...I assumed a simple revert" 19 November 2011 -yes, WLU violated AGF even in a posting to wikiquette assistance.

The second example was written to another editor, whom WLU was encouraging to ignore me. A more humorous example of this was written to yet another editor, on 14:37, 4 March 2011. "he [BitterGrey] lacks experience and in my mind tends to start disputes rather than resolve them.". This was actually between two skirmishes between myself and WLU. The "dispute" WLU was engaged in then was with a Bot. (Had he WP:AGF'd and at least evaluated my edits, he at least would have seen that they weren't my edits, but Yobot's.)

WLU, with his long history of blocks and edit warring, has been chasing me around Wikipedia for a year. He reacts to oppose my comments and reverts my edits, while ignoring my points. He also encourages others to do so. He disruptively argues and edit wars at great length without checking sources. If shown wrong, he changes to yet another position and continues the argument or edit war, ensuring that no consensus can be reached. It seems that he and his friends have created or joined every conflict I've had on Wikipedia since Feb 2011. BitterGrey (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is this the right forum?
Given that not even WLU claims that a 3RR violation occurred, making this accusation yet another frivolous attack, should this be relocated to AN/I? His funny timestamps and his linking to the second week of a discussion I started (to hide the fact that he was silent for the first week) are in particularly poor form. At other times in his hounding of me, he's made four reverts in 28 hours, making this filing WP:kettle at best. This morning, he even made comments about my sexuality, which, given the sources he is fighting to cite, imply a criminal activity. These personal attacks must stop. BitterGrey (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the edit war noticeboard, it's review is not restricted to 3RR violations. See the definitions of edit warring and 3RR at the top of the page.  Please, by all means - bring up my conduct at AN or ANI if you think it's worth the time.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll be more explicit: I'd like input from uninvolved editors, preferably admins.  Since WLU has repeatedly stated an interest in driving me off Wikipedia, I can't accept his advice.BitterGrey (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gosh, how many times must I say it. Paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles.  I don't think paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles.  I don't think Bittergrey is a pedophile.  I've edited the paraphilic infantilism page to clarify that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles, , .  I've made this statement several times in a variety of venues , , , .  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Top of this posting, WLU quoting a source he's been arguing and warring to use since August 2011: "...infantilism [is] an autoerotic form of pedophilia.". Prior to waffling on Dec 6th, he also fought to include that text in the live version of the article. BitterGrey (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm at 3RR trying to keep WLU's comments about me off of RSN. Can I get some help? BitterGrey (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's one of the many times I've explicitly said that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles, and that the sources you wish to remove, the reason this noticeboard posting exists, also say that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you really not understand that a form of something is still that something? All forms of cancer are cancers. Playdough is still playdough no matter what form it takes.BitterGrey (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that you think they are the same thing, I also think the sources are very clear that they are not. In this analogy, cancer is the opposite end of a continuum with apoptosis.  Not to mention the two sources that are under dispute are used to verify that paraphilic infantilism is different from pedophilia, it doesn't say paraphilic infantilism is a form of pedophilia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I doubt that the admins here will be able to do much with this report. This seems to be a long-running struggle that is mainly between two parties (though Bittergrey has disputed with others in the past about Paraphilic infantilism, as shown by his talk archives). Reports at the edit-warring noticeboard don't receive thousands of words of evidence and we are not set up to have long threaded discussions. WP:Dispute resolution may offer some options you can consider. I do not see any RfCs at Talk:Paraphilic infantilism. For a dispute of this complexity, one editor might open an WP:RFC/U on the other. I am puzzled that WLU restored at RSN a personal characterization of Bittergrey that he seems to object to, since the latter marked it as 'RPA.' Still, we are aware that Bittergrey operates an external website on paraphilic infantilism since he announces that on his user page.  EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet another doomed attempt was started today, here. Once again the discussion is clogged with selective quotations, inappropriate summaries of past discussions and misrepresentation of the sources.  I expect it to go nowhere for these very reasons.
 * I restored that text because for one thing it removed a substantive point I was making (the sources state the two are different, the same way they say acrotomophilia and are apotemnophilia different) and for another thing, I can't see how "I don't think paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles" can be construed as a personal attack. And for a third reason, normally I dislike stating an argument can be discounted because of the source, but in this case the point may need to be made that there is an obvious reason to consider Bittergrey's objections to be based on personal rather than reasons of policy or guideline.  I considered the matter resolved in December when Ludwigs2 said "@ BitterGrey: Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds".  I as far as I'm concerned, that's the most accurate summary of the situation I've ever seen, and coming from someone with whom I have disagreed vigorously.  The full archive is here, and that comment basically ended the discussion.
 * The most surreal thing about this entire, pointless discussion is that Bittergrey is arguing against wording that isn't even part of the page. We both agree that paraphilic infantilists aren't pedophiles, I just want that explicit point to be kept in the text and verified with reliable sources.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You said at RSN that Bittergrey was a p.i. himself. That seems to be what he is resenting. Unless he has agreed on Wikipedia to be described in this way, you should remove it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the objection, then he should probably remove the link on his user page to the website he maintains where he discusses being a paraphilic infantilist. But sure, if that is the personal attack, then I'm happy to remove it if it'll reduce the acrimony on the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, thanks for replying. Do you think an RFC/U would be effective in ending WLU's ongoing harassment?  Also, please be aware that a source WLU has fought to cite (in NINE places) includes the claim that "infantilism [is] an autoerotic form of paedophilia" (CB&B, pg 531).  Given this, WLU's personal attack has the effect of accusing me of being a pedophile.  I am not a pedophile, am deeply offended by his accusation, and think it clear that if there were any real support for WLU's position, he wouldn't need to resort to ad-hominem attacks. BitterGrey (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite a clear statement that Bittergrey's points are without merit at the reliable sources noticeboard (full discussion, specific diff), Bittergrey has ignored this input and reverted again, with the same list of spurious claims that have been addressed repeatedly, and is still claiming that the DSM defines infantilism despite two clear examples of unanimous consensus that it does not here and here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the consensus of RSN was better summarized as "you should take your personal fight over content elsewhere...you should move the argument to special subject portal (psychology, medicine)" If WLU believed that anyone else would support his version, he could have simply let them revert instead of doing it himself.


 * To avoid conflict, I've initiated a discussion, presented evidence, and waited through six days of silence. (To conceal this, WLU didn't link to the start of the discussion when filing this report.)


 * WLU reacted with personal attacks on my sexuality and honesty. After having nothing more to offer than the same invitation for WP:OR over and over and over, he wrote "...I guess I'm done..." and "..."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."


 * My most recent edit was accompanied by a detailed list of the justification for all changes.


 * WLU has now added new threats of an RFC or ANI posting, but he's been bluffing at an RFC/U posting since 23 March 2011 and an AN/I posting since 15 December 2011‎. Why would he go through all of this work and yet not file?  Because he knows that any objective review of our conflict will conclude that he has been stalking me for a year.  Before stalking me, he showed no particular interest in this article or any of the others that he's fought me at.BitterGrey (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This time last year, I asked an admin for advice on an attack page that WLU was building against me. WLU added that request to his list of accusations and ignored the admins suggestion to use the proper format.  WLU later started developing a second attack page, so this wouldn't look like a year-long wikihounding. BitterGrey (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't be contributing to this discussion further, I will complete the list of diffs started at User talk:WLU/Absolutely unnecessary page and bring it to the administrator's noticeboard in pursuit of a site ban. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So that other list of diffs at User_talk:WLU/RFC was just a bluff? BitterGrey (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is now an ANI posting, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the ANI posting focuses on WLU's year-long pattern of Wikihounding, while the discussion here focused initially on the recent edit conflict. You should know this, WLU.  Have you posted this misinformation anywhere else? BitterGrey (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:MiamiManny reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: 24 hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * dif1
 * dif2
 * dif3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Page is under 1RR, user was per-emptively warned prior to violation, violated anyway.


 *  MBisanz  talk 21:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

MiamiManny is back to edit warring again at the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article. Please see the article's talk page where I explained what he replaced was removed by consensus. His blatant disregard of that knowledge is evidenced by him reverting again. There is a 1RR restriction at this article. He has already been blocked once in the last day for edit warring knowingly at the same article. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Rollo V. Tomasi, you are a confirmed sockpuppet, and we both know you're a sock of a banned editor. Time to find a new name. Doc   talk  23:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User: 115.133.220.33 reported by User:BatteryIncluded (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

In addition of the example reverts above, he inserts -ahead of existing references- that science teams have been "disbanded", and IF he cites a reference, it never supports his claim: , ,,.

His latest campaign is to asert that the Fobos-Grunt space mission is cleared for a repeat attempt, (in opposition to the official press releases from Roscosmos which are thoroughly documented in that WP article) while his quoted reference clearly states that such plans (eg: Fobos-Grunt 2) have been suspended. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: – Fobos-Grunt semiprotected two months. Long term warring by IPs from 115.133.* to insert unsourced claims and speculation since January. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Panickroom reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning #2:

Comments:

Panickroom is a suspected sockpuppet of blocked editor Padmalakshmisx - editor has harassed other editors who disagree with him (and was temporarily blocked for this), and insinuated anyone who disagrees with him is a vandal. Editor appears determined to WP:OWN the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I unblocked him in good faith after he agreed to maintain calm, and tried to navigate through the ESL problems he is obviously having, but sadly, he really doesn't seem to get the point. Other issues with civility also exist, but he seems to have calmed down now (I really have a lot of patience don't I) and will take action on resumption of bad behavior.  Lynch 7  20:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is enough, I've blocked the user for 1 week. He obviously hasn't learned anything from his last block and is only interested in attacking users and continuing the battleground mentality (see ).  Lynch 7  20:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Now blocked indef as a confirmed sock by User:MuZemike, per Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Syamsu reported by User:Vsmith (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: same content ip edit
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert
 * 7th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User just got off a previous edit warring block for same content, see User talk:Syamsu

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See article talk for extensive discussion Talk:Free_will and following sections.

I request that the people who keep deleting the entry, Garamond, Vsmith, Pfhorrest et al are banned from wiki, for surpression of an opinion they don't agree with, eventhough it is notable among libertarian philosophers--Syamsu (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * — Indef. This is the user's third block for warring on this article in the past ten days. He seems to have no intention of following our policies. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced the user has had a change of heart. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick reported by User:NULL (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 07:22, 20 March 2012: Original edit
 * 14:37, 20 March 2012: Revert 1
 * 15:03, 22 March 2012: Revert 2
 * 14:49, 23 March 2012: Revert 3
 * 15:20, 23 March 2012: Warned by SchmuckyTheCat
 * 22:58, 23 March 2012: Revert 4
 * 23:40, 23 March 2012: Warned by NULL
 * 06:59, 24 March 2012: Revert 5
 * 15:22, 25 March 2012: Warned by EdJohnston
 * 10:42, 29 March 2012: Revert 6
 * 11:44, 29 March 2012: Revert 7
 * 20:25, 29 March 2012: Warned by EdJohnston
 * 14:48, 2 April 2012: Revert 8
 * 16:22, 2 April 2012: Blocked by EdJohnston for 48 hours
 * 18:47, 6 April 2012: Revert 9

 Comments: 

This has been an ongoing issue with this editor. The problem edit is the repeated addition of unsigned tags to sockpuppet/blocked editor tags placed by SchmuckyTheCat against the edits of a blocked sockpuppet in the discussion. Jeffrey was told repeatedly that the unsigned tags weren't necessary but persisted in restoring them. He then attempted to WP:GAME the system by adding small token edits such as adding or removing a space elsewhere in the page so that if he was reverted he could complain that it was vandalism due to removing his 'good edits'. In the edit history of the page, however, it can be seen that on my first revert of his material, I took care to separate the bad content from the good content, but he added it straight back in. Reverts 3, 4 and 5 above violate 3RR.

The user was directly warned four times not to do this, once by SchmuckyTheCat, once by myself and then twice by admin EdJohnston after a previous AN3 report was filed. After persisting, Jeffrey was blocked for 48 hours. After his block expired, he returned only two days later to make yet another revert of the material. Jeffrey refuses to acknowledge that his edits have been disruptive and doesn't seem inclined to change his behaviour even after a block. I alerted User:EdJohnston on his talk page but wasn't sure if I should file another report here, so here it is anyway.

– NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:NULL's summary above appears correct. Since I issued the last block (for 48 hours) it is best if a different admin looks into the case this time around. Jeffrey Fitzpatrick continues with his disruptive refactoring of the talk page even though nobody agrees that it's appropriate, and his changes are always undone by other editors. The previous 3RR case (where he was warned for the same thing) is now archived  here. Still further back, Fitzpatrick was blocked for doing the same thing as the IP . The IP address is still under a range block per this action from April 2011, which I haven't researched any further. Conceivably this editor is a sock of Instantnood, per Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive. Others may look into that if they wish. Even without the sock connection, my proposal would be for a one-month block since this editor is far beyond the reach of persuasion and seems unwilling to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have explained many times that my edits were to restore my own comments that Schmucky and NULL had insisted to delete or to refactor for no reason. I agreed not to restore the Unsigned tags already (with one single exception, since I posted a question to Schmucky there). Null simply doesn't listen at all, and keeps lying around as part of his political agenda. I wouldn't restore those deleted/refactored comments on this talk page in two months' time provided that an uninvolved admin will look into its edit history and restore my comments. (Meanwhile, it is important to note that it's Schmucky and Null who disrupted the page by adding back the mislocated bot-generated notification again and again, removing the Anchor tag that an IP editor had added, and it's Schmucky who on 31st March 2012 refactored Jiang's comment back in 2004.) Jeffrey (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This user has violated 3RR again begun edit warring at Category:Gondola lifts in China, forcing a C1 tag on the page even though the category is under discussion at CFD. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP connection to previous socks is not news to me. Neither is the subject matter overlap between Jeffrey, blocked IPs, and some other recently created accounts (and another more long term account I look at). I thought about putting a joke on his talk page asking if he forgot which account he was using and why both hadn't voted early in the cable car CfD. He abandoned publishing his IP in his signature. I'm unsure a month long block is that effective. If it is a sock of Instantnood, then it's just another disposable account. Rather than forcing "Jeffrey" into other accounts and IPs (which just makes the disruption more difficult to track) via a long term block, it may be more useful to transparently and blatantly recognize the account as disruptive while allowing it to continue. A 1RR enforced by short blocks may actually provide less disruption to the project than the wholesale manipulation by random HK IP addresses we had this winter. A CU check, and ongoing peeks, may be warranted to enforce a one account rule. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Utility of a block?
 * On the assumption that Jeffrey is Instantnood, that may be appropriate. However, if he's not, a longer block would be an appropriate response I think. We already know the IP range Jeffrey uses, it's still blocked for the next few days. It will be obvious if he returns on an IP after he's blocked, once the IP range block lapses. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Oh, come on)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:


 * Clearer diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This user has been put under a 1RR restriction when editing against other editors who are under a 1RR restriction as can be seen here by admin Salvio giuliano. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * utter nonsense. i did not revert you a 2. time. i added new content that gives the full background. all of your material is still there. how the did i revert you then? i am not under any restriction either. i was asked not to revert you more than once since you are under 1-rr restriction. i did not revert you either.--   altetendekrabbe   12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Sorry but you did, it is obvious from the diff's that you changed the content I had written, that is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * i did not change your content. suggest you read the two versions.--  altetendekrabbe   12:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You changed at least two words that I had written that I can see. That is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * er, right. however -> thus, balochistan -> kalat...these are precisions. say no more. this is becoming embarrassing. no wonder you have a long long history of blocks against you. you might now get another one.--  altetendekrabbe   13:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are of the opinion that skirting around a 1R restriction is OK more power to you, I however do not this it is OK to do so. You changed content to get the article to your preferred view. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * i did not change content. period.--  altetendekrabbe   14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am here to report Darkness Shines, I will report here so that admin can see more detail for editwar. I have this in my watchlist because I edited there with other ID before, please tell him to stop blaming me. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no violation by me on that article, file a correct report if you think I am edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute at Uncharted reported by User:72.136.49.248 (Result: no violation)

 * Original title: Uncharted Not sure if I'd call it vandalism, but it's a definite edit war

Sorry if I'm not reporting this correctly; first time and I'm still trying to learn how to be a better editor! 72.136.49.248 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Uncharted is an article about a video game series. I am fixing up this report. Here are the page links for Uncharted, and here are two of the participants:



I've notified MonkeyKingBar of this discussion, as well as User talk:99.224.54.167. In edit summaries, one editor has stated that MonkeyKingBar is a sock of User:GoldDragon. To check whether this claim might be correct, admins might look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not abusing socks, so the issue here is that I'm being trolled by an anon user. Pretty well none of 99.224.54.167's edits are constructive, all of them are simply reverts of my edits.MonkeyKingBar (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see it. Place a report at WP:SPI if you'd like to check for socks.  Kuru   (talk)  00:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User:77.70.15.245 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see warning left at user's talk page.

 City O f  Silver  18:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Was blocked for 24 hours by SoWhy. No other edits since then.  Kuru   (talk)  00:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Casprings reported by User:The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The problems are being worked out on the talk page and the edits vary to try to get consensus. Washington Post article found to provide that. The reverts of my edits are often without consensus and happen by editors of this article.  Casprings (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There was a clear 3RR on April 7th; reverts at 04:15, 14:42, 15:03, 16:11 added roughly the same material. I would have just called this stale, but a further revert at 23:40 (an hour ago) to include the same material convinces me that he's still edit warring.  I've left a note that a pledge to avoid further additions until a consensus is formed can be considered for an unblock.  Kuru   (talk)  00:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Highstakes00 (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

abuse:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15#Taliban

Comments: Hello his old block history say he will only make one revert in a day he is editwarring when I delete one tag he put on top when regent delete it he tag different. --Highstakes00 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * These appear to all be completely different tags. Kuru   (talk)  23:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Lucasmoura reported by User:Cyberpower678 (Result: no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: here


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As I do not wish to edit war, I have stopped reverting on that article and would appreciate assistance or advice from a fellow editor.— c y b e r p o w e r Happy Easter Online  18:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 'reverted to' link is from 15 March and a different category. No WP:3RR violation yet, unless they revert again (they are, currently, on their third revert). The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooops. I misread the history.— c y b e r p o w e r  Happy Easter Online  21:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Nero Radi reported by User:Jikaku (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

Editor Nero Radi initially added contributions to this article that were unsourced, the product of original research (by their own admission) and rife with editorializing comments. These were removed with an explanation as to why - however Nero Radi simply insists on reverting any edits made back to his original content. Jikaku (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Page was protected by Dougweller. Kuru   (talk)  23:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Thomas Paine1776 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 20:06,  8 April 2012  (edit summary: "restore sourced content")
 * 2) 20:51,  8 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 22:15,  8 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 22:17,  8 April 2012  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Comment: this has been going for several days now. Several editors have pointed out to Thomas Paine1776 that the content he continually adds is inappropriate, yet he continues to re-add it. The worst part of all this is that this user has been here since 2006, and still doesn't seem to understand not edit war. Furthermore, his comments on the talk page suggest an ownership attitude.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear reverts at 20:06, 20:51, 22:15, 22:17. Was explicitly waned at 22:09 and removed the warning from his talk page with an erroneous comment. Kuru   (talk)  23:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Friginator reported by User:Wisdomtenacityfocus (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User is repeatedly changing Greasy Love Songs from a redirect to a stub despite the fact that it is a reissue of the album Cruising with Ruben & the Jets, and not a new album. User repeatedly ignores warnings about his behavior and threatened me for correcting his mistake. This does not fall under good faith at all. The ONLY reason this user is arguing against Greasy Love Songs being a reissue is because he disagrees with my opinions of how Frank Zappa's discography should be handled on Wikipedia (it is being handled POORLY when compared to, for example Dream Theater discography and Miles Davis discography). User has made similar edits at Frank Zappa discography and Template:Frank Zappa. Also, when user reverts, he changes the album's format from "compilation" to "studio", despite the fact that it is a reissue of a previously released material. "Compilation" is the only classification this release would come under if it were not, in fact, a reissue, much like Black Sabbath's Children of the Grave, which was simply Masters of Reality with live material added (Strike that, it was a Vol. 4 reissue, not Masters). Anyone notice that no Children of the Grave article is available? Should we have THAT added as an article? Or Cheap Thrills (CD version), since the Big Brother/Janis Joplin album has live tracks added to make it a compilation? Or the tenth anniversary edition of Slipknot's first album? Should THAT have its own article? Anyone see my point?

Also, user was informed about his behavior, and told me to "shut your hole" on his talk page. --WTF (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. (For the record, the "kindly shut your hole" comment was in regards to this user accusing me of vandalism, of which there has been a lot of recently). But that's not the point. As for Wisdomtenacityfocus's complaints, the user had plenty of opportunities to bring the issue up on a talk page. I saw no discussion or consensus whatsoever. All I've seen is the article entitled Greasy Love Songs redirected to another article without any explanation other than "it's a reissue." According to Zappa's official discography on his website, they're two different albums and neither contains material present on the other. There needs to be a better reason for the reverts, not just one user's opinion going against established sources. Friginator (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that an earlier ANEW case about user was just archived without comment (see the entire text here), presumably because WTF had indeed stopped editing or commenting after the closure to his disadvantage — see entire text here. I have just opened an ANI on WTF's accusations of vandalism and edit warring here. - DVdm (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * DVdm, it's not an "accusation" if it's true. Please stop opening up noticeboard threads out of spite. --WTF (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's still an accusation even if it is true. That said, it isn't true, as DVdm has proven to you numerous times. --Mystery Roach (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * DVdm has proven nothing other than that he has no respect or regard for the people around him. --WTF (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Friginator, telling someone to "shut" their "hole" is an attack no matter how you spin it. It's uncivil behavior. And the Zappa website discography is organized to promote people buying the reissue. It's clearly a reissue. It's the vinyl mix of the original album with bonus tracks. Re-read what I stated earlier. There is no need for a new article. --WTF (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, contrary to your claim in this edit, it is YOU who has been reported for edit warring, not me. And rightfully so, because you have now reverted THREE TIMES, in spite of all evidence that this is a reissue and does not need a new article, no more than, as previously mentioned, Children of the Grave, or the 1995 reissue of Ruben and the Jets.--WTF (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As can be seen here, you have indeed been reported for edit warring. --Mystery Roach (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FALSELY, by a vandal. --WTF (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously there's not a 3RR here, nor do I see a larger pattern of edit warring on this article that would need a block. Frankly, if you're looking for blocks for any sort of edit warring, I would probably include the reporter.  Might be nice to start as discussion, or utilize WP:DR before continuing any more back and forth reverts.  Random accusations of "vandalism" are not helping.  Kuru   (talk)  00:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a 3RR, but it's definitely edit warring. --WTF (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:184.35.96.144 reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

see User talk:Tide rolls

Comments:


 * Result: Warned. Any further removal of the eszett spelling by the IP, unless consensus is reached, will lead to a block or semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Lorin Schonfeld reported by User:TRLIJC19 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments: I have seen Lorin Schonfeld around since early this year. At first she was changing the formats of the infoboxes at the Grey's Anatomy character pages which I spoke to her about as did Frickative on her talk page which she didn't respond to. She did it again and I reverted and then she stopped. Then at the Grey's Anatomy season pages, she was adding paragraphs of undetailed, unsourced information which myself and another user reverted. I spoke to her about this and she again, didn't respond. More recently, yesterday, she added a new message to the talk page for List of Grey's Anatomy episodes explaining that she wanted to add seasonal information above each season table. I was pleased since she was finally starting discussion before her edits. I gave my opinion, which was yes, and then another user gave his opinion and said no, and she responded with this. I changed my opinion since the other user's statements seemed valid, changing my mind. I was expecting to wait for some other users to chime in. But I noticed, she had already added her desired edits in without a consensus. I reverted the edits and explained that I've given her sufficient warnings and that she would be reported.

TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 12:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lorin has attempted to force a change in format at List of Grey's Anatomy episodes eight times since April 3. Three times on April 3. Then again on April 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. (You can see in the edit history that she adds over 7,000 bytes each time.) So far each of her changes has been reverted, by different people.


 * She last joined on the talk page at 10:18 on April 8. Then she re-added her material yet again at 11:19 on April 8, apparently ignoring the feedback she received from two other editors at Talk:List of Grey's Anatomy episodes. In other words, there is no sign that she has stopped reverting.


 * I've warned Lorin that she is being discussed at this board, and suggest that this 3RR report be kept open for a while to see if she will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In response, I would defend myself by simply stating that I thought my actions would be an improvement to the article and, therefore, an improvement to Wikipedia. I would also say that I have continuously reverted the article back to my changes as only two users have expressed their disagreement regarding the changes. In a nutshell, I have come to the decision to leave Wikipedia for good since there is no sign of fair-play in article-editing as people's objections are not at all objective, but rather personal. Lorin Schonfeld (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. I urge Lorin to remain as a WP editor but to have the patience to try persuading others when a dispute occurs. EdJohnston (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Chicagoexchanger reported by User:RL0919 (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:, user was blocked for 3RR violation:
 * 7th revert: resumed edit-warring after block expired, and was blocked again:
 * 8th revert: again resuming after block expired with edit summary: "The cited source does not back up the statement. Truth and fact should be published here not unsupported bias and speculation. Talk supports my edit"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As noted in the previous 3RR report about this user, this is a recurring edit war involving the repeated removal of one sentence by this account. Talk page discussion occurred but this user never participated despite being advised multiple times. They also repeatedly claim in edit summaries that the talk page supports their position, despite no one in the discussion doing so. The account is an SPA devoted exclusively to this edit war. --RL0919 (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I added his latest edit-summary indicating he is after WP:TRUTH. I suggest an indefinite block at this stage. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * – Indefinitely. A dedicated SPA with no interests besides waging war on this one sentence. Account was created April 2. This is his third block in a week for the same thing. User seems to have no intention of following our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Intoronto1125 reported by User:StAnselm (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

User is being very rude with comments like this one. StAnselm (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Already blocked for 2 weeks. Kuru   (talk)  02:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Johnspring and User talk:37.17.252.233 reported by User:Soviet King (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It appears that Johnspring is displaying ownership behavior on this article, and he has been doing the same to other articles and edit warring with the IP on pages such as Gjekë Marinaj and Albanians.


 * Blocked indef as a sock. Kuru   (talk)  02:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:212.57.79.102 reported by User:Typ932 (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

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

Tried to start discussion on his talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.57.79.102, added also 3rr template to avoid further reverting, same edit war also in two other similar page Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

I tried to talk him, also hes not using any editing comments, why he has made changes, I tried to tell him my reverting reasons on my edit comments also >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Already blocked for 31 hours by Mr. 7. Kuru   (talk)  02:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Unscintillating reported by User:Ohms law (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 19:12, April 8, 2012‎


 * 1st revert: 19:21, April 8, 2012‎
 * 2nd revert: 01:10, April 9, 2012‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:05, April 9, 2012‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Unscintillating removed the discussion, but it's still in his talk page history of course. See: here.

Comments:

I hate these boards, but I'm not sure what else to do other than come here. As is apparent from the "discussion" that I attempted to have with him, he seems unwilling to actually talk about the issue here (whether or not the redirect should be a soft redirect or a normal redirect). It's certainly possible that I'm misreading the situation, but it seems to me as though Unscintillating is being oddly aggressive about this for reasons that I can't fathom. Regards, — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 06:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm seeing anything - is there a 1RR restriction on the article or the editor? Kuru   (talk)  02:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I have no 1RR restrictions. I'm not aware of any 1RR restrictions on the project page, it is a redirect with 16 total edits in its edit history.  OL still needs to start a discussion  at WT:NOT.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. The 'soft redirect' version of this page was in place for about four months, starting in December 2011. Editors sometimes assume that the old or historic version has consensus. This might not still be the case, but the only way to find out is to open a new discussion at WT:NOT. If more reverts occur without discussion, full protection should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ...uh, OK. If you guys want soft redirects like this, this badly, then who am I to argue? I've got better things to do than fight about this kind of silliness. Rewarding Unscintillating for edit warring is an odd administrative decision, but... OK (not that he should be blocked or anything, but... whatever. If he wants to be a fuckin' jerk, that's on him. This will be in the archives for the next time he's on this board, at least.) — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 19:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Stevil-speaks reported by User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (Result: withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: | 21:37, 8 April 2012
 * 2nd revert: | 21:49, 8 April 2012
 * 3rd revert: | 22:30, 8 April 2012
 * 4th revert: | 13:52, 9 April 2012
 * 6th revert: | 17:36, 9 April 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Editor is new to WP, and has not discussed his/her edits on Talk, though invites have been made to join talk. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK I have reviewed the rules and realize that I should have used the talk page of the article itself which I have now done. However, I have NOT been removing content, only adding content so it seems to me that The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous is also in violation of the edit warring proscription by repeatedly removing my new content. But alright, the content under Survey results has been added to the AA article talk page. Stevil-speaks (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

But I object to the removal of a simple reference to an article published in the highly respected magazine Free Inquiry under the subtopic of Other Criticisms!! This is not a copyright violation obviously or else the second of the existing entries under said topic would also be suspect because it references an article by Dr. Arthur Cain in Harper's magazine. Additionally, in this case Dr. Cain's article is not any more a WP:RS than my article because Harper's is not a scientifically peer reviewed periodical - since that seems to be your objection. Stevil-speaks (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Stevil has taken his views to talk and has stopped reverting. These are good faith gestures that bode well. If I have the option to retract this ANI, I would do so. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Marked as withdrawn. Kuru   (talk)  02:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Darklordabc/User:202.171.168.146 reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

The fourth revert differs from the others, but is a revert of this addition originally made by the IP, and the duck test makes it obvious the account and the IP are one and the same. 2 lines of K 303  12:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: Darklordabc blocked 48 hours for edit warring and socking. The IP has been blocked one month as a suspected open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)