Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive183

User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Comments:

John Foxe was placed on a 1RR restriction (see here and here) on Mormon-related articles for 2 years. This is not the first time he has violated this restriction (see here). Additionally, a review of his actions over the past few months reveals a few additional instances where he has overstepped 1RR on Mormon-related pages, for example &  and  &, along with other instances where two reverts are outside the 24hr window by only a few hours. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 16:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:94.250.89.58 reported by RA0808 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:15, 10 April 2012  (edit summary: "No, now! You have to wait for this, because the show is still in progress.")
 * 2) 16:47, 10 April 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 486650028 by 182.64.21.232 (talk)")
 * 3) 16:48, 10 April 2012  (edit summary: "/* Cast */")
 * 4) 18:56, 10 April 2012  (edit summary: "Fuck off, rude, fat boy...")
 * 5) 19:12, 10 April 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 486675047 by Aaron Booth (talk)")
 * 6) 19:19, 10 April 2012  (edit summary: "Every day I will repay such a change, if it do not mind other people on Wikipedia, why you? And the article is not that long, there are also longer. The people read this every moment.")
 * 7) 19:21, 10 April 2012  (edit summary: "Every day I will repay such a change, if it do not mind other people on Wikipedia, why you? And the article is not that long, there are also longer. The people read this every moment.")
 * 8) 19:23, 10 April 2012  (edit summary: "Hey, don't change.")


 * Diff of warning: here

— RA talkcontribs 19:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Page full-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:

Editor has removed sourced content without once offering an explanation and after being urged to do so. Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  00:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  09:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  12:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that AnkhMorpork has made 3 reverts in a 24 hour period and has zero attempts to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page.
 * This is his first revert. There is no discussion.
 * I make an attempt to discuss this matter on the talk page and revert his edits. I even leave a message on his talk page. He never responds.
 * But he reverts part of the same material again. Again, no comment on the talk page.
 * AnkhMorpork and Somedifferentstuff go through various edits, neither attempts to use the talk page.
 * AnkhMorpork makes a third revert here, again without any discussion.
 * Later Somedifferentstuff attempted to discuss the dispute.
 * AnkhMorpork has previously violated 3RR on this article. I even reported him, but withdrew my report after he self-reverted.VR talk  03:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Talk page "attempt to discuss" was made after two warnings regarding disruptive editing and after this report being submitted and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. As to the most recent third diff that you provided, in it, I changed the text from its original form to accommodate with your desires raised on the Talk page and am surprised you are citing this as edit-warring. I did not respond because I had noted your concerns and had duly amended the text! I am uncertain what reasoning and debating you expect me to provide for edits which are reliably sourced and have been inexplicably deleted; something I refrain from doing.
 * "I did not respond because I had noted your concerns and had duly amended the text!" Not true. This revert restores some of the material that I protested earlier at the talk page.
 * "I am uncertain what reasoning and debating you expect me to provide for edits which are reliably sourced and have been inexplicably deleted" I explained my deletion on the talk page! See the diff above. How then can you call the deletion "inexplicably"? And you are required to use the talk page.
 * And when filing the 3rr report, you must have seen the following : "If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too".VR talk  12:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-examine the latest of my cited edits as opposed to quoting from earlier ones. I amended in accordance with your wishes and restored content that was inexplicably deleted from not just the lead but from other paragraphs too, which still has not been explained.
 * I suggest you withdraw this report. It is meant to report a single user going against multiple users who have discussed adequately on the talk page. This is definitely not the case here.VR talk  12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and I suggest you not suggest that someone withdraw their filing due to your own misunderstandings of the purpose of this board :-) ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I should block at least 3 of you; instead I have fully-protected the page, and it's unfortunate if I have perhaps protected the wrong version. Every single one of you will discuss edits and obtain consensus.  Every single one of you will read about edit-warring.  Every single one of you will follow proper dispute resolution processess.  There will be no further warnings for edit-warring for any of the 3 of you ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:91.150.222.61 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Semi)
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: Talk:Blue Army (Poland)

Comments:


 * Not a 3RR violation, but edit-warring despite a warning. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Today the IP is editing as — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected one month. Carrying on an editing dispute with multiple IPs violates WP:SOCK right there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Vithurgod (Result: Declined - filer warned )
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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ranina_Reddy

Discography is a Table containing the List of Songs sung by an Indian Singer and this has been existing for all Indian Play Back singers. It was existing for singer Ranina Reddy whose wikipage is being edited by me for adding more data into it but there has been a conflict and other editors are not allowing it. Please consider this. It was existing before and it exists for other singers as well. Why did it get deleted, for this singer and why shouldnt this exist for this singer ?. Please resolve this and give permission for adding the same. Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going to mark this as malformed, but I believe this required comment. You are involved in a content dispute, and have been blocked once already because of it - you then returned to the same behaviour.  Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, full stop.  edit-warring is never permitted.  If consensus on the talkpage is to NOT include something, this it shall not be included.  You cannot force it.  Further re-adding to the article, or reverting the removal will lead to additional blocks ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User: reported by User:109.89.5.80 (Result: Declined as malformed)
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:


 * Indeed, I cannot even find any edits by you on the English Wikipedia to trace this ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Nobullgracias (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported: Malik Shabazz, Roland R

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marek_Edelman&diff=486858864&oldid=486857289

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


 * 1st revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marek_Edelman&action=history
 * 2nd revert: [diff]
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marek_Edelman

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Comments:

I have included a general history of the edit warring (above). Two editors (Malik Shabazz and Roland R) - while technically not violating the 3 revert rule are engaging in edit warring I believe. In the last edit made by Malik Shabazz - I instead was accused of edit warring. I have asked for a genuine discussion/compromise on this - but so far to no avail  Nobullgracias (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Though the request is malformed, I handled this request anyways. I can see from the edit history of the article that not only was the article protected due to edit warring, but was also blocked for 1 day. It's quite obvious that this is not the first time you've been blocked for edit warring in this article and as such, I have blocked you for 2 days for repeated edit warring. Elockid   ( Talk ) 20:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:60.53.112.200 reported by User:DmitryKo (Result: 24h)
User being reported:

Page: Previous version reverted to:
 * 10 March
 * 19 March


 * 11 April
 * 11 April Edit summary: Your opinion is irrelevant. You and your father don't own Wikipedia
 * 11 April Edit summary: Revert vandalism by DmitryKo, mods please ban this vandal
 * 12 April Edit summary: Typical Russian Retard, just 1 click and I undo your vandalism
 * 12 April

Page: Previous version reverted to:
 * 10 March
 * 19 March


 * 11 April
 * 11 April Edit summary: Your opinion is irrelevant. You and your father don't own Wikipedia
 * 11 April Edit summary: Revert vandalism by DmitryKo, mods please ban this vandal
 * 12 April Edit summary: Typical Russian Retard, just 1 click and I undo your vandalism
 * 12 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP adresses above have also been involved with edit warring and name calling on Firefox ‎and Nvidia PureVideo.‎ --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 07:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, however, that you are also subject to the the three-revert rule, so even when it comes to personal attacks, be sure to avoid accidentally violating it. -- slakr \ talk / 00:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Meadyforzbs reported by User: 76.107.249.211 (Result: both blocked for 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:

User:Meadyforzbs Has been repeatedly Reverting the airdates from 2001 to 2006 of the Angry Beavers without providing reliable sources. I have told him to take it to the talk page yet he is still trying to engage in edit warring Which he has already been warned for by User:Danger less than a week ago.Please can someone help me
 * Comment, he is actually up to eight reverts. 76.107.249.211 has not fared much better. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Another comment, Meadyforzbs is doing the exact same edit warring here Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And here Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kuru  (talk)  00:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:64.229.47.78 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 48 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 00:49, 13 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 01:05, 13 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 01:09, 13 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 01:11, 13 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 01:13, 13 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 01:17, 13 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 01:40, 13 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 02:19, 13 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 02:27, 13 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 02:36, 13 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 11) 02:42, 13 April 2012  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * by User:Daniel Case. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:TopGun (Result: 30-day restriction)
Page:

User being reported:

(Pre-violation revert):

Addition by JCAla:

Reverted and followed by discussion where JCAla's version didn't make consensus as of yet:


 * 1RR violation

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

1RR sanction:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Pakistan/Archive 15 (detailed discussion)

Comments: JCAla has been baiting my community sanction repeatedly on different articles for which he was given the same sanction when reverting me. He has violated this at two different instances. The first case, at Balochistan conflict was considered stale by Salvio (though it was only 12 hours late when he responded and the dispute was still on). . After that, he has done the same on Pakistan by reverting me again after I BRD reverted his edit in which he reinstated (a modified version) of his content addition which was removed before the the talk page discussion started a few days ago. Normal escalation should be followed now so that future editwar is prevented. -- lTopGunl (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. TopGun is following around my edits, reverting here and there and then coming here bothering people with absolutely nothing. I seriously start to consider this harassment. He is following me, not the other way around. I did but one revert. (Note that I am not under 1RR, but people have agreed that when editors are involved in a dispute with editors which are under 1RR such as TopGun, the editors not under 1RR should try to adhere to that basis as well.)


 * 1) (14 March-16 March) There was a discussion on how to add a sentence about the Balochistan conflict to the Pakistan article.15#Balochistan
 * 2) (07:39, 8 April) I added the proposed sentence as there had been no further objections for weeks on the talk. This is an edit, not a revert!
 * 3) (13:49, 8 April) TopGun changed a term for the conflict inside the sentence.
 * 4) (14:12, 8 April) I reverted TopGun's change based on two arguments: a) the source (The Economist) used the term I had used and b) TopGun's change of term made the sentence grammatically incorrect. As far as I am aware there is a conflict between two actors not an insurgency between two actors. An insurgency is conducted by someone not between people. This is one revert. (Note: The "opposed to" went in there by accident, I fixed it in the next minor edit.)

It is interesting that the version according to TopGun supposedly "reverted to", actually succeeded (not preceded my edit). Note also, an editor often on the other spectrum of content discussions, who was involved in the Balochistan discussion, has agreed that the sentence added by me "serves well enough". Furthermore, I was not notified by TopGun of this report.

Additionally, TopGun is absolutely mispresenting what Salvio has said about another discussion regarding the Balochistan conflict main article (note: above was about a sentence about Balochistan in the Pakistan article). On that article TG reverted a major overhaul of the article conducted by me, including proper sourcing, restructuring, grammar improvements, removing unsourced content - and he cited no reason but a discontent with one sentence and a general, not elaborated "POV" claim. I told him he could have changed that sentence or discussed it without making a general revert to everything including uncontroversial improvements. In his revert TG restored content such as this one: Balochistan_conflict. I had sourced everything appropriately. Also, he restored 3 separate sections on the economic issue, which I had intergrated into one. He also restored that the Pakistan and Iran conflict are mixed up in the article, although they are not directly related to one another. I had made two parts of the article, one for Iran and one for Pakistan. Furthermore, I had updated a lot of the information to April 2012 as The Economist has written a major article on the issue. Until this day TG has failed to cite any reliable source for that one sentence he reverted everything for, while his revert removed the Stanford University Press as a source I had used. Salvio said: "JCala did not violate his 1-rr he made a bold edit, was reverted and he himself reverted only once ..." Then he said, that even if it was construed as a revert, the issue had become stale anyways. Later he again explained to TG, "I find it hard to construe JCala's first edit as a revert, when he was actually changing the article's content."

As shown by this report, TopGun is looking for trouble and that is starting to become truly annoying. JCAla (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but just because a single user thought that the debate was not necessary over that term doesn't mean that you had consensus. And following your edits really? I've been working on Pakistan (especially the FAC) and Balochistan conflict both before you as far as I remember... so stop making that excuse. I find it quite telling that you come up with excuses as such when you violate restrictions. And you definitely are under a 1RR when in dispute with me and that is clearly mentioned in the diff cited by me. My own community sanction was extended to full on exact same basis, ie. being in a similar dispute. And no, my revert to Balochistan conflict was not a general revert... I objected to your edits and ever since instead of adding a single comment on talk page to further discuss, you have been claiming it as a general revert. Luckily unlike that, in the current case you have clearly reverted me twice. I have taken Salvio's explanation in consideration here and you have violated 1RR inspite of that. I will not discuss any content here, but this has been filled with WP:SOUP just even with this. I disagree that a first edit is not included in the reverts, all reports above contain it in my opinion... and even if you don't consider that, this was a revert of content removed by me a few days ago. To add, almost all of JCAla's edits since atleast last week have been baiting my 1RR (or discussing it) by first adding content and the reverting me again while I followed 1RR. This was atleast the third article and second after he was put on 1RR for the same reason. I'll wait for admin comments. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no objection to what I had last written on the talk of the Pakistan article since 16 March, the discussion was actually saved by me out of the archives where it had already gone. Also, I was not put under "1RR sanction". Do you understand? This restriction, not sanction, is valid for every editor involved in a dispute with you or another editor under 1RR in this topic area. Salvio stated: "Same goes for all other editors involved." I propose you stop mispresenting what Salvio said. And yes, you undid everything in general revert on the Balochistan conflict article merely an hour after my overhaul. I discussed and asked you here to provide a source and reason for removing the Stanford University Press. Until this day you failed to do any of that. This is not a constructive way to work with each other.JCAla (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Quoting diff cited for sanction, yes I know I shouldn't be giving this because I added diff, but above is a case of blatant cherry picking: "JCala, please remember that when your undoing TopGun's edits or involved in a content dispute with him, you're under a WP:1RR too. Same goes for all other editors involved." This was in reply to my report for his baiting. -- lTopGunl (talk</b>) 12:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly as I said. It is not a sanction against me because of behavior (as you falsely claimed) but a general restriction for "all other editors involved" in this topic area also. Salvio said the exact same thing to Mar4d or Altentendekrabbe, directly addressing them, too. Salvio did so rightly for the topic area because of the fierce content disputes. JCAla (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To make this whole mess short. TopGun claims in his report above this is the version I allegedly twice reverted to. How can I in my first edit, on 8 April 07:39, (termed the "1st revert" by TopGun) "revert" to a version of 8 April 12:50? I have done but one revert (see timeline explained above) and that among using the term used by the source restored a grammatically correct version. JCAla (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * JCAla, it does appear that you added this material on 3/14, which was then removed by TopGun. Your edit at 07:39 is indeed reverting his earlier removal.  Had this been a completely novel addition, then there would not be an issue.  Your edit at 14:12 is, as you note, a revert which then violates the 1RR restriction.  I'm pretty hesitant to block to "prevent" something from two days ago, though.  Does this make sense and will you be more careful to avoid 1RR going forward?  Kuru   (talk)  02:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kuru, given the drama above (and the previous two such instances which were considered stale after late admin response on the report), I suspect that this might happen again. That is what should be prevented by blocking/warning now. If the message is delivered without a block, good enough... but I don't think JCAla is even agreeing to it. Also, there's a thread at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring‎, please comment on that to clarify about novel edits for future reference as that also seems to be against the BRD concept and effectively turns a 1RR restriction into 0RR. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * On March 14 I added the following sentence:
 * "Since 1948, when the Pakistani army annexed Balochistan as its fourth province, until today a Baloch separatist movement is fighting a struggle for self-determination."
 * (you might notice no such term as "conflict" in there)


 * TopGun (surprise, surprise) removed the whole sentence.
 * From March 14 to March 16 I discussed with several editors what sentence to add instead. After I had made my last proposal and statement on March 16, there were no further objections. The discussion even went into the archives.
 * As there were no further objections I then added on April 8 (!) a totally different sentence (discussed on the talk):
 * "Since 1948, there has also been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, violent conflict in the southwestern province of Balochistan between various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy, and the central government of Pakistan."

This is by no means a violation of 1RR. A) We are speaking of a time span of one month! B) The sentence added by me on March 14 was a totally different one and did not even feature the term "conflict" (the term to be reverted by TopGun on April 8 in a different sentence). C) The sentence added on April 8 after an extensive discussion was completely different from the one added on March 14. D) The one revert I did conduct (after TopGun's April 8 revert) changed ONE term. I value your kind response and restraint, Kuru, and I certainly am already very aware that TopGun's restriction has implication for everyone in a dispute with him on that topic area and I try to abide by that. But I am not going to take this joke. I find it telling how desperately he is seeking to have me blocked and he is doing so very openly, people seem to think that is completely ok, well ... He is already twisting what you said, by implying a first edit adding totally different/new content counts as one revert. Maybe you can clarify that. Other than that, thank you again for your kind response, I am aware of what you said. JCAla (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TopGun (surprise, surprise) messed up the sentence grammatically.
 * I conducted one revert (changing one single term) to restore the correct version. An editor who was part of the discussion even voiced his approval of the sentence.
 * Kuru found this to be a 1RR violation and offered to forgive it. He asked JCAla 'will you be more careful to avoid 1RR going forward.' If JCAla had said yes, I would support closing this report with no action. Since JCAla has come back with legalisms about the revert, I recommend doing a block instead. JCAla, if you really want admins to examine every single revert (going back a month) as though they were accountants, instead of you taking the advice to ease off a bit, have it your way. Kuru by dint of analysis (that must have been tedious) found it was really two reverts by you. I agree with his diagnosis. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, I am going to follow Kuru's advice. But, yes, if you want to block me, you should indeed investigate if there is truly a case. The sentences are different, and I discussed the new sentence and waited for any further objections for nearly a month before adding it. The term disputed on April 8, was not in the March 14 version. So, pardon me, but that is not a 1RR violation and I am sure Kuru will check out my argument if he/she comes here. JCAla (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about you agree, for the next 30 days, to make no change at Pakistan that could be controversial unless you first propose it on the talk page and at least one other person supports it there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Inquiry: Will you then investigate my argument above? I would be willing to do it voluntarily for the time span as a good faith gesture. But I am not willing to have it construed as a "because of 1RR violation", when it wasn't one. What kind of message would that be? A adds a sentence on March 14, B removes it. A then discusses on the talk page with B, C and D. A completely new sentence is being worked out. After A's last argument on the talk, no further objections come and D even voices support for the new version. On April 8, A then adds the new sentence. One term is changed in the sentence by B, which had not been in the March 14 version. A does one revert, among other things because it messes up the grammar, but nothing has been restored which was in the March 14 version. B reports A for edit warring claiming 2 reverts. Tell me, where are the 2 reverts? JCAla (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No further discussion of the reverts. We do not owe you thousands of words of discussion of every complaint about you. Please say yes or no whether you accept the one-month restriction at Pakistan, as proposed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Every complaint about me? How many are there which are unrelated to TopGun? None. I am asking you for one solid explanation, nothing more, nothing less. That is a reasonable expectation. Kuru wrote, "it does appear that you added this material on 3/14, which was then removed by TopGun. ... Had this been a completely novel addition, then there would not be an issue." I explained that this is a misunderstanding as I did not add the same material as on 3/14 and I provided evidence that this was indeed a novel addition on April 8. Now I want to see what Kuru has to say. I am therefore asking you to wait for Kuru's opinion on this matter as he or she was the administrator who took on this matter and I addressed my argument to him/her. JCAla (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the slow response; I am not usually available during the day (central US). I spent about 30 minutes last night digging through a long series of content disputes to ensure the material was not previously present in the article.  The additions looked roughly the same to me, but given the clarification on what the key distinctions were (the points of contention in that sentence), I understand your position. Not a novel addition but distinct through compromise.  The problem we're faced with is that the same names continue to show up here with convoluted and acrimonious disputes, filled with terse communication between editors that simply do not like each other and have moved well past the assume good faith mantra.  I think Ed's solution may help mitigate some of the trust issues  and lighten the case load a little, and I'm comfortable with the arrangement not being "under a cloud".  Kuru   (talk)  00:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) FYI, I am administrator who used to work in this dispute, but I was hounded away by the constant obtuseness of JCAla in cases exactly like this one (TopGun didn't help his case by being way too wordy for me to follow what they were going through). Let me just say something: this is entirely typical of JCAla. Try to cover up the entire instance with WP:SOUP, and then when an administrator admonishes him, he says the admin should stay out of the discussion because said admin is no longer capable of rendering a neutral decision. As far as I'm concerned, JCAla should either be blocked for a lengthy amount of time (for continuing to wikilawyer by means of filibuster and ignoring what countless people in the community have been telling him about his behavior - this is far from the first time this has happened) or receive a one year topic ban from all issues regarding Pakistan. He and TopGun should also have a interaction ban with each other. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kuru, thanks again for looking through it. I am truly thankful that you did that! I understand everything you have said and agree with it. So, you do now agree that it was not really a violation? In that case, I am willing to do what was proposed by Ed for the Pakistan article as a good faith gesture as you again had to deal with "the same names" (although I don't remember when I last went here bothering anyone). I have had no real problem with any editor on wikipedia but blocked sock puppet master User:Lagoo sab and TopGun in combination with Magog (as can be seen above). In this case I discussed everything and then introduced a new sentence as discussed on the talk. I am sorry that TopGun brought this here again, and that Magog (with whom I had such disagreement that I had to go seek arbitration) feels the need to use this wrong report again to denounce anything related to me. For the last time, you are so much over the top, I can't even tell you, Magog. One year for 1 revert which isn't even a violation? I am just lucky that there are administrators here like Kuru, Salvio or even Ed which are willing to listen to what people are actually saying. JCAla (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a single revert (strictly adhering to 1RR) and reported a vio... with just that, this has turned into a drama which is now dragging me into WP:BATTLE accusations and bringing up bans, fulfilling the purpose of WP:SOUP like Magog (and others) pointed out. A discussion was going on at the talk page and JCAla's version(s) didn't fully get a consensus, waiting it out and adding it later was a reasonable cause for me to invoke BRD at that point, yet a second revert was made. The only aim I've left here is that such reverts are not made in future. In good will to the notice board, I'll step out of this debate now and let the admins prevent that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear who brought the drama here talking of "baiting" and advising admins here that "normal escalation should be followed now", etc. I am sorry for this issue bothering so many people again, but if someone brings forward such a report about anyone, I guess, the person will have to respond as I did. Again, one thing I'd like to point out:
 * March 14-16, discussion about how to formulate the sentence.
 * Me March 16: "I think we should leave it to the one sentence [last proposed by me] ..."
 * March 16-April 8, no further objection, discussion goes into the archives. I add "the one sentence" on April 8.
 * Not any other objection on the talk since I added it. TG changed one term (not present in any previously inserted sentence) inside the sentence, which I reverted once for above mentioned reasons (1. sources mainly call it conflict, even the wikipedia article is called "Balochistan conflict" and 2. the sentence would have been grammatically wrong, there is no insurgency between people, either there is an insurgency by people or a conflict between people). The revert was reasonably explained and one revert constitutes no violation.
 * Only reaction on talk page was by User:Huon April 8: "JCAla's version is not quite what I'd have written, but it serves well enough."

As I understood you Kuru, you said, you now understand my position and also that your are "comfortable with the arrangement not being 'under a cloud'", which means to me it is not for any kind of violation, which wasn't there, but to "mitigate some of the trust issues" and ease the tension. So, although it was TG to bring this here again without there being any violation, under above mentioned circumstance I am willing to agree to Ed's suggestion as a good faith effort because you had to deal with this complicated topic area and lengthy discussion again - as did I. JCAla (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Closed by agreement, with voluntary restriction. JCAla has accepted my offer "How about you agree, for the next 30 days, to make no change at Pakistan that could be controversial unless you first propose it on the talk page and at least one other person supports it there." JCAla, if you have any more discussion on this, please take it to my talk page. If I have misread the discussion and it turns out you are not accepting this, see the above comment by Magog on other options to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:Nmate (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 15:15, 11 April 2012  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Doncsecz (talk): Please use talk page of the article. (TW)")
 * 2) 23:16, 11 April 2012  (edit summary: "both references and opinions, for neutrality")
 * 3) 09:08, 12 April 2012  (edit summary: "please, add source how many Moravians are speaking different language than Czech and read WP:UNDUE")
 * 4) 09:24, 12 April 2012  (edit summary: "dubious")
 * 5) 09:27, 12 April 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 486975202 by Doncsecz (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is quite familiar with the 3RR rule, and has recently warned his opponent about edit-warring. It may be that the 4th and 5th above linked diffs constitute only one revert, but even if that is the case, Yopie still appears to be in violation of 3RR.--Nmate (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:213.246.90.36 reported by User:Yunshui (Result: )
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: &sub, see also discussion at User talk:Yunshui.

Comments:

Afraid I agree with the ip. The ip has simply restored referenced material which has been deleted by reporting editor and one other for no good reason. No consensus had been achieved prior to established material being removed. I cannot see any evidence of edit warring, by the IP at least...isfutile:P (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:90.229.231.14 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Semi)
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:

Recently released game, user is trying to add a link to the sign-up page with their referral code. Semi-protection has been requested, but this is by far the most determined of the users trying to get their referral code on WP. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 13:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the semi on the article! <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick reported by User:NULL (Result:blocked 2 weeks )
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)


 * Bushranger had been very helpful and had helped me settle this already. Jeffrey (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he told you your restoration of the C1 tag was inappropriate, and issued you an warning for edit-warring on your talk page. It remains relevant evidence that you have a long-term problem of edit-warring across multiple pages. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're submitting a tip of an iceberg again, my friend. You daren't mention how it ended up, e.g. Jeffrey (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It ended up with you being warned and told the removal of the C1 tag was appropriate. Would you like to invite Bushranger to clarify his assessment here? – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the diff link. Is that still a warning? Jeffrey (talk) 00:16, 11 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)
 * I've restored this from the archive. This problem is becoming increasingly worse and needs to be dealt with. The editor has now deliberately disrupted a talk page redirect at Template talk:Taiwan topics despite being aware there is only one template and the redirect is under discussion. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  20:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

 * The problem was that Template talk:Republic of China topics belongs to the old navbox that User:NULL had effectively killed. (He merged the two navboxes despite my protests. The two navboxes had coexisted for four years before he merged them.) Template talk:Taiwan topics is now the only where that I can place my comments on Taiwan topics. I've only reverted twice his deletion of my comments, and the two reverts were 29 hours apart (whereas he had reverted me thrice). I had warned him in the edit summaries not to delete my comments again. Jeffrey (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The templates were merged by consensus, you were the only person who objected. You were told by a few editors that turning a redirect into a talk page while that very redirect is being discussed is inappropriate. That's why your edits have been reverted. One template does not need two talk pages. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The merge tag was never applied. The discussion period was too short to allow for 'consensus' of any kind. Even worse was that you didn't even state clearly how you are going to carry it out, nor did you go back to the talk page to tell others that you had done it. Only three people (including me) had responded to your merge suggestion. That's hardly any consensus at all. Only you and your long–time co-belligerent Chip had talked about my comment at Template talk:Taiwan topics. (And that's a few?) Please stop presenting only a small tip of an iceberg to the admins. Although they probably won't be misled, what you are doing is indeed increasing their workload. Jeffrey (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to argue. I'll simply point out that merging the templates was detailed and advertised. Three editors agreed to a merge, one disagreed. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You'd never applied the merge tag. And you did the merge in less than 48 hours since you proposed it unofficially and presumed that consensus had already been reached. (, .) Jeffrey (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have to apply the merge tag, TFD isn't a requirement for editing templates in much the same way RFC isn't a requirement for editing articles. I posted the proposal and advertised it as a matter of courtesy, and gained consensus on the change before enacting it. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You know very well how controversial the Taiwan/ROC thing has been, and you know a Tfm request would have been a lot more desirable. Even if you skipped all those steps, it's hard for anyone to consider a less-than-48 hours discussion with only three respondents to be a consensus of any kind. And now you resort to accusing me for disruptions to fulfil your agenda, while the actual fact is that you deleted three times my comment that you don't like for a peculiar reason. Jeffrey (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no point responding to you, you haven't listened to a single piece of advice anyone has given you. You've been warned by two admins about disruptive editing. You've been blocked by two other admins for disruptive editing. You've been warned by one admin against making personal attacks. Yet you continue to edit disruptively, you continue to make personal attacks. There is no foreseeable productive outcome in continuing this conversation. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're continuing your habit of misrepresenting facts. I have requested you to stop and you never listen. The fact is that I was blocked once (instead of twice as you claimed) for my edits to Talk:Demographics of Greater China, and that was because you (and Schmucky) deleted my comments for no reason and reverted my edits blindly. The admin who reminded me to avoid personal attacks accepted when I replaced 'lying' with 'misrepresenting the facts', yet you daren't tell the full picture here. Jeffrey (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You were blocked twice. Once on your current account and once on your IP address (block log). I'm not responding to you any further here, you're a severe case WP:IDHT. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That was because HiLo48 put his comments at the wrong location and disrupted the process of discussions. You haven't even responded on why you reverted me three times at Template talk:Taiwan topics. That's on the edge of 3RR. Jeffrey (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. You displayed a very weird view on where I should put my responses to others, which was later clearly refuted. Don't falsely accuse me as part of your defence here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Always someone else's fault, never yours, right? – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's definitely not the case my dear friend. Sometimes it's my mistake, sometimes not. But what you have been trying to suggest was that it had always been my fault. Jeffrey (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a saying in English, 死馬當活馬醫. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Admin observation: With the case at hand it's clear that Jeffrey, STC and NULL have all violated 3RR, Jeffrey on both pages, STC on the article talk and NULL on the template talk. I think the main issue with this dispute is that no one else actually cares: no one else edited those pages doing the edit war. I think in this case IDHT works both ways. Thus instead of Ed's suggestion of a one-sided block against Jeffrey, I don't recommend any block. The 3 of them just have to sort out their little fight themselves. (Given my long-standing involvement with the 3 of them I recuse from closing this thread myself.) Deryck C. 08:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you link to the diffs of Schmucky or myself making more than three reverts in a 24 hour period on any page? I'm looking at the page histories of the pages involved and I'm not seeing it. Jeffrey also hasn't recently violated 3RR either. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Schmucky on Talk:Demographics of Greater China:
 * NULL: my apologies. Your reverts were indeed spread over more than 24h, and the mobile format gave me the wrong impression that on one of the redirects you made more than 3 reverts within 24h. Deryck C. 21:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Deryck Chan, blocked Jeffrey for 2 weeks pretty much as you were posting here, and didn't see your post till afterwards. He's cranking up disruption in other places as well now. Schmucky, if you think he's Instantnood, can you file an SPI Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries Elen, I'm just commenting on the case at hand and Ed disagreed with me anyway. Deryck C. 21:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an SPI case open actually, at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Fasttimes68 reported by User:n!ghtl!ght (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: Article was "restored" but still nonetheless reverted.
 * 2nd revert: Revert
 * 3rd revert: Revert
 * 4th revert: Revert

User was already warned by someone else.

Someone else restored the article so I left it and the talk page alone.

Comments:

I am new here but trying to do my best. N!ghtl!ght (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Hershebar - reporting user is a sockpuppet. Calabe1992 22:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * – Indef, by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:50.4.26.231 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )
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:

Vandalistic edit-warring by the IP. Adding nonsense uncited original research. Reported at AIV but due to backlog no action taken there thus far. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 15:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * . The article is semi-protected right now, so this won't continue. If the IP commits one more vandal edit I'll block. One could argue that the IP's edits are not intelligent but not necessary vandalism. Next time, Dr. K, please leave it be and don't revert a half a dozen times: the wiki won't break in the meantime. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The wiki is resilient and mechanisms are in place to reverse even the worst vandalism. The problem is how long do we want to keep this IP speaking in Wikipedia's voice and saying all kinds of nonsense to the reader and what this does to Wikipedia's reputation. If you don't have a problem with that I can easily adjust to accomodate. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 21:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Elizadewberry reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:44, 14 April 2012  (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Added that he dates Elizabeth Dewberry.")
 * 2) 19:47, 14 April 2012  (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ dates Elizabeth Dewberry")
 * 3) 20:04, 14 April 2012  (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Dates Elizabeth Dewberry")
 * 4) 21:15, 14 April 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 487397477 by Bbb23 (talk)Editor wrongly said it was not source compliant.")
 * 5) 22:12, 14 April 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 487403491 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk); editor made false claim of unreliable source")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * The first edit is the first attempt to add and is not a revert; the remaining four are all reverts.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Attempt to resolve problem on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:216.165.95.72 reported by User:Ducknish (Result: )
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: N/A, attempts to reason through the edit summaries have been made though

Comments:

Constant attempt to change the content of the article in a way that I'm pretty sure is mathematically incorrect and intended as vandalism.


 * Anon editor continued to edit war from . Both IPs were given 3RR warnings, and both IPs continued to edit war afterwards.  Page protection has also been requested at WP:RPP. Singularity42 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:108.14.222.208 reported by User:Gobonobo (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user seems to be continuing where User:74.108.154.229 left off. I've tried to remove some of the unsourced content and the unreliable sourcing (which seem to be violations of BLP). Despite encouraging use of the talk page in edit summaries and posting my reasoning there, all I'm seeing are reversions and WP:IDHT (though, to be fair, it could also be an unfamiliarity with policy). I'm going to step away from the article now regardless. Gobōnobo + c 02:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Oldmonk7 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: 24-hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Comments: Oldmonk7 has been reverted by three different editors now, and has been told by two (one is me, the other is an admin) that he must get consensus for the (sourced) material he objects to on the article's talk page but his response has been to continue to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with BMK's report--thank you for filing it. Edit war cases aren't always simple, but this one is. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.207.51 reported by User:BusterD (Result: Both warring editors blocked 24 hours)
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:

Comments:

I'm an uninvolved editor who happened upon this activity. This recent warring comes in the context of a content dispute between the ip listed and User:Samuraiantiqueworld about a single word in the lede to Katana. The registered user has cited his or her assertion and made several attempts to draw a talk discussion in edit summaries, but the ip user continues to revert, reverting the escalating warning notices on the ip's talk. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both blocked. I was tempted to block just the IP, but given the talk page behavior and the edit summaries, both are equally at fault.  Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Bluesatellite reported by User:Particled (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [487260649]


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

Comments: A typical case of Madonna fans going mad. User: Bluesatellite is reverting other editors left, right and center in order to remove any details that put Madonna in a lesser light. Seven reverts of various details have been made by him today alone, even adequately sourced information is being reverted. Attempts by users to explain edits in the edit summaries have been ignored - Bluesatellite just wants to own the article and have everything his way with a favourable bias towards the article subject. Sometimes he does not even bother putting an edit summary in of his own to explain his reverts. A look into this user's edit history shows this is a regular pattern of behaviour. Further investigation shows that there is a possible tag-team issue between Bluesatellite and User:Tbhotch and that Bluesatellite is possibly a sock of a problematic user known as User:Legolas2186 who has a vast history of similar behaviour on Madonna related articles (there have also been tag-teaming issues between Tbhotch and Legolas2186 on Madonna related articles in the past). It may be that the three accounts are actually all the same person, however, the Bluesatellite account has been active since 2009 and the user is certainly aware of breaking 3RR policy and should be blocked for the breaches listed above. Particled (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This was not a case of someone removing fancruft. This was a deliberate attempt at article ownership and blatant edit warring to put Madonna in the best possible light and should not go unchecked. The details about a Lady Gaga album's album sales were relevant because it puts it into context. Madonna's album has famously registered the biggest second week drop in sales for a number 1 album, a "record" previously held by Lady Gaga last year - the difference is that Lady Gaga's album sold a huge amount of copies in its first week and was more inclined to show a large drop, where as Madonna's didn't sell nearly as much. The sales figures were sourced and relevant. If Lady Gaga's album was mentioned in the first place regarding this matter, then it is only right that we put in the full detail that explain the circumstances. Other relevant details were also removed including the fact that Madonna's record-breaking 12 number one albums in the UK include an album that is not strictly a Madonna album (the "Evita" cast recording). So in actual fact, it's not really a record-breaker, its a tie with Elvis Presley. Again, its relevant and it was sourced, but it was removed - to put her in the best possible light. The fact that Madonna's album had a steep second week drop in the UK as well - a relevant detail, adequately sourced, but removed - because it doesn't put her in a favourable light. A detail about Madonna's album not selling as many in its first week as her last album was also relevant (because it highlights diminishing sales, particularly after having a flop single) and it was also sourced, but still removed - because it doesn't say something flattering about her. WP:IAR doesn't apply here at all, this is straight forward edit-warring and article ownership, which is a common problem on Madonna related articles. By not dealing with the culprits, all you are doing is encouraging them to do it even more because they know they will get away with it. Particled (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL at this whole thing. An IP user was trying to add info such as "though Born This Way debuted with 1.1 million copies sold" and a genre without a reliable source. It's obvious a Gaga fan is trying to ruin a Madonna article. I know all three users mentioned here, and they are not alike AT ALL. Legolas has actually quit Wikipedia, and he's had conflicts with Bluesatellite in the past. I find it quite funny how the user reporting this has less than 10 edits; I'd even go on to say (s)he was one of the IPs disrupting the article. Then deciding to login to report. — Statυs  ( talk ) 19:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Status's evaluation - Bluesatellite was removing unsourced opposing fancruft and unsourced genre additions, and while it might have been technically WP:3RR, I think the bigger picture would allow for the invocation of WP:IAR in this case. I have semi-protected the article so that it cannot be edited by unconfirmed users, so if any IPs want to make any changes, they will have to request them on the Talk page and get a consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Gaga's first week album sales are irrelevant to the article. It is about a second week drop. The Evita soundtrack is credited solely to Madonna; many other reports have said she has beat Elvis' record (which should be added to further verify). There is absoultely no such article ownership here; if you actually read the page (WP:OWN) it says article ownership as being: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily." Reverting vandalism and unsourced content does not fall under that category. — Statυs  ( talk ) 01:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If a point is being made in an article about second week sales drops as a percentage, then including the first week's sales figure is obviously relevant because it brings context to the issue. It's encyclopedic (and many people seem to forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fansite). Rabid Madonna fans only removed it because it makes the sales of her album look inferior to Lady Gaga's. However, this is beside the point - a content dispute is not vandalism nor was it unsourced. Much like the Evita soundtrack NOT being a Madonna album, it is a cast recording. Even one of the original sources (Music Week) given in the article says it and makes it clear and questions the legitimacy of Madonna having the most number one albums by a solo artist. This is an appalling case of selectively picking only the information that puts Madonna in the best possible light. It is not encyclopedic. The BPI don't list Evita as a Madonna album either (they call it a cast soundtrack), and they are THE authority in the UK. And the edits I listed above were not reverting vandalism or unsourced content, I've already said they were sourced. One of them (here) was even reverted insidiously by User:Bluesatellite, who reverted the genre for the album as a violation of WP:OR but also reverted all the sourced information I mentioned above in the same edit. Look at the edits properly to see the extent of what was removed. All of the above details may be a content dispute but they are certainly not vandalism nor were they unsourced. User:Bluesatellite still made seven unjustified reverts in the space of just a few hours, which breaks the 3RR rule. There is a core element of Madonna fans who are controlling this article and nobody else is permitted to add any details without their edits being reverted by one of them. There is not a shred of neutrality in the article, it is just a gushing tribute to Madonna and is one of the worst cases of WP:OWN and the worst violations of WP:NPOV I have seen in recent months. If Wikipedia's administrators are just going to leave this unchecked then Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia and may as well just be known as a third rate fansite for rabid fans to amuse themselves on. Particled (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a content dispute, you need to discuss it on the Talk page and seek consensus - and the onus is on the editors wishing to *add* material to justify it and they should not re-add once it has been reverted until there is a consensus. If a discussion on the Talk page does not reach a satisfactory conclusion then the steps outlined at WP:DR should be followed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So does this mean I can delete virtually the entire article and then discuss what should be re-added on the talk page? No, I didn't think so. You shouldn't have to gain a consensus for every little detail that goes into an article as long as its relevant and sourced. And all of the details that were reverted by this user were. Wikipedia is a joke. Particled (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Deeplyconcerninggenthner reported by User:tao2911 (Result: Indef)
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:

after considerable work by editors with different POV, consensus was reached to include well-sourced if contentious information re: some sexual controversy in this BLP. He is a spiritual teacher. One of his admitted students engaged in a edit war, at first to remove the info, then to weasel-word it into an unrecognizable form from sources. Since then, a number of users have been created only to edit this page, making the exact same edits - suspect socks. Just reverting page over and over. Nice to have user checked without having to go through another board (these things take me a long time!)Tao2911 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked, but not by me. 5 albert square issued an indefinite block due to possible impersonation.  Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Distributor108 reported by User:Monty845 (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion at Talk:Sri Lanka

Comments:


 * See also SPI case at Sockpuppet investigations/Astronomyinertia as evidence of additional tenaciousness. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Distributor108 has now been indef blocked rendering this report moot. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  04:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

- Indef by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:94.13.4.50 reported by User:Redrose64 (Result: 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous version before all this kicked off:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Is a series of user warning templates which didn't mention WP:3RR acceptable?

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've never filed a AN3 before, so this might not be entirely per guidelines. Apologies if it's an improper request. User persists in adding unsourced information - I served a and was then about to rollback but it occurred to me whether I might be in violation of WP:3RR - checking the page history I find that this user has now violated that rule. I'm losing my patience with this user, who is unwilling to discuss. This user has also edited as and has never provided anything in the way of a source that satisfies WP:V - his edit summaries clearly demonstrate that a large measure of WP:OR is being added, as well as a tendency to sail close to the wind regarding WP:NPA. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: 3 days. Long-term edit warring, unsourced changes, removal of existing sources, use of multiple IPs in a dispute at LMS Hughes Crab. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:212.121.210.45 reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Semi)
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: [diff]

Comments:Editor has following socks that edits similar articles. User:212.121.214.102 and User:86.12.129.12

Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:LondonBridge444 reported by User:Shakehandsman (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

There are some previous related discussions on most of the issues in the talk page, though nothing at the time of the warring. User has never participated in any discussion on the talk page anyway, despite it being the only article they've edited over the last year.

Comments: Just to note, I've not been involved in the edit war or carried out any reverts, I'm simply providing a report. Disputes appear to go back some considerable time so I also suggest semi=protection for the article. Also worth noting that the offender appears to mostly be a SPA and that their edit summaries contain unhelpful terms such as describing edits as "partisan" and "malicious".

--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * - 48 hours for edit warring. Ironman1104 is risking a sanction also. I advise him to bring an issue to a noticeboard before going past 3RR himself. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Friginator reported by User:Wisdomtenacityfocus (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) First revert:
 * 2) Second revert:
 * 3) Third revert:


 * Diff of warning: here

User repeatedly removes sources stating that Greasy Love Songs is a reissue of Cruising with Ruben & the Jets.

Additionally, Friginator is abusive towards other editors, as seen in these examples:


 * "kindly shut your hole"
 * "reconsider shutting your hole"

—WTF (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would have liked to have been notified that you were opening another case against me (since the last one decided that I wasn't doing anything wrong). Apparently notifying the user isn't required here, but it would have been nice to know about this without stumbling upon it. For the record, here is the last time you reported me, which was less than two weeks ago.


 * I never removed any sources (the ones claiming that the subject is a "reissue") because they don't exist. You're just citing the one source already listed on that page, and claiming that it says something it doesn't. I'm not the only one who keeps reverting your edits, so this isn't just one person's opinion vs. another person's opinion. I was simply going by the consensus that had been established on the talk page. It seems like your accusation here is more like a list of all the things you disapprove of me doing. I'm sorry if you take the phrase "shut your hole" personally, and think it's "abusive" in its context, but when you start yelling at me on my talk page, making bogus accusations of vandalism and so forth, that's the kind of response you can expect from me. Nothing personal. In fact, I'll tell you what--every single person who comes to my talk page to yell and accuse me of things I didn't do will be told the same thing. How about that? Now, just to let various people who might be seeing this know the full story behind this oh-so-fascinating "shut your hole" controversy, here's the entire discussion from my talk page. Friginator (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, although perhaps a bit harshly formulated, I don't think the hole-business is relevant on this particular notice board, but in my opininion WTF is definitely acting —again— against de-facto talk-page consensus (see DRN closing note and ANI formal warning), and in this particular case obviously against wp:NOR. See the current RFC on Talk:Greasy Love Songs. In this context, without being aware of this case, I have also reverted to a properly sourced version. - DVdm (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: 48 hours to Wisdomtenacityfocus for disruptive editing. 24 hours to Friginator for personal attacks. While WTF is not the only one edit warring here, he does appear to be the most relentless over a long period of time. On April 2 he removed a 3RR report that was filed against him here at this board.  Another user started an RfC on 8 April as to whether Greasy Love Songs was a reissue. While the RfC was still running, between April 8 and April 17, WTF reverted five times to force his view that it's a reissue. This was in addition to his three reverts prior to the RfC. This does not suggest much enthusiasm for the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Friginator and WTF are two of a group of editors who have been using up a lot of space at admin boards on Zappa-related issues. This had better not continue for the long run, or more action may be necessary.  EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Truthcon reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Indef)
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: ANI discussion

Comments:

Truthcon is a WP:SPA with a history of contentious editing on the Lozoff article. He is the subject of an ANI discussion and has been the subject in the past. He has been warned by multiple editors to stop but doesn't seem to be able to get it. His last revert was after I warned him and User:Dennis Brown added a "final warning". He has barely participated in the ANI discussion (only at the beginning), and his comments on his Talk page and the Lozoff Talk page evince very little understanding of what he's doing or what Wikipedia is about (including calling other editors' edits vandalism). The only reason this report is slightly stale is because after I posted a 3RR warning and commented at ANI, I haven't been here (until now) to file this report. Admittedly, there is an over 2-hour gap between his last revert and his last contribution of yesterday, a long comment on his Talk page indicating he may have decided to give up and also indicating a relationship with the subject of the article. However, because he hasn't admitted he has done anything wrong (he blames everyone else) and because I don't like making threats and then not carrying them out, I have filed this report. Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC) -->
 * Truthcon returned a short time ago and made a fifth revert (added above).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: Indef, after reading the ANI discussion in addition to the report here. This is a case of long-term edit warring -- the troublesome edits have been going on for more than a year. This article is User:Truthcon's only interest on Wikipedia, and there is no reason for optimism about his future behavior. A shorter block is unlikely to change his mind. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was coming here to fill out a report and see that you already have. This has gone on long enough.  Editor is SPA, disruptive, and obviously, edit warring.  Last time he was blocked for a week.  It appears that wasn't long enough to get the point across.    Dennis Brown    (talk)   (contrib)  19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC) [Non-admin]

User:Garnerted reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Garnerted indeffed, MikeWazowski blocked 48 hours, rollbacker removed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (as 24.183.231.126)
 * 2nd revert: (as 24.183.231.126)
 * 3rd revert: (as 24.183.231.126)
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, Warning #2: ]

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

Comments:

Garnerted is a single purpose account editing with an admitted conflict of interest with the Gardner Ted Armstrong organization - see and. The editor has been abusive towards other editors, and is also edit-warring on The World Tomorrow (1934). MikeWazowski (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor in question also admitted being a producer of the show here. I left a msg on the editor's talk page addressing both the conflict of interest, as well as calling another editor's good faith edits "vandalism" and referring to User:Jeff G.  as an "assclown"  before I found this action, although not enough time has passed to expect a reply.   Dennis Brown    (talk)   (contrib)  17:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Both editors have been blocked and Mike's rollback privileges have been removed. After looking, Mike appears to have been enforcing the current consensus and was inline with several other editors. Perhaps leniency would be appropriate here on him to unblock and restore rollback. If the blocking admin does not like this idea, I would recommend a block review to get community opinion. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  18:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While his goals may be good, there isn't a double-standard to invoke on his behalf.
 * Mike is a repeat offender here - this is his third block for edit warring. Have the block reviewed if you want, but repeat-offender edit warriors don't need rollback IMHO.  Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition "enforcing the current consensus" is not a standard exemption from WP:EW. Being right doesn't mean that one gets to edit war with impugnity.  -- Jayron  32  04:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:67.247.19.21 reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Semi)
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:

Best Wishes <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  23:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. IP editors are invited to provide sources and reason from actual Wikipedia policy, not religious doctrine. If so they may be more successful in persuading others on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Needsmoreritalin reported by User:Namiba (Result: 48h)
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:

Comments:The user has perpetually readded a YouTube video he claims to have created which demonizes the subject of the biography and makes a number of accusations based on a quote he claims to have recorded. It fails WP:BLP and WP:COI and I have reverted it each time it has been added. However, I do not believe that I have violated WP:3RR because of the exception for BLP violations.


 * Result: 48 hours. This is a violation of 3RR, and in addition the editor is warring to insert a Youtube video which appears to be self-published. Extra credit for using it to criticize the subject of a BLP. The editor has made useful contributions elsewhere, so let's hope this is a one-time lapse of judgment. EdJohnston (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Csvgb reported by User:75.197.42.173 (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This particular user is trying to use Wikipedia to promote personal interests and commercial pursuits by removing outside to links and references to public organizations, and replacing them with links/ads to a commercial organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.42.173 (talk • contribs)


 * I made the account aware of the 3RR policy. I see no attempts to communicate, except through edit summaries.  A discussion about the link on the article's talk page would be an important next step (not on some other site's forum as linked above).  Frankly, there seem to be several questionable links on that page, but I'll leave it to you to work it out.  Kuru   (talk)  23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:‎31.205.9.255 reported by User:Antique Rose (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Relentless edit war, unsourced information. User has been duely warned, twice. Antique Rose &mdash; Drop me a line  23:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Clear problem; warned. No other blocks as BLP is claimed. Kuru   (talk)  23:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that a similar IP User:31.205.10.9 has just shown up to make the same edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Si. Blocked that IP and semi-protected the article. May protect some of the others if he pops up again.  Kuru   (talk)  00:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Rayburne1997 reported by User:Aditya Kabir (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st set: 10 edits (reverted by User:Shearonink)
 * 2nd set: 6 edits (reverted by User:Aditya Kabir)
 * 3rd set: 6 edits (reverted by User:Aditya Kabir)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Rayburne1997 (the whole talk page is essentially a collection of various warnings, including warnings about the Mansfield article (this by User:Shearonink; this, this and this by User:Aditya Kabir; this and this by User:Spinningspark. This user never replies, never discusses and never responds. Never a single edit to any talk page (check the contribs), though he/she has been warned about a number of edits. And, never an edit summary, which is strange for someone who has the level of intelligence and expertise to change wikicodes and mangle refs (not necessarily on the same article).

Comments:

User:Spinningspark commented - "There is definitely something fishy about this user." (see here). I can totally agree. It's the strangest piece of WP:DISRUPT I have met so far. But, no matter how curious, this can't go on indefinitely. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

To explain what I meant by "fishy": this user shows every sign of being an experienced user, but openend an account only on 2nd April. Day one saw a long list of edits to multiple articles with some bold deletions of material, examples:. The third example also shows a working knowledge of templates and MOS:CAP. All this apparently without any learning process or discussion. These are not the actions of a newbie. I am not necessarily claiming that the edits are wrong, but the lack of communication and the edit warring are extremely problematic.  Spinning Spark  16:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yuck. Not sure on the action to take here; that's pretty mild for "edit warring", and I'm not sure I'd go as far to call it vandalism. Annoying, maybe. Concur that this is likely an account that is picking up from another account, but a quick look at some of the articles did not reveal an obvious candidate.  Maybe s/he will communicate at some point? Seems to have completely ignored Mr. Spark's note and just moved to other pages.  I'll drop a note there, too.  Kuru   (talk)  00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say the way forward on this one is to give the user the templated warning (which I have already done). If there is a subsequent complaint of edit warring on any page, from any user, then indef block until they start to communicate.  Spinning  Spark  01:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Spark, that makes it even more curious. He/she has registered only a few days back, started making bold edits, shows clear knowledge of templates, MOS, wikicodes and other stuff, but no clue of content guidelines, never discusses, never makes and edit summary, keeps warring for silliest edits (like making sortable tables unsortable), shows interest in a particular area (not randomized edits at all)... fishy? You bet.
 * Kuru, I really have no clue what to do. This editor doesn't transgress 3RR, doesn't stalk or harass, but keeps stubbornly repeating annoying little disruptions, and almost nothing else. We met a similar strangeness in Ilovechocolate (see talk page and AN/I thread), who kept claiming and pretending learning disabilities and eventually vanished. I don't think this person is going to respond to your post to his/her talk page. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, the user has now been warned. If there are any further incidences of repeated insertion of the same material, in any article, then report back - you can contact me directly on my talk page if you like.  Don't worry about whether or not it is 3RR, I am quite prepared to block on a single instance if it is not accompanied by discussion.  Spinning  Spark  10:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I promise to do that. Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:GarnetAndBlack reported by User:ThomasC.Wolfe (Result:No block )
Pages: ; also, related to

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to: ,


 * 1st revert: as GarnetAndBlack
 * 2nd revert: as GarnetAndBlack
 * 3rd revert: as GarnetAndBlack
 * 4th revert: September, 2010
 * 5th revert: September, 2010
 * 6th revert: September, 2010
 * 7th revert: as 129.252.69.40
 * 8th revert: as 129.252.69.40
 * 9th revert: as 129.252.69.41
 * 10th revert: August, 2008
 * 11th revert: August, 2008

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

, , Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments: Repeat offender: with pattered behavior brought up on charges for edit-warring and sock-puppetry  by editors / administrators in the past, all related to Clemson University articles. . In addition to content removal, school logo & tag removals, "bate & switch" complaint filings, all through various socks cited above, User:GarnetAndBlack seems obsessed with re-posting redundant and biased content in negative reference to accolades won by a University. A consensus had been reached back in early 2008 that a reference to recruiting violations would be "merged," but "mentioned" and "cited" in the Clemson Tigers Football article as in similar articles, but the consensus was obviously not to re-vert the same information in bulk, using multiple citations of the same source, with various socks over the course of 4 years. Please review and compare the user/sock edit histories.

Sorry for not WP:KIS, but I needed to reveal patterns on multiple pages.

(Had difficulty logging into my account / Schedule, family illness may keep me from responding promptly) Apologies. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this report supposed to be a joke? Diffs from 2-4 years ago? This is clearly a retaliatory action by the IP user reported above by myself who it is now clear is User:ThomasC.Wolfe using an IP sock  to edit war (family illness or some other excuse is always claimed as the reason for this) and remove notable content that is sourced and verifiable from Clemson Tigers football. This type of misuse of Wikipedia's reporting boards is disruptive behavior of the worst sort. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't been using this account to make edits because I have been too busy with r/t things (which is beside the point). It seems upon further review that the only user using multiple accounts in tandum to push the "same content" has been GarnetAndBlack.  I just found where one of his sock IP's was blocked again recently for edit warring on these same pages:  by  slakr  \ talk / on February 17, 2012. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Too busy" to type a couple of words into two boxes and click a button? I'm sorry but this is getting absurd to the point of being almost comical. Is anyone else buying this nonsense? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment A diff is presented here which shows me reverting an IP on the assumption it was a sock. I am no longer of the opinion that it is a sock. I am still looking over the article history. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User:GarnetAndBlack continues to edit war & revert over same content (with phony edit summaries), the last one of Darkness Shines: . Also . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasC.Wolfe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Reported added difs from 2010 and 2008 of random IP's, with no warnings? Obviously a block is unnecessary in this case. Secret account 20:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Did I miss cite something? Some of the warnings by other editors were removed by the user. I could re-edit or refile.  The diffs were documented to show that GarnetAndBlack has been edit warring for several years over content that he posted and protected through sockpuppetry. User has continue to edit war & revert over same content concealing it with phony edit summaries, the last one of Darkness Shines: . Also on these pages:, . Request user be blocked indefinitely from Clemson University articles, namely Clemson Tigers football. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:70.26.178.93 reported by User:Hertz1888 (Result: 31 hours)
Page: Brooklyn Bridge

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Frank edit warring behavior, repeatedly inserting same material (without comment) despite its removal by a series of other editors. Continuing after 3rr/ew warning. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 5th revert added. Please put this nuisance out of business for a meaningfully long time. No other message is getting through. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 6th revert added. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Drmies (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:24.85.145.1 reported by User:WhiteWriter (Result: page protected)
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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

IP is evidently sock of some other user, so block is highly in place. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave the 3RR warning (after the 5th revert though). The other IP was (I didn't hand out a warning to that one, because it has been causing other edit-wars). Would be prudent if it doesn't revert after the warning, but if does please block immediately.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Article is now protected so a block is meaningless. If there is socking going on, please start an WP:SPI, that's much more helpful than this process. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:70.26.178.93 reported by User:Doniago (Result: 31 hours)
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: [diff]

Comments: User violating 3RR, adding OR without explanation, multiple editors have reverted.

Doniago (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * . Re-report to AIV if it persists: this is so disruptive that it qualifies as vandalism, IMO. You'll get a quicker result. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Footwiks reported by User:Curb Chain (Result: )
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:

Extended complex edit warring by User:Footwiks. Mislabels edits as vandalism. Reverts against consensus and against editors who have provided AND linked policies and guidelines as to their justification for their changes. Tendentious editing by User:Footwiks going back to .Curb Chain (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:98.94.204.96 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Reported user deleted this warning before carrying out 4th revert.) (Warning issued by another user for IP sockpuppetry)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Reported user initiated discussion on their own Talk page after deleting 3RR warning, then performed 4th revert before continuing discussion.)

Comments: Anonymous IP user kicks off Wikipedia editing career by deleting sourced and verifiable material that was merged into this article by consensus back in 2008. I reverted this deletion of content. IP user reverted, and an Undo was performed along with a vandalism warning being posted on IP user's Talk page. IP user reverted again, an Undo was performed and a second vandalism warning was posted on user's Talk page along with a 3RR warning. IP user deleted 3RR warning, and then performed yet another revert. This is a pretty clear cut case of 3RR violation by a user who clearly shows no interest in following relevant Wikipedia policy or seeking consensus for significant edits. I'd ask that the article be semi-protected in case this user should decide to use additional IPs to continue this disruptive behavior. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm. Seems like 2 of those reverts are corrections of the same information. Edit-warring with every other editor & requesting page protection over content you snuck on here against policy doesn't make the content "notable" nor "verifiable."  The necessary citations are all there.  The section was inadvertently refocused back to it's original subject.  Even User:Darkness Shines who you attempted to cite above, seems to agree. . ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This reply confirms that User:ThomasC.Wolfe is using IP socks to edit war/avoid 3RR. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't confirm anything. GarnetAndBlack mentioned it in the more lengthy edit warring section below that I had already started working on.  And, realistically, I have to work and get some rest at some point. I also noticed that GarnetAndBlack is back to random reverts on the same content (with misleading edit summaries): . Check his contributions. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * this is three days old, and a block would be purely punitive at this point. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Nmate reported by User:Samofi (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Comments:

User:Nmate doesnt assume a good faith and he is often involved in edit warring and national disputes. He is also placed under editing restriction at WP:DIGWUREN. Its question if his behavior is an apport for Wikipedia. --Samofi (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nmate is also deleting User:Koertefa 's talk page comments without his permission, thus breaking WP:TPO:

Nmate does not adhere to WP:SPIRIT ("Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing.") and most of his activity is represented by reverts and reports.

He is also gaming the system by deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia. He speculates the fact that anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban.

He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users, like uncontroversial page moves. Both of these moves were later re-instated by administrators:

Relevant for Nmate's battleground mentality is his request for deletion of a cooperation board: Bzg1920 (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users" means that he is a self-confessed sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi, therefore; my reverts do not fall under the 3RR rule.--Nmate (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you only broke the the "rule of common sense". Deleting parts of a civilized talk page discussion is far from being constructive. Koertefa knew very well who I am:, but unlike you he is preocupated in improving articles, not in annihilating other users. To quote from him: "My experience with (the sockpuppets of) Iaaasi so far is that he is a reasonable editor with whom you can argue with based on sources" Bzg1920 (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The rule is that ALL edits made by socks of a banned user may be reverted on sight, and 3RR/1RR will not apply in those cases. That's why we enact bans - heck, we can delete their article on site, even if they're useful.  Common sense is that a banned user is supposed to be smart enough to know that banned means banned; period ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, edits of banned users may be reverted even if they are helpful (it is not against the formal rules). But unfortunately this is not in the interest of the readers, who need articles of a quality as high as possible. So according to you it is against commons sense that I improved some articles? Bzg1920 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I am not placed under 1RR. I was under editing-restriction in 2008, which means that any administrator may imposed upon me what they see fit under Digwurren, but there is no such recent case, however.--Nmate (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)::::::I think Nmate should wait for official results of investigation. 2 sockpuppets of Iaaasi were marked as my socks (I had lessons in that time at university, so it was a surprise: ). Its not normal reactions from him, it looks like an obsession. He found a lot of sock puppets, I agree, but he also scandalized an innocent people with his fast reactions. I am asking, is this normal, civilized behavior? --Samofi (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will report you to the Arbitration Comitee if I have time, Samofi.--Nmate (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you threaten me? Look, your reactions are not normal according to WP:EQ. You broken a lot of rules of principles of Wikipedia etiquette. I dont see that he would be confirmed sock of Iaaasi . You continue with your batlleground mentality . You could just a wait for confirmation that he is a sock puppet. --Samofi (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet. Read what is written above.--Nmate (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the rule what says that? Hypothetically he can be a new user who makes a provocations.. In my opinion, you should wait for official confirmation. --Samofi (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here? User Nmate is deleting other people comments? Again a new problem with this user? I don`t know who Bzg1920 is, he can be a sock-puppet as any other user could be until a check user is beign done( this is not an accusation ) but I am 1000% sure that Koertefa isn`t any sock. Why are his comments being removed????Adrian (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted verified user comments:, , , , ,. I don`t know who Bzg1920 is but Koertefa is a verified user and in this examples it is clear that Nmate violated the 3RR several times and of course the battleground mentality of edit warring. Also Nmate`s WP:DIGWUREN restriction. Also this user had 2 arbitration enforcement in 2011.Adrian (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Iadrian yu is block-shopping again based on frivilous reasons of which I will notify the Arbitration Comitee. Restoring a comment made by a site-banned user is not allowed. Second, I haven't encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipaedia for a while and still he is block shopping. It is disgusting. On the other hand, I am not placed under editing restriction in that saense that I am not allowed to make reverts, as I mentioned above.--Nmate (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you believe that User:Bzg1920 is a sock of any kind please file a report about that and if proven THEN delete his comments only, while leaving the verified user`s(Koertefa) comments. Adrian (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet, read what is written above.--Nmate (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ? He confirmed? (That doesn`t imply to delete Koertefa`s comments also). Where? Adrian (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Has this anything to do with you? Note that Iadrian yu does not interest to edit the article; his only aim is block shopping. Second, I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet: which part of it do you not understand?--Nmate (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, another sign of a constructive, friendly editing I guess. I don`t understand anything, especially the part where User:Bzg1920 admitted that is a sock of any banned user and when User:Koertefa gave you permission to delete his comments, 7 times in a row after several arbitration enforcements on your account.Adrian (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users, like uncontroversial page moves"  Go elsewhere, Iadrian yu. What you do is quite disgusting--Nmate (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He admitted that supports banned user`s contributions, a constructive approach would be to explaining User:Bzg1920 that this actions are against wikipedia policies and not creating a new battle. I guess we know who is block-shopping here. Even if this user is really a sock of any kind, that still doesn`t explain why did you removed Koertefa`s comments 7 times in a row or any other comments on the talk page?Adrian (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In your dream, Iadrian yu, go elsewhere.--Nmate (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I try to keep it short: (i) Bzg1920 is of course an admitted sock of Iaaasi (his ban is another topic, I do not want to discuss it here, but I think that Iaaasi is a reasonable editor who made some mistakes); (ii) Nmate acted in good faith with his reverts, he thought that it was the right thing to do. I do not blame him and retroactively I give my permission to him for removing those messages of mine. Cheers,  K &oelig;rte F  a  { ταλκ }  14:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: No action against Nmate; checkuser confirms that these were valid removals of a banned user's edits. Reporter blocked for long-standing pattern of breaches of a topic ban. All editors involved are admonished to avoid battleground attitude and avoid acting in an enabling role for long-term sockpuppeters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ndg.2010 reported by User:SudoGhost (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: User talk:SudoGhost

Comments:

Single-purpose account is edit warring to insert their link, which fails WP:ELNO. - SudoGhost 04:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Four reverts in 24hrs, was warned. Kuru   (talk)  21:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:71.239.128.44 reported by User:Betty Logan (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Many reverts over time, no attempts to talk, was warned. Kuru   (talk)  21:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Omer123hussain reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: no action)
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:

He has now self reverted so this may be closed. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Kuru   (talk)  23:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

70.230.203.144] reported by User:Tenebrae
Persistent vandal-only account is obsessively vandalizing Kat Von D despite editors, Cluebot and two warnings. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:El duderino (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:  12:33, 20 April 2012
 * 2nd revert:  13:50, 20 April 2012‎
 * 3rd revert:  18:23, 20 April 2012
 * 4th revert:  19:58, 20 April 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st request/warning then Template

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: + follow-up comments at Talk:No_Country_for_Old_Men_(film)

Comments:

I attempted to engage User:Ring Cinema at the talk page a few days ago to no avail. Today he proceeded to edit war with a 3rd editor. I politely asked him to stop. He replied on my talkpage that he wasn't edit warring despite already reaching 3 reverts within 6 hours at that point. His 4th revert just happened in the past 15min or so. While attempting a compromise wording, I have asked him to self-revert. El duderino (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved and objective observer checking in. I have to agree that there is no editwarring taking place, just the usual back-and-forth of the editing process. Although not involved in the particular issues, I do note that User:Ring Cinema is a long-standing, experienced member of the project and you simply do not template the regulars as in WP:DTTR, especially when there is an established record of the user making substantial contributions to the article and to many others in the WP:Film group. IMHO, there is no need for this action, and as a converse, I would recommend the editor who initiated this action, should withdraw it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC).
 * There may have been a technical violation by Ring here, but he was editing towards a consensus obtained at the Film Project. The crux of that debate is that review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus i.e. they quantify the number of positive reviews by counting them and assigning a score. In view of that, descriptors (such as "critical acclaim") that qualify rather than quantify critical reception could be construed as non-neutral and original research, so we have started to use language that basically just count the number of positive/negative reviews. Ring perhaps should have reported this at the Film project rather than reverting, but given the fact he violated by removing "against consensus" terminology it would be harsh to block him for it, since he wasn't taking undertaking solely unilateral action. My suggestion is that the disputed text is simply removed for the time-being and get some third party input. Betty Logan (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a 3RR violation, but it appears the primary involved editors have worked out a consensus and no reverts have occurred for a day. A block here would be punitive.  Kuru   (talk)  21:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I think this will be taken by User:Ring Cinema as vindication of his tendentious editing. Where was he working towards a consensus? I understand your points there, Betty, but he never once invoked the Film Project and kept insisting on a grammatically awkward construction despite every other editor there disagreeing -- and I believe that there is no exception in the three-revert rule for "editing towards consensus" anyway. He merely stopped reverting when faced with this 3RR report. In fact, when I attempted a 2nd compromise, he accused me of "changing the subject" (which I assume he meant switching positions, a maneuver he actually took without fully realizing it, perhaps). He has been blocked before so he is well aware of the bright line 3RR. I maintain that despite the above AGF he was in fact edit warring and he has shown no sign of letting up. He continued to argue semantics at the talk page until I gave up. Another editor noticed a similar pattern at The Godfather (film) article -- and notified me at my talkpage  -- so I have serious doubt about his contributions to the film project, especially in terms of working with others. I was afraid that this would go Stale because, I presume, it happened on a Friday night and got overlooked or ignored for just long enough. I believe he will continue to treat other editors in a passive-aggressively hostile manner. El duderino (abides) 23:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Flogging a dead horse. Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC).
 * ^Can't see the forest for the trees. Seems like this mare (user:RC's TE) still has legs . El duderino (abides) 23:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Anupam reported by User:Aprock (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert, 15:37, 21 April 2012:
 * 2nt revert, 15:51, 21 April 2012:
 * 3rd revert, 05:12, 22 April 2012:
 * 4th revert, 05:17, 22 April 2012:
 * 5th revert, 16:25, 22 April 2012:

Diff of warning:

11:42, 22 April 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:59, 22 April 2012

Previous warnings:   

Comments:

Anupam has reverted Atheism four times in 16 hours, and five times in 25 hours. The final revert occurring after a notice on his talk page, and his participation on the talk page discussing his reverts.

Comment - User:Anupam is a decent contributor for almost six years with a block free record. I will investigate the diffs - but is it not possible to allow the user to self revert or to receive a warning note without the desire/need to remove their editing privileges? - You  really  can  19:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I have reverted at the atheism article but these reverts as you will see, are for two different issues. To lump two reverts for one issue and three for another is unfair, especially when the reverting editor acknowledged that there was a misunderstanding due to a confusion of the url in the reference (see here). Before inserting the material in the article, I discussed the issue here on 22 April. Moreover, I discussed the reason for my revert here, which was accepted by the reverting user (the problem, being that the url of the reference was incorrect). For one issue, I reverted twice and that issue was resolved. For another issue, I reverted three times but never crossed 3RR. I also did not receive a warning regarding 3RR for this article, only a notice about the proper use of the rollback feature. If I am found to be incorrect, instead of blocking me, as I have never been blocked before, I will humbly apologize here for my actions before the reviewing administrator and make a commitment to take care in the future. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * - I am still investigating the diffs, but the complainant User:Aprock appears to have been uninvolved in the article prior to this report and he did not give a warning, or a request to revert at all, he simply reported the user without any warning. - as per Anupam's comments about the diffs there seems to me to be nothing worthy of any restrictive administrative action in this report. You  really  can  19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the report is invalid.Justice007 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not hard to believe considering you've reverted the page to Anupam's version (four minutes after you posted here) without going to the talk page. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Make that twice. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is an ongoing edit war with multiple users including new users not mentioned here - I have requested full protection of the article diff - You  really  can  20:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh. Full protection, given the talk page discussions thus far, will likely lead to more filibustering ( and the need for popcorn ). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. You what? - filibustering ? Give over. Its more like a primary playground here - meh! and u - pop corn trash  You  really  can  21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point on the popcorn. I'll bring an assortment of the usual suspects... Raisinets, Milk Duds, Crunchy Frog, Albatross, Wolf's Nipple Chips, etc. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In light of the editor's experience and his warning to another editor at the time of the 4th revert (05:17, 22 April 2012 ), the "did not receive a warning" defense seems a bit of a quibble (possibly even a herring in scarlet). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User:ArtifexMayhem, am I restoring the same content in "my fourth revert" that I am in my first or second revert? I encourage you to please answer the question honestly. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. I haven't looked at this one yet, but the current policy is "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material".  Reviewing this now; may take a bit since there is a partisan cluster to wade through, but it might be helpful for you to review WP:EW and self-evaluate your actions.  Kuru   (talk)  23:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Protected the page for 24 hours to allow the discussion to progress. There seems to be quite a few people reverting.  I've ignored the misuse of the revert permission as the editor has already acknowledged this was a mistake.   Kuru   (talk)  23:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You really  can, it seems you are looking into the history, so let me point out Anupam was reported on wp:Ani page for WP:OWN and edit warring done on  Militant atheism page, when it existed; which I think wasted hundreds of hours of WP community. I agree that Anupam is otherwise decent editor, but his edits in atheism related articles have not been done in NPOV. He strongly pushes in POV citing some WP policy, so it is not possible to assume good faith from his side, when he edits atheism articles. Being a conservapedia editor he edits and tries to wp:own atheism articles the way conservapedia articles are. Abhishikt (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Kuru, thanks for directing me to the appropriate policy page. I was under the impression that 3RR applied to the same content being restored or deleted, not to different segments of the article (which was the case here). I now understand that reverts include removing or deleting content from the article in general and I apologize for reverting and admit that I made an honest mistake. I've taken the time to further discuss the issue on the talk page of the article and hope that others will comment there. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Xmike920 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Previous reverts in a similar vein:, , and. Recent edits have removed references, despite discussion by other editors on the article talkpage explaining why the NCSTAR report is favored in lieu of the 9/11 report, which apparently what Xmike920 is trying to insert. Similar pattern at American Airlines Flight 11, but no 3RR at this point.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

No response by Xmike920 on the talkpage or on his talkpage, despite several attempts. Much the same thing happened this time last year.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverts at 14:28, 21:40, 21:46, and 22:15. One more revert at 23:40 after being cleared warned at 22:33.  Kuru   (talk)  03:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:86.28.143.134 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 16:35, 22 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 17:41, 22 April 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 19:09, 22 April 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 488683260 by CZmarlin (talk)")
 * Diff of warning: April 22, 2012

This action also seems to be a continuation of the identical edits to this article that were previously conducted by : Revision as of 08:21, April 15, 2012.

—CZmarlin (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 4. Revision as of 03:01, April 23, 2012 (edit summary: "")

— CZmarlin (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * - 48 hours. Edit warring and use of multiple IPs in an edit war (cf WP:SOCK). EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ProfJustice reported by User:Somedifferentstuff (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

This is when he first added the material to the article:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This article has a 1RR warning with no time expiration. I gave the user a warning on his talk page to self revert. He didn't heed the warning which can be seen here. This user had a previous issue with the same article less than a week ago as can be seen in this diff. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverts at 23:05 and 22:58 are clearly reverting to edits the same editor made earlier in the day. Warned previously about the 1RR on that article, and about that specific incident.  Editor removed the warnings from his talk page, so presumably he was aware of the problem.  Kuru   (talk)  03:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Aemathisphd reported by User:RolandR (Result: 48h)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Although these reverts have been made by a registered account and IPs, these are clearly the same account; I have submitted an SPI. The article is actually covered by a one-revert rule, although the user dores not appear to have been formally notified of this. RolandR (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. Making the article link to a self-published source whose title resembles his own user name. Article's 1RR status is clearly bannered on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:MastCell, User:Arthur Rubin, and User:Saedon reported by User:Nononsenseplease (Result: 24h to submitter)
Page:

User being reported: ; ;

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: These three (and they may be the same person, or at least in close communication) insist on deleting information I added regarding Gary Null; these were merely facts about some of Null's work not mentioned in the least in the page, and did not include any opinions as to its quality. First, BLP was argued; but what I added was but a mention of his work (no opinions added), ownership of a radio network, and awards (this does not violate BLP, particularly when the article had had nothing but negative criticism of Null and his work). Then, issues with RS were brought up. Granted I could only find a few trade publications with data as to Null's book sales and basic things like that; but how is this an RS when this by Quackwatch guru Stephen Barrett, this by ACT-UP, this by AIDSTruth, or this by Salon.com is allowed to stand as such?

Whatever else one can say about Gary Null, he has written over 100 books and made 39 documentaries. I told MastCell and Arthur Rubin myself that, even considering the POV problems with allowing negative and only negative input on the subject, I am not planning to add a series of positive ones - but these cannot be allowed to the exclusion of basic facts about the subject's work.

Thank you. Nononsenseplease (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

P/S: The reverts have stopped for now. Could you please not notify these people unless it happens again? I hate these conflicts tremendously.
 * Um, sounds to me like WP:CONSENSUS is against you ... doesn't it? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

← I'd like to request that the closing admin review the edits by the filing party,. By my count, s/he is at 5RR already: Rather than filing a separate request as I was about to do, I'd like to ask here for action on this 5RR violation. MastCell Talk 04:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 14:10, 23 April 2012
 * 16:56, 23 April 2012
 * 17:58, 23 April 2012
 * 23:26, 23 April 2012
 * 23:35, 23 April 2012
 * Good point. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

- Submitter blocked 24 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

H. 217.83 reported by User:Williamsburgland (Result: both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported: And potential IP Sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.83.71.189

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


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

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

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

Comments: Please note the language the user uses to communicate - it's unbelievably hostile and rude. In a nut shell, he's attempting to add paraphrased comments from and interview, purportedly one that happened in 2010, that there is no record of. He insists that a well noted and known music website is 'bullshit' while his impossible to verify source is the best to use. Please also note similarities between IP user and his username.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsburgland (talk • contribs)

This is a lie. I told Williamsburgland where the interview can be found (of course, the user ignores its notability and everything else I wrote), and they obviously aren’t civil either. See my talk page and Jeraphine Gryphon’s. For the similarities between my IP address and user name, see my German talk page. --217 /83 00:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This report is invalid, no one has done more than three reverts in the past 24 hours, and the reporting editor himself is one of the two users doing the revertings. This is a content dispute issue and can be resolved on the talk page (assuming either user will not revert again). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, both users have violated 3RR. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Crap, I forgot about that one. Of course I have no objections against this reporting of yours (no sarcasm, I am actually serious here). --217 /83 03:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the love of all that's holy, I've done everything possible to work with these two people. Please review the ENTIRE dispute, including my original report, before making a judgment. This latest one is in regards to H217 refusing to abide by the compromise Jeraphine, a user that sided entirely with him, suggested. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how he's refusing to abide by the compromise, the compromise is including statements from both sources even if contradictory. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I wonder how I am “refusing to abide by the compromise” by undoing Williamsburgland’s falsification of the quote and my other corrections. --217 /83 03:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the compromise was that both would be included; you don't get to add your own spin to the statements the band was quoted making in Sweden Rock Magazine by saying infering that blabbermout is an unreliable source. Further, the way you had your statement worded blended apparent quotes from the band (we don't know exactly how it's worded there because you're the only one with the source material) are mixed freely with unquoted material that makes assumptions like "ABC is why DEF happened." You don't know why that was their last interview, unless they explicitly said so. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I am not making assumptions, my edit follows what is stated in the interview I refer to; there is no mix except in this new lie of yours. And as you don’t know the interview, don’t tell me what I know or not. --217 /83 03:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ElliotJoyce reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 48h)
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: N/A

Comments:

I already self-reverted. The other user was not warned; only I was warned for the reverts.ElliotJoyce (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You were the only editor on the page who made three, and then four, reverts. And then you started to edit war on Atlantic slave trade. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the page history and count the number of reverts. I hope you'll understand why one editor was warned about the 3RR rule and no others were. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your initial warning clearly states that consequences can follow from edit warring regardless of whether the 3 revert rule has been violated or not. It can be reasonably said that the other user was edit warring in like fashion as I, perhaps even worse since my reverts all had a detailed explanation for their motivation and reason. Now you write on my talk page focusing solely on the violation of the 3 revert rule, without any mention of the fact that edit warring itself without violation of the 3 revert rule can result in consequence, yet no warning appears on the talk page of the other user. I would love to hear your hair-splitting argument now about the differences between the 3 revert rule and edit warring in general, and why the end result of this involves no warning whatsoever on the other user's talk page. Please, enlighten me. ElliotJoyce (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And here ElliotJoyce announces his intentions to revert again when 24 hours are up. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is correct. As I understand the 3 revert rule, it applies within a 24 hour period. Since your argument failed to convince that the statements of both Williams and Richardson are on equal ground, the balance weighs in favor of reverting to the state of the article before you began interfering. This applies equally well for your reverts on the Atlantic Slave Trade article. Thank you.ElliotJoyce (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, the three-revert rule is not a license. It is in place to provide a hard-fast limit wherein an edit war may be brought to a quick ending, no discussion required. As WP:3RR notes, "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation". The point of the rule is to prevent severe edit-warring, not to provide people with a certain guaranteed number of reverts that they can use with complete immunity. Even if you don't violate the three-revert rule, edit warring is still frowned on, and if you do carry through with your stated intentions, it is very likely that you would be blocked.
 * Also, I should note that except in obvious cases like libel or simple vandalism, if modifications to a page are challenged, it is generally up to the modifier to explain why the article should be changed, not the other way around. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  03:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand that. I explained all of my modifications, yet they were still reverted. I will not revert Mr. Shabazz's edits directly outside the 24 hour window because I do not want to appear to be gaming the system. But, I will plan on reverting them in the near future because I believe I have established my justification for doing so, while Mr. Shabazz has not established his justification for reverting. I am posting here my argument from the talk page of the Atlantic Slave Trade article. Both that article and the African Slave Trade article have similar information, and it is a piece of this similar information that was in contention between myself, Mr. Shabazz, and one other user. I believe my argument is correct and that Mr. Shabazz is wrong. Once again, I will only revert Mr. Shabazz once sufficient time has passed where I would not appear to be taking advantage of the 3 revert rule's 24 hour provision. Here is my argument. Thank you.


 * Recent edit warring has occurred between myself and user Malik Shabazz regarding the wording of the section "Effects on Economy of Europe." The argument he is making is that both the statements of Eric Williams, who is said to have argued that profits from the slave trade financed Europe's industrialization, and David Richardson, who provides data that domestic investment in Britain's economy of slave trade profits was less than 1%, are equally valid and should be presented on equal ground. This user (Malik Shabazz) has done the same thing on the African Slave Trade page. One will observe, however, that the statements made by Eric Williams are unsourced, while the statements made by David Richardson, along with the statement pertaining to slave trade profits never exceeding 5% of Britain's economy, are sourced. Yet we see the Williams' statements completely untouched and unscathed and unquestioned by Mr. Shabazz, while the Richardson statements, as well as the Digital History link to the University of Houston (the source of the 5%) reworded and labeled as unreliable. Now, think about this for a second- what does it look like? What would cause someone to leave one set of statements (the Williams statements) unquestioned, despite no source being provided for them, but yet raise a brouhaha about wording and reliability about another set of statements (the Richardson and Digital History statements) that contradicts the first, keeping in mind that the second set is actually sourced? Probably one thing: bias. Mr Shabazz realizes that he cannot outright delete these remarks, even though they likely do not fit in with his worldview, so he does the next best thing: make them less forceful by making them appear as opinions instead of facts. That way, both Eric Williams' unsourced contention that the slave trade financed Europe's industrialization and the opposing sourced statements by Richardson and Digital History (University of Houston) that it did not both are equally valid. This is how history is rewritten and chipped away- slowly, through an edit here and an edit there. Please review the edit history of the article yourself and you'll notice exactly what Mr. Shabazz is trying to accomplish. I am barred from reverting his edits at the present because of the 3 revert rule, which I will respect. But at the expiration of 24 hours (perhaps a little longer since I do not want to appear to be gaming the system), I will correct Mr. Shabazz's edits to the more factually defensible position. Please remember: the Williams statements have no source, yet they are are allowed equal footing with sourced material that makes use of established, tangible data. Even if the Williams material were provided with a source, would it matter? No, because I've read Eric Williams' statements on the slave trade- they are hypotheses and generalizations that are unsupported by factual data. Could this be the reason why Mr. Shabazz has completely sidestepped the missing source for the Eric Williams' statements? ElliotJoyce (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, J.delanoy. if you look at the edit history on both the African Slave Trade page and the Atlantic Slave Trade page, I am actually supporting the original state of the paragraph in question, save for the inclusion of the word "nevertheless" or "however." For example, on the African Slave Trade page, I reverted a few edits by the user Ackees, who was changing the information provided by the Digital World source to say the opposite of what it actually says. It is only after this that user Tom harrison started the edit war over the word "nevertheless", and then user Malik Shabazz took advantage of this by changing the entire wording of the paragraph, undermining the sourced material and placing it on the level of the unsourced material by Eric Williams. Almost the exact same thing happened on the Atlantic Slave Trade page: here, instead of the word "nevertheless", I was arguing with user User:Tom harrison}Tom harrison over the word "however" in the same content as that which appeared on the African Slave Trade page when user Malik Shabazz slipped in and changed the wording of the paragraph to undermine the sourced material while not even touching the unsourced material, exactly the same thing he did to the African Slave Trade page. He did the exact same thing on both pages. At this point, I don't even care about the "nevertheless" or "however"- I just want the pages to read the way they did before Malik Shabazz came in and edited without justification or rationale. Don't you see what he's trying to do here? Just look at the recent edit history of the African Slave Trade or Atlantic Slave Trade articles to confirm all of this. Thank you. ElliotJoyce (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The user Malik Shabazz has now provided a source for the Eric Williams material. I have confirmed the source, although it does not state everything that is written in that part of the article, but at least there is a source and we are probably going to be able to compromise. Disregard my above paragraphs please.ElliotJoyce (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And with your reversion of 'critics' you are at 5RR. You don't seem to understand that it really doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, with few exceptions 3RR is a bright line (and those refer to BLP violations and obvious vandalism). Why shouldn't you be blocked now? Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Now at revert #6. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't revert the issue in question between myself and Malik Shabazz; rather, the bulk of my changes were additions that supplemented the information by Eric Williams. Furthermore, Mr. Shabazz, there is also the issue of the pages you cited in the Eric Williams source. I reread those exact pages and I did not find direct support for the language attributed to Mr. Williams therein in the article. This is why I beseeched you to show me where in the pages you cited (page 98-107) the information in the article about Eric Williams' statements can be found. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * – Already blocked 48 hours by User:Excirial. I was just about to block per the report here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)