Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive185

User:Martinvl reported by User:94.197.100.97 (Result: WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED)
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: and  on user talk page.

Comments:

The user continually reverts without providing suitable sources to support what he is reverting to and with absurd accusations of sock-puppetry. 94.197.100.97 (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I stand by my accusation that this user is a sock-puppet of Defacto - see []. If the admin in question wants further evidence as to this user's bad faith,. I will provide it, but real life is making demands on my time. Martinvl (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You have attempted to flout Wikipedia policies before, to intimidate other users like this rather than attempting to support your contributions with references and sound reasoning. It is not acceptable in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. There was this recent case wasn't there, in which you actually telephoned the institution attended by a contributor in an attempt to get their contributions which did not meet with your approval stopped! Let's be clear about your excuse for misbehaving this time: "this user" is not a "sock-puppet of Defacto" (no doubt another editor who disagreed with you). 94.197.100.97 (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I stand by my assertion that the user who placed this complaint is a probable sock puppet of User:DeFacto aka User:6 foot 6 aka User:6feet6. Moreover, the article Metrication of British Transport was spun off the artcile Metrication in the United Kingdom - the article on which User:DeFacto was involed in tenditious editing. Martinvl (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm blocking the IP for being an incredibly obvious sock of DeFacto; since DeFacto is banned, Martinvl didn't break 3RR because he was reverting a banned user. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 13:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:86.** IP reported by User:Masem (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (note, outside 24hr period but in the same spirit as above).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Note that the editor has received other warnings about these edits and acknowledged them (via removal from talk page). --M ASEM (t) 13:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * THIS IS A LIE, albeit one likely due to lack of due diligence than actual malice, but one that does not speak well for the care Masem should have been taking before editing. The first edit was of me partially undoing an edit I myself made, with a coincidental edit to another section happening in between. Masem is therefore lying about my edit history to try and claim I violated policy. Further, the claimed "edit being reverted to" is NOT the edit being reverted to - the fair use section appears in every single one of those but the second, just in a slightly different place. Masem clearly has not even reviewed the edits in question.
 * The actual situation here was Ridernyc attempting to revert the policy back to a version from over a month ago, which had factual inaccuracies (it had a few quotes from other policies which no longer appeared, for instance). In a completely seperate issue, I had noticed issues with the fair use section, which I challenged, but that was a completely seperate issue, and one in which I agreed with Masem's analysis. However, I disagree with Rider's attempt to revert long-standing changes, including the correction of factual errors (quotes that do not appear in the policy they're claimed to) under the guise of pretending it's about another issue (which, as I said, I challenged, listened to Masem's argument, and accepted). 86.** IP (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that you were making changes that appeared to remove long-standing text (and possibly with other changes and improvements). You were reverted. You started a talk page section about some of the changes - but not all - and were reverted by three editors.
 * Now, if there are conflicts or inconsistencies with other policies, fine - spell them out on the talk page instead of simply engaging in adding stuff in what appears to be edit warring. For example, it may be the case that the fair use policy page changed and thus the quote on WAF isn't consistent, but you never spelled that out until now. It doesn't matter how right you are - 3RR is not tolerated except in limited cases, and this is not one of them. --M ASEM  (t) 15:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is again clear you STILL haven't reviewed the edits, which were Ridernyc reverting to a version from early April and me reverting it back. May i suggest you undo your reversion and back off, if you can't take the time to actually know what you're doing? 86.** IP (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks to me that both parties have been edit warring over the period May 4-7. A sincere concern that policy be correct and up-to-date is laudable but it is not one of the listed exceptions to WP:EW. If both editors would agree to submit to a plan for resolving their conflict by getting wider consensus, this report might be closed. One option is a WP:Request for comment. User:86.** IP is advised to remove his claim that Masem is lying. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've noted, there's a talk page section, but only until now has 86 discussed the large scheme of edits they're making. I'm fine to discuss it there, given that there are likely conflicts with existing language due to the age of the policies. --M ASEM  (t) 15:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, yuou're still not going to review your actions, or retract the false allegations. 86.** IP (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've reviewed what happened, and will still say that your actions and attitude towards this are against the spirit of WP:EW even if they don't exactly match the letter of 3RR law (yes, including the reversion of a month-old version even if that falls out of 3RR's 24hr range); that's still potentially actionable, but I'd rather see discussion on the talk page to determine what part of the edits we should include there instead. --M ASEM (t) 15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Masem is not the only editor to warn 86.*.IP about his edits. He has been told by at least 3 users to reach consensus before making changes to guideline pages.  He responds with hostility and claims that his massive editing and rewording is simply copy editing.  He has done this across a wide range of fiction related guidelines, even going so far as nominating one for deletion.  He appears to be editing with an agenda and refuse to gain concuss for his changes. As you can see above simply asking him to edit with consensus gets an angry replyRidernyc (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If 86.** IP will not commit to a plan for reaching agreement he may be blocked. As an alternative, he could agree to take a break from editing policy or guideline pages for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Check the talk page of WP:MOSWAF, where I set the entire sequence of edits out as proposals. However, can we kindly deal with the fact that this section maliciously miserepresents my editing and Masem has refused to correct his lies? Because I think that's important. 86.** IP (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record this is the month of editing I undid. None of this was discussed prior to IP.**86 making these changes. The changes were pretty massive for a guideline where if one word is changed it can change the entire meaning of the guideline, therefore I felt my only option was to roll back to a much earlier version and advise the editor to seek consensus before editing guidelines. The editor claims these edits were simply copy edits. As far as I can tell the editor has still not taken part in any sort of consensus gathering. They simply deny and revert. Ridernyc (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As we are having this conversation the editor is continuing to make edits to fiction guideline with out discussion. Ridernyc (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AND NOW PROPOSING CHANGES FOR DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE IS BEING TREATED AS NOT DISCUSSING?! THAT'S AN EDIT O THE TALK PAGE, AS PART OF PROPOSING THE CHANGES FOR DICUSSION! HOW FUCKING MISLEADING CAN YOU FUCKING GET! Using me discussing things on the talk page as evidence I'm not discussing things?86.** IP (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake I saw the removal of removal materiel and failed to realize you were editing talk page comments. However the language here and in the edit summary should be noted. for example a real edit summary instead of "this is fucking stupid" would have helped prevent my mistake. This user has a major problem with consensus process. Ridernyc (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

- 24 hours for edit warring at WP:MOSWAF during the period May 4-7. The background is your desire to bring the guideline up to date. Some other editors think your changes to be unwise, and nobody on Talk has actually supported your changes. So far there is no evidence that you are prepared to listen to others' views. If you will commit to a plan for reaching consensus and abiding by the result, this block can be lifted. See also an ANI discussion in which your incivility was mentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:86.93.139.223 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1) 14:26,  7 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 491177169 by Yobol (talk) There are many statements in this article which are without reference, if I take them all out there will be 50% less article. Yet you take my comments out.")
 * 2) 18:20,  7 May 2012  (edit summary: "Now it has a citation, so leave it in. This article is misrepresenting the diet using citations that misrepresent the facts.")
 * 3) 18:27,  7 May 2012  (edit summary: "There are many unreliable and unsourced comments on this page, if you want I will delete them all, not just my comment.")
 * 4) 18:38,  7 May 2012  (edit summary: "My poorly sourced yet TRUE information is not an excuse to let you NOT delete any other comments, just mine = you are biased.")
 * 5) 19:19, 7 May 2012


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Since this report was written, the ip started a discussion Talk:Alkaline_diet, and reverted for the fifth time. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Concurring (as an involved editor) that this IP is now up to at least 6RR and counting, despite warnings, and asking for administrative intervention. MastCell Talk 20:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Sherlock4000 reported by User:Lihaas (Result: stale / protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ( but theres been so much warring its hard)


 * 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: [Talk:YPF#Neutrality_problems_with_Economist_editorials]

Comments:

The said user has ignored and deleted warning with NPA instead of discussion. Talk pages that are ongoign still resulted in his reverts. And since he was the ONLY one wish said view against multiple other editors the page gets locked so as to adhere to the whm of one without consensus discussion. As an ongoign event it also needs more edit to update as per thisLihaas (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please. This issue has already been discussed in this noticeboard and elsewhere, and the other two users (who repeatedly reverted my edits, with wholesale reverts that sometimes included even grammatical fixes and minor addenda over other sections of the article) already got their way: the page was locked with the defamatory - and debunked - bit about "hunting down" and "threats and violence" still in place.


 * This was a rumor spread by the Spanish Embassy in Buenos Aires and published as gospel in (some of) the media echo chamber. It was refuted, however, by Repsol's own spokesman at YPF (Repsol owned YPF from 1999 until April 16th last), who was there and thus has given the only first-person account of events (and the only one not given on an anonymous basis).


 * I brought this up in the last 3RR report, and mentioned it to Ed Johnston, but it's worth repeating:


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


 * Resumil spoke to a major conservative publication in Spain (making them one of the least likely in the world to write anything in defense of the renationalization of YPF). Whether the story was repeated in the Financial Times, Economist, AlJazeera, or anywhere else, it is an anonymous rumor directly contradicting a quoted first-hand account (by somebody obviously opposed to the takeover, as he was among those who was laid off). While I don't believe in posting anonymous rumors even followed with proof to the contrary (it's a little like asking someone: "don't think of an elephant"), we could, as EdJohnston suggested, precede the sentence with According to a Spanish government memo obtained by the Financial Times, with the Repsol spokeman's rebuttal in the following sentence.


 * While the page is locked, of course, numerous significant news updates have taken place, including the renationalization's approval by both houses of Congress, the president's signing of the bill into law, her appointment of a new director (an engineer who rescued a failing Schlumberger subsidiary), and significant increases in production at YPF itself.


 * All, surely, more relevant to the article than this debunked event Bobrayner, Yopie, and Lihass are so fond of.


 * All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Is clearly misleading, it should be BOOMERANG as mentioned when filing a complaint because there was no war between the edits he mentioned that would contravene 3RR. said user is the only one with the probem and multiple reverts in 24 hours.
 * Mind you im uninvolved in the dispute and, for the record, its not about content its about the warring/3RR (which the above response doesnt seem to indicate a realisation thereof. The reply should be on the talk page to resolve the dispute instead of the 3RR that quite clearly took place. Per WRONGVERSION, the page is not running away. Right or wrong hthe precedence allowing blatant 3RR opens a can of worms.)
 * This user apparently still doesnt realie his actionin which he continues further with NP[A "Bobrayner, Yopie, and Lihass are so fond of". Is an attack...and i was never involved in any of this edits (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Then it would be the three of us, wouldn't it? You weren't involved in the dispute per sé, Lihass, I'll grant you that. But you have shown interest in the article, and since you're only attempting to have my account blocked, and not these others', we can hardly describe you as a disinterested party. And you do describe yourself in your own user page as someone of political opinions (openly supporting Justices Scalia and Thomas requires some really strong opinions, no doubt).


 * In any case, Bobrayner and Yopie enjoy reading the rumor in question on the YPF page, and (remember) I have agreed to oblige them - provided that the Repsol spokesman's first-hand account is included in the paragraph.


 * Thanks again, Sherlock4000 (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * / by someone else. -- slakr  \ talk / 05:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It not stale as he edit warred beyond 3RR on the same day which is ground enough for sanction. Yet he STILL doesnt realise as just above he continues to attack me and resorts to red herring tactics instead of tackling the issue itself (what does a userbox have to do with his warring?). He also doesnt realise that the issue here is not the content but the warring when he says that "im trying to get his account blocked"Lihaas (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Rafaelkelvin reported by User:Milesmyth (Result: declined)
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:

The user Milesmyth is a puppet from 190.118.210.133 IP blocked, he is adding false information in article Trujillo, Peru, Take a look his contributions.—Rafaelkelvin (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC) There is a talk about the "references" used by Milesmyth in spanish wikipedia, this references are speculative and interpretative, in other words the text added is false. The talk is áreas metropolitanas más pobladas de Perú, the user asured that Trujillo is the second most populated metropoli in Peru using for this puspose his "references". Exist a large campaign by the 190.118.210.133 IP for use this information. And Milesmyth created his user a litle after that the IP was blocked. Edit the same articles with the same references that the IP in others wikipedias.—Rafaelkelvin (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing of the information added is false all has its references. In case it's false Rafaelkelvin must demonstrate what is false. This user seems to suffer very much because Trujillo be the second must populous city of peru, is something not understandable.In the Spanish Wikipedia article has been blocked and can only be edited by administrators because of an edit warring caused by Rafaelkelvin and Cmonzonc users  and the article in english currently has the same data as in Spanish Wikipedia. Those users seem always act together as an strategy, but very well made, when don't act one of them  act the other.--Milesmyth (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See:, the article talks about metropolitan areas, the reference from INEI only talks about regions, provinces and districts. The real area of Trujillo metropolitano not is the area of the district as you believe it, Milesmyth. In your talk I showed you a section of the Plan director de Trujillo, not all districts are part of Trujillo metropolitano. Sorry but I believe that you are the IP blocked, the user Eagle c5 blocked too in spanish wikipedia. You are using the same argumentation and the same references. Rafaelkelvin (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don´t participe in this edit warring look here —Rafaelkelvin (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you replicate the talk in order?. Not adding more in your last talk?—Rafaelkelvin (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edit warring in Trujillo article is from very long time ago. Sorry, that's the true.--Milesmyth (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If were the case, How do you know? Are you a Puppet of the IP and the eagle c5?—Rafaelkelvin (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know who's that eagle. I'm only checking the editions. Sorry.--Milesmyth (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strategy with others wikipedians?, wow sorry but you are wrong. I'm only read the references as they are.—Rafaelkelvin (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts.  Running On Brains (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 06:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:98.149.83.4 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1) 06:19,  1 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 488885023 by Aethersniper (talk)")
 * 2) 06:23,  1 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 490079910 by Rl (talk)")
 * 3) 03:32,  7 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 490107892 by Aethersniper (talk) Promotion of slanderous content from blog related source.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Since mid-April some IP editors have been trying to remove reliable references from the article that are critical of Brain Gym. The Brain Gym program has been criticized as pseudoscience, and the Arbcom decision at WP:ARBPS may apply to it. Since at present the only problem is from IPs, semiprotection is the simplest remedy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:X Nilloc X reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result:24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: (10:51, 2 May)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: Today
 * 8th revert: Today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This user has been reverting in this same WP:OR to the article for a while now, there are roughly 7 editors who have asked him to stop, one IP ediotr seems to support him. There is obviously no consensus for this yet he keeps putting in back. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:49.145.70.58 reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User has been told numerous times to discuss the issue with other editors on the talk page, and not so simply revert to the version that they prefer. Currently two long-term Wikipedia editors question the validity of this user's edits. User has refused to engage in meaningful discussion, and has accused User:Bazonka of being an internet-tyrant on Talk:West Philippine Sea. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 14:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . I'll also note that you're at 3 reverts, which is fine, but make sure you don't go over that. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:190.98.51.253 reported by User:SyncSeth (Result: )
Page:

User being reported appears to be using a dynamic IP address partcularly these 3:

User being reported:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1st edit by 190.98.50.178: diff, 00:16, 28 April 2012 (edit summary: )
 * 2nd edit by 190.98.50.178: diff, 01:10, 28 April 2012 (edit summary: )
 * 3rd edit by 190.98.51.251: diff, 19:28, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: )
 * 4th edit by 190.98.51.253: diff, 08:39, 7 May 2012 (edit summary: )

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

1. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on My User talk page: diff, 03:59 28 April 2012 (edit summary: Notes/Footnotes under Performances/results: new section)

2. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User:190.98.50.178 talk page: diff, 04:04 28 April 2012 (edit summary: Thanks for your contribution!: new section)

3. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article Talk:Elise Testone talk page: diff, 02:10 4 May 2012 (edit summary: Notes/Footnotes: new section)

4. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User:190.98.51.251 talk page: diff, 21:35 5 May 2012 (edit summary: uw-ew)

5. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User:190.98.51.253 talk page: diff, 21:47 8 May 2012 (edit summary: +uw-ew)

Comments:

I left a Talkback link on User talk:190.98.50.178, discussed and provided the Wikilink guidelines, left instructions for how User can respond, but got no response. The IP Users 190.98.50.178, 190.98.51.251, 190.98.51.253 appear to have the same exact edit patterns, editing without an Edit Summary, not participating in discussions, made the same exact duplicate footnote edits. This IP user was later reported by another editor for edit warring on American Idol related articles and was subsequently blocked. On reverting the user's edit, I left a reason and cited the Wikilink guideline/s on the edit summary, left a message on user's talk page, or referred him to the Article's Talk Page, where I left a friendly yet detailed discussion without mentioning the User's IP, so as not to shame him/her. The IP user has been warned repeatedly for edit warring. It's not working. This IP user appears to be using a dynamic IP address, allowing him to continue edit warring on American Idol (season 11), American Idol (season 10), American Idol (season 9), Elise Testone, Skylar Laine, Hollie Cavanagh, and other American Idol finalist pages, even after one IP user address has been blocked. - SyncSeth (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:174.252.189.137 reported by User:Tide rolls (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]
 * IP never made it to to the article talk page. My advice on their talk page and further.

Comments:


 * Blocked 31 hours for edit-warring and general nuisance. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Spesh531 reported by User:99.237.236.218 (Result: No action)
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: Please note that the user (as well as myself) were both blocked for edit warring based on the above reverts (except #1 which is new). When I got blocked, I read the rules, realized my mistake, and explained to the admin that I will stop reverting and instead seek dispute resolution or try to reach consensus on the talk page. Because of that, I was unblocked. Spesh531 on the other hand tried to argue about his block and therefore his block was not reversed. Upon the block expiring, the very first thing Spesh531 did was go back to all the relevant articles (it's not only the 1980 article - also 1990, 2000, 2010) and revert again. He did this without any effort to join the conversation on the talk page or seek dispute resolution. Since I tried reasoning with him on his talk page and he rejected my call to stop edit warring, I figure this is the only thing left for me to do because I don't want to break the rules and continue edit warring, but if I don't report him then he will continue reverting and inserting incorrect, unsourced information to the articles. Thank you


 * Result: No action. The supplied diffs don't include any which are later than May 6, which is when the last block of both parties expired. But if either party decides to continue the war before consensus is reached, sanctions are possible under WP:ARBPIA. It is fortunate that both editors are participating at WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the error. I somehow made a mistake when posting the diffs. There was in fact a revert done immediately after the expiry of the block, which is the whole reason I filed this report. Here is the correct diff 99.237.236.218 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I'm still not inclined to take any action. Will wait and see if those who joined the original dispute will negotiate in good faith. I assume they are all aware of the WP:DRN discussion. See also User talk:EdJohnston. Any further reverts at List of sovereign states in the 1980s would justify at least a formal warning of the editor under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Garycompugeek reported by Jakew (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 13:48,  3 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 490369322 by Jayjg (talk)rough consensus already achieved - see talk")
 * 2) 19:00,  4 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 490472548 by Jakew (talk)we should cater to the majority not the minority")
 * 3) 17:29,  7 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 490678039 by Plot Spoiler (talk)change page size to reflect modern internet - see talk")
 * 4) 16:27,  8 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 491215467 by AnkhMorpork (talk)3 for and 3 against is hardly consensus, please address concerns on talk")


 * Note: this is a report for edit warring, not 3RR. Garycompugeek is an editor with a long history of edit warring, as can be seen from his user talk page.  Recently he has taken exception to the archiving rate of a talk page, made a bad-faith accusation of "tactical archiving" (with no evidence whatsoever).  He then attempted to modify WP:TPG so that it is compatible with his desired rate of archiving and, failing to gain consensus for this has attempted to force his change through by slow edit warring.  Also problematic are his claims to be following WP:BRD, and his claim that "rough consensus [had been achieved"] (which clearly misrepresented the facts.)  In my view this has become disruptive, and needs to stop. Jakew (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I object to the above characterization. I do my best to follow WP:BRD and have no wish to edit war.  It would be more true to say that Jake and I rarely see eye to eye. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that your change has been reverted by five different editors, and objected to by a sixth, it would seem that the issue is actually with your not following WP:BRD, and with your wish instead to edit war. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ah jayjg, my other most ardent supporter. No where does WP:BRD specify how many editors you may engage in discussion. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you think that as long as you keep making posts on the Talk: page, you are complying with WP:BRD, are not edit-warring, and can revert an infinite number of editors? Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * of course not, however I think we are having fruitful discussions. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By "fruitful", do you mean "Gary makes a comment, everyone disagrees with him, and then Gary reverts"? If so, then in that sense they are "fruitful". Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A key part of WP:BRD is this (from the 'nutshell'): "If a revert is made, do not revert again but discuss and collaborate on consensus" (emph. added).  Jakew (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are not backed up by facts. I am heavily involved in discussion on the talk page and I am hardly alone in my assertion that the talk page size should be increased.  It appears another editor has also just opened an RFC on the matter.  Garycompugeek (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:dlv999 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dlv999#You_have_broken_1RR_on_The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

]

Comments:

This article clearly belongs to I/P conflict so 1RR applies.I didn't want to make this report and I thought a warning would be sufficient but the user insisted that I will make such report as he denied that he broke 1RR.


 * . User was clearly given proper notifications, refused to self-revert. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 13:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:198.188.96.4 reported by Neil N   talk to me  (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:10,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 16:20,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 16:24,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 16:39,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 17:02,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Talk page:

— Neil N   talk to me  17:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . The IP is a shared IP with a long history of problems, and this is just the latest. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Saoirse eire reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:56, May 3, 2012. Removed Burns cite and added POV text.
 * 2nd revert: 20:51, May 3, 2012. Removed Burns cite and added POV text.
 * 3rd revert: 23:26, May 3, 2012. Removed Burns cite and added POV text.
 * 4th revert: 00:41, May 4, 2012. Removed Burns cite and added POV text.
 * 5th revert: 00:48, May 4, 2012. Removed Burns cite and added POV text.
 * 6th revert: 22:46, May 7, 2012. Removed Burns cite and added POV text.
 * 7th revert: 23:56, May 8, 2012. Removed Burns cite and added POV text.
 * 8th revert: 20:42, May 9, 2012. Removed Burns cite and added POV text.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

Comments:

Saoirse eire has been edit warring to take out cited text and insert contradictory uncited text about how Arthur Percival tortured IRA prisoners. The first five reverts were in a six-hour period. The same sort of edit warring is going on at the article Essex Regiment, regarding the same content. This is an extended dispute marked by a complete lack of discussion from Saoirse eire. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked for one week by Jac16888. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User:70.26.45.111 reported by User:MTLskyline (Result: )
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: For the record, I am not involved in this edit war. There is an ongoing feud between two editors, User:Apple2gs and User:70.26.45.111 (his current IP, although the IP address has changed several times.) Apple2gs claims on his talk page that he has been harassed by this IP user for 4 years. I left a warning on the 70.26.45.111's talk page, although he has since decided to engage in an edit war with Apple2gs on another page.

Seeing how long this has been going on, I believe that quick action is required. Thanks. --MTLskyline (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User:99.251.114.120 reported by &mdash; Scientizzle (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 04:25,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "/* Criticism */ paraphrasing removed. Articles did not support this quoted text. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)")
 * 2) 11:18,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 491526959 by BullRangifer (talk). Supply valid references or rephrase")
 * 3) 14:23,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 491588525 by Scientizzle (talk) reference behind firewall - unsupported quote &mdash; Scientizzle 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)")
 * 4) 18:08,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "vandalism  from User:Brangifer. Do not editwar! Please observe WP:Policies and observe WP:3RR Further violations may result in serious consequences")


 * Diff of warning: here

All of these edits remove the same section of text. While initially this text was inadequately cited, that deficiency was wholly corrected prior to the 14:23, 9 May 2012 revision.

—&mdash; Scientizzle 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * for belligerent edit warring. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just noting that it's been extended to 48 hours, and after I finish my report for sockpuppetry and other offenses (including threats to just change IPs if blocked), it will hopefully result in a very long block. The list is growing: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.251.114.120. The user should be required to register and stop the battlefield behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Noting a further extension to one week. The user's talk page history tells the sad story of a totally recalcitrant and uncollaborative editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Vehoo reported by User:Bazonka (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: (by User:180.140.32.190, a suspected sockpuppet of Vehoo)
 * 8th revert: (not an exact revert, but highly damaging to the content)
 * 9th revert: (reverting to a different version of the page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

POV pushing reverts to a disambiguation page, leaving just one definition on the page. Bazonka (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Editor reverted again after warning. (semi-protected): Brand-new account then reverted. — kwami (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Deltasim reported by ArtimusSlayer (talk) (Result:Both warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:05,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "Added citations")
 * 2) 04:31, 10 May 2012  (edit summary: "Reverted opinions")
 * 3) 13:06, 10 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 491792690 by ArtimusSlayer (talk)")
 * 4) 13:11, 10 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 491793207 by ArtimusSlayer (talk) Removed unverified propaganda")
 * 5) 13:34, 10 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 491795586 by ArtimusSlayer (talk) Edit patterns unchanged. Sources remain as unverified propaganda")


 * Diff of warning: here

—ArtimusSlayer (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

May I point out that ArtimusSlayer's disagreeable manners of editing and placing unverified sources within the page, not to mention an unofficial block tag in my personal page has lead to this pointless affair. I sincerely hope a more professional user can edit the article. ArtimusSlayer's feudal edits solve nothing. Deltasim (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are both edit warring. You need to continue to discuss and quit reverting each other.  GB fan 14:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will do the best I can. But I would appreciate some other user to judge the content. Deltasim (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dale Chock reported by Aeusoes1 (Result: Wrong venue)
Pages:

User being reported

Dale's editing behavior in past few months has largely involved contentious content removals:
 * Diasystem
 * Diaphoneme
 * (My restorations)
 * Russian phonology
 * (My restorations )

Dale's talk page behavior is generally hostile, often centering around attempts to discredit other editors. In my case, he fixates on my mistakes, particularl an instance when I misspoke at Talk:Diasystem, to portray me as untowardly ignorant:
 * Diasystem
 * "by this confusion, you absolutely demonstrate you are in over your head, while contributing to languages and linguistics articles profusely." "It's pathetic that you've taken such an interest in this article for years and haven't read the founding article."
 * "As i pointed out in my previous post, you revealed yourself as utterly ignorant of the difference between the two major theory perspectives in the history of linguistics."
 * "AEsos has shown he absolutely doesn't understand what he's reading and what he's writing." "But again, the quality of our linguistics articles suffers from AEsos's edits"
 * "AEsos has demonstrated lack of rudimentary familiarity with the general area this article falls into, linguistics"
 * "After all, the genuine problem with this article it has been written by people who were ignorant of linguistics and who didn't come close to properly researching it."
 * Diaphoneme
 * "Its author, who also wrote Diasystem alone between summer 2010 and January 2011, does not even realize the difference between structuralism and generative grammar"
 * "He has shown in two articles he edited (this one and Diasystem) and their Talk pages that he has no expertise with which to "debate the content of" a linguistics related article."
 * "This original research depends on--here i go for the 11th time--the writer's incomprehension of linguistic teaching (here, a misunderstanding of the definitions of diaphoneme)”
 * "It is the usual combination of disregard for what the theoreticians considered important... WP:OR; incomprehension of the sources; misquoting; and refusal to identify sources." "As has been proven on this page, all AEsos's assessments of linguistic literature are uninformed and misinformed.”
 * Russian Phonology
 * "'AE' is pretending he's discussing theory. He has no understanding of the theory of any article he edits on languages or linguistics."
 * "for AEsos to raise this objection only reaffirms his ignorance of even beginning Russian"
 * Also, see uncivil comments in edit summaries

Removal of citation requests (which I have continually had to restore).

Dale has also removed citations for content he dislikes. Specifically, he removed the citations for tables he wished to remove (see removals, above), citing an apparent error in the page range. However, edits just prior to this show him fixing the same page range error for another claim from the same source and even a talk page contribution explicitly shows that he has access to the source and knew the correct page range.

Needless to say, contentious editing, talk page hostility, and a pattern of abandoning threads before approaches toward consensus can be made, make for a general trend of disruption. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 02:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * REPLY TO COMPLAINT BY ACCUSED. User aeusoes1 appears to be judge shopping. He already made this complaint, one week ago at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive750, 20:07 1 May 2012 (UTC). These two complaint reports have the essentially the same idea, differing only in their evidence lists. Notice his concluding sentence: ". . . and a pattern of abandoning threads before approaches toward consensus can be made, make for a general trend of disruption". "Disruptive editing" is precisely the title of his old complaint report. I replied to that earlier report with many links.
 * Half of his points are just a dressed up version of the sentiment, "Dale Chock persists in disagreeing with me on article content." You know what? He disagrees with me. (Please bear in mind that over the history of the three articles under discussion, he has effectively been the sole ongoing editor.) For this new report, he has come up with a new piece of rhetoric against me: "abandoning threads" before approaches toward consensus. That's his way of saying that after I think I've said enough, I don't repeat myself again, and I don't eventually give in to his nagging. Bear in mind that in fact he usually fails to discuss objections to his insertions, fails to engage with my arguments -- doesn't argue against them, just ignores them. After all, if you were to give due attention to the article talk pages, you would see that my combined arguments about article content issues are four times or eight times as long as his.


 * The complainant has engaged in domineering and aggressive behavior toward me.


 * Aaeusoes1 repeatedly innovates ways to violate rules on discussion in spirit and even in letter: (1) he moved my content from an article talk page to his user talk page; (2) two days ago he posted extensive comments on the same article to my user talk page instead of the article talk page., refer to the two comments dated 6 May.
 * Two days ago, he took to hooliganism. Namely, on Talk:Russian phonology, he posted the following sneering remark: "Hmm. Still no source, eh? I can wait. I figure it's probably finals time for you, so three weeks should be enough time to find a source. Good luck. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)" The significance of this comment is that he is referring to a content dispute in which he insists on a source for an insertion and I have countered that the demand for a source is invalid. I have even explained my stance on the talk page (essentially, his opinion is Original Research; if you read my explanations on the talk page23:55 2 May & 12:10 6 May and still don't follow, please ask me) and, as alluded to above, he has refused to counter my argument (and this is only of many occasions when he has had nothing to say against my arguments). In the passage quoted -- which is in fact a argumentless immediate reply to my arguments -- the imputation is that he expects me to come around to his demand after I have steadfastly resisted. Aeusoes1 acts like he is the arbiter of the articles of which he is the veteran editor. Point of information to the curious: the second half of his baroque user name is a phonetic transcription of "I'm friendly" in thick Southern accent.
 * "Dale's editing behavior in past few months has largely involved contentious content removals." Aeusoes1 is complaining about me reverting him, but he is reverting me equally. I reject the notion that content removals are less contentious when done by him.
 * He demands "consensus", which is laughable when in fact he has been effectively the sole editor of the article he's demanding consensus on, and also when you consider that consensus is not usually an allowed requirement for editing articles.


 * His accusations of disrespect turn out to be hypocritical and/or deceptive. Notice, for example, how he has cited at least four occasions on which I pointed out he is an ignoramus, he doesn't know what he's writing about. Anyone would be naive who supposes that every editor at Wikipedia does know what they're writing about. In my years of editing linguistics and language articles at Wikipedia, this aeusoes1 is in a class by himself in his combination of overconfidence and ignorance. Please bear in mind, he reverts other editors based on his ignorant beliefs. On the talk pages of three linguistics articles, I have indeed documented where Aeusoes1 doesn't know what he's writing about -- that's a constructive thing to do at Wikipedia. On some of these flaws pointed out by me, he has relented, he has had to accept his error and stop reverting, although he does not acknowledge these reversals properly, when he acknowledges them at all. Take his complaint: "he fixates on my mistakes, particularl an instance when I misspoke at Talk:Diasystem". "Misspeak" means you say the wrong thing when you know better. In the various instances I'm referring to, he has not known better. Again, I emphasize that it is rare that he even acknowledges he made a "mistake", and even then it's fleeting and he minimizes the implications. In a word, he's evasive. Like: which "instance where I misspoke" does he have in mind that he's now sort of backing down on? With the article, Diasystem he made so many ignorant insertions in the article or ignorant comments on its Talk page that I can't tell. There are 48 footnotes in this complaint of his, but none of these 48 footnotes point to this mysterious instance.


 * Within the last two weeks in Russian phonology, he swiftly reverted a new editor for excessive glossing (a gloss is a very brief translation equivalent of a foreign word), for having given 2, 3, or 4 glosses each to -- get this -- a half dozen Russian words. This reversion is objectionable because since 2007 Aeusoes1's editing of the same article has been distinguished by excessive exemplification (for example, he piled up 62 examples of a single sound change (the long table)).


 * "Dale has also removed citations for content he dislikes." I discussed to this point in my reply to complainant's previous complaint at AN/I.

Dale Chock (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Dale has made accusations against me here, I'll address them but keep them brief
 * Accusation 1: I am judge shopping. This would imply that I got a response elsewhere that I'm choosing to ignore.  Since I got no response after a week of waiting at ANI, I've simply reposted another AN thread here.  The links are pretty much the same, just organized differently.
 * Accusation 2: I'm just accusing Dale of disagreeing with me/also guilty of removals. Dale's removals are real.   The only instance of my own removals are two at Diasystem, which I argued in the talk page to have failed verification.  In neither case have I edit warred over them.  In the most recent thread, I even offered that Dale restore this content that I had deleted into a tentative version while we discussed the matter in the talk page.
 * Accusation 3: I fail to engage with his arguments. Diffs? Out of concern for civility, I do tend to avoid responding to personal remarks
 * Accusation 4: I violate talk page guidelines. Perhaps Dale can point out which rule I've violated in either example. Per his second one, I would say the impropriety lies with him.  Hhe began a thread about some glosses I'd modified.  After several days of not responding to my reply, I went to his talk page and responded there.  He immediately deleted it and posted in the article talk page that he refused to even read it unless the post was there instead of his talk page.
 * Accusation 5: I am unruly and aggressive. I fail to see aggressiveness in giving an editor time to find a source or being insistent that a source is needed when they disagree.
 * Accusation 6: My calls for consensus are improper. Consensus between two editors is still consensus.  Should I point out that one article is a GA?
 * Accusation 7: I am an ignoramus. Even here, he can't keep from insulting me.  Like I said, I try not to respond to personal attacks like this.  I certainly don't do the same when Dale makes errors.
 * — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 14:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong venue. If you feel the need to pursue this, go to ANI. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. I didn't get a response.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  02:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can unarchive a discussion if you want it to be reexamined; just make a note that you unarchived it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did that continuously for about a week. How long should I wait to expect a response at ANI? — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  14:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks more like an WP:RFC/U issue ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:William Jockusch reported by User:Dwainwr123 (Result: )
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:

The first "revert" was not a revert at all. I was adding new material to the article. The third "revert" was adding that same material to a different place, thereby making its relevance more obvious. The fourth revert was partly driven by a misunderstanding. I have since refrained from editing, though I must say I find the attempt by Obama supporters to censor any mention of Jim Treacher's tweet infuriating and a violation of NPOV, in light of the deletion of the Obama Eats Dogs article. I am curious why Debbie characterized two of my edits as "reverts" when they were not. William Jockusch (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I now did a 5th edit, where I mistakenly responded to this allegation in that article rather than here. Sorry about that. William Jockusch (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would be interested in the perspective of someone who has not been involved in the dispute on the NPOV issue. And I hope my multiple edits to this page are not themselves going to be considered "edit warring".

Additionally, there is a discussion of this on the talk page, and even Debbie, who reported me, has not asserted that it is consistent with NPOV to include Axelrod' tweet but not Treachers. In fact, the latest response has been to delete both tweets from the article, which doesn't feel appropriate either, but does amount to a concession that I do have a point.William Jockusch (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not new material. There has been a dispute over this issue for the last few weeks.  From May 3rd to May 7th, the Seamus incident page was subject to full protection largely because of an edit dispute over this issue.  You added the same material four times in less than 24 hours. WP:3RR states the following: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Even if you don't formally use the undo function, if you restore material that has just been removed, then it's a revert.  Debbie W. 17:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not a correct statement. The article was locked for for disputes over many different issues, this was one of them, and I don't see that WJ was even a part of that earlier discussion.  I would say that this issue has been of less of a dispute than the super-pac issue.  Arzel (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are at least 4 previous threads on the Talk:Seamus incident page discussing this issue - Talk:Seamus_incident,Talk:Seamus_incident,Talk:Seamus_incident,Talk:Seamus_incident. The Wikipedia protection log lists edit disputes as the reason for the full protection: 21:19, May 3, 2012 Slakr (talk | contribs) protected Seamus (dog)‎ ‎[edit=sysop] (expires 01:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)) ‎[move=sysop] (expires 01:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)) (Full protection: dispute.) (hist)  The point remains that this material in question is not new, and it was restored 4 times in less than 24 hours.  Debbie W. 18:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * When I am new to an article, am I expected to go through its history before editing? Additionally, Debbie, I would note that some of your posts on the talk board could be interpreted as attempts to shut down discussion.  And what am I to make of the fact that even after reporting me for supposedly edit warring, you still have not even asserted on the talk page that it is appropriate to include Axelrod's tweet but not Treacher's.  [You have asserted that the fact that the tweets are in the same medium is not a reason to treat them equivalently.  But that's not the same as asserting that it makes sense to include one but not the other.]  If you have an argument to make on this underlying issue, I would still be interested to learn what it is. William Jockusch (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I recognize that you are new to this article, and there is no obligaton to go through an article's history before you edit it. However, in all three cases when editors reversed your changes, they stated that there was already a discussion on the talk page about this issue.


 * (cur | prev) 08:48, May 9, 2012‎ Dwainwr123(talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,279 bytes) (-378)‎ . . (Undid revision 491536443 -- See talk page. I disputed their equivalence.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 17:35, May 8, 2012‎ Saedon(talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,031 bytes) (-432)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by William Jockusch (talk): No, unrelated. This article isn't about Obama, it's about Seamus and Mitt Romney. please see Chewbacca defense. (TW)) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 16:02, May 8, 2012‎ Dwainwr123(talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,027 bytes) (-432)‎ . . (Undid revision 491440823 -- not related. See Talk page.) (undo)


 * I am not going to argue the merits of including this material on this page. There are already multiple open discussions on the Talk:Seamus incident page about this issue.  For the future, it's better to go to an article's talk page or another forum when you see an edit war brewing.  Debbie W. 20:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My issue is that I have not seen you argue in favor of excluding Treacher while including Axelrod period. Indeed what you are calling my "third revert" was in fact a response to the fact that, while there was a lively debate on the question of whether Obama's dog-eating was relevant, there was no assertion that it made sense to include Obama/Bo/Axelrod but not Treacher/Dog Eating.  There was your tangentially related post in which you asserted that the fact that both were tweets was not a reason to give them equivalent status.  But even that fell short of asserting that I was wrong in my belief that it was inappropriate to include one but not the other.  So at the time of what you are calling my "third revert", I had every reason to believe that my assertion was not even controversial.

I find your refusal to even assert that I am wrong about this, here or elsewhere, while simultaneously reverting my attempt to link the two tweets, and using this noticeboard against me, rather interesting. If I am wrong, why not argue as much on the talk page? If I am right, why revert me? Perhaps I am naive, but I don't understand. William Jockusch (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Debbie failed to discuss any of this with William Jockusch and also did not notify the user on their talk page. Actions like that only contribute to the distrust on that article. Arzel (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not first issuing a 3RR warning, but there is substantial discussion of this topic on the talk page for Seamus incident. Debbie W.
 * There is some discussion, but nowhere have you warned him or even brought it up in the least. Do you really want to discuss or are you just looking to block editors with which you disagree.  It would be one thing if this was poorly sourced or BLP related, but this is neither since Obama himself has made a joke about it.  Arzel (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Although William Jockusch's edits may technically violate Wikipedia's edit warring rules, I think that this occurrence should be considered non-violative. WJ's edits need to be considered in the context of this article.  In the last month, Seamus incident has become one of the most controversial articles in all of Wikipedia.  There was a AfD for that article that nearly 60 editors took part in, the article has daily edit warring, and within the last week, the article was under full protection because of edit disputes.  Several other editors have violated or come close to violating the three-revert rule in their editting of this article.  It would be selective punishment to sanction a relatively new editor for the same kind of behavior. HHIAdm (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Extremely new edtor: he has a mere 227 edits. And more than a few of those he logged here. Dragging him here w/out warning is WP:DONTBITE in my book. – Lionel (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm fine with this not being considered a violation. At the time I filed this complaint, I was upset because of the huge amount of edit warring that this article had incurred.  In retrospect, it's not really fair to punish a new editor for something that more experienced editors were also doing, and it appears that the edit warring for the Seamus incident article is decreasing, so I am withdrawing my complaint. Debbie W. 19:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:SriSuren reported by User:Trenchfighter (Result: No action)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

I am new .The user has warned me and threatened to report me for this as per my talk page but another User:Obi2canibe also has done the same edit.Callum Macrae is not mentioned in the film hence do not want to add to his biography.Trenchfighter (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page User has said he will report for this.He appears to be removing edits of others and there is report abput him in the top of this page Trenchfighter (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Comment by SriSuren:    The "See Also" section can include peripherially related topics to the article, as explained and quoted from the guideline about it, in your userpage. The Lies Agreed Upon, documentry is in its full, a critism of Macrae's film(s), therefore including Lies Agreed Upon in the "See Also" section in that article should be acceptable and you can't delete it, because u wish it away. Wikipedia is about building an ecyclopedia, and linking to other articles to facilitate easy access is part of it.--SriSuren (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I added this to the See Also section, over a month ago for the first time. The User Obi2canibe reverted it, but he understood that the "See Also" section can include this and stopped reverting. You say that you do not want it in the article, just like that!!! You made no attempt to discuss the issue, but came running here to complain.  Your complaint is based on that I seem to revert edits and I have threatened you (sorry but I just have to smile a bit....:)). Please understand a couple of things - I never revert if I can avoid it, and you should refrain from falsely accusing other editors of issuing threats!!! My post on your userpage was not a threat, but a notice to you as it is required that the user be notified if he/she is going to be reported. You have not even bothered to inform me that you have reported me here - You have just conviniently ignored that part, when filling out this complaint. You can't just pick and chose parts of guidelines and policies you like, just as you can not pick and chose what to include in an article, according to your own personal wish.--SriSuren (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You have opened this user account just a week ago, but seem to be very familar with categories and templates etc, but not the guidelines. Anyway I suggest you read some of the guidelines etc so that you can understand what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, when it comes to edits and also behaviour. Falsely accusing editors of threatening you, or interpreting a simple notice in your userpage as a threat, is not acceptable at all behaviour. I have explained in your userpage why you can't revert this edit and that if you revert it you would be reverting without a valid reason. You seem not to get the point.  If you have a problem with the edit, you should seek dispute resolution. I would gladly defend my edit in such a case. Otherwise unfounded poorly formulated complaints like this one is just a waste of my time, your time and administrators time. --SriSuren (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Obi2canibe appears to be away .You said you will report hence brought it here.The video does not mention Callum Macrae hence removed it would like an admin to take a judge this.Trenchfighter (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: No action. This appears to be a slow edit war in which neither party has seen fit to use the article talk page. User:Trenchfighter says not to include Lies Agreed Upon as a See Also because that film doesn't mention Macrae. In fact our article on Lies Agreed Upon states that the film was a response to some work by Macrae. Callum Macrae produced a documentary for British TV alleging that the Sri Lankan government committed certain atrocities in their war against the Tamil Tigers. If it is true that the government film was trying to rebut Callum Macrae's conclusions then it is obviously relevant to Macrae's article. At first sight Trenchfighter's position doesn't make sense. He is welcome to clarify it. I hope the editors will work out this disagreement and try to make the best possible explanation of their views on the article talk. If either editor continues to revert without discussion on the talk page they might be eligible for sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:R'n'B (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 21:01,  8 May 2012  (edit summary: "Unconstructive.  Undid revision 491458036 by Qwfp (talk)")
 * 2) 15:48,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "rv pointless edit.   Undid revision 491606286 by R'n'B (talk)")
 * 3) 20:24,  9 May 2012  (edit summary: "Read WP:REDLINK - redlinks are permissible in DAB pages if they're already in use elsewhere.")


 * Diff of warning: here User blanked the warning without responding.

User has not violated 3RR but appears to be engaged in long-term edit warring. Basically he is insisting on adding a line to disambiguation page that creates a circular link back to the same page with a WP:DICDEF.

—R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Page protected one week. Andy Dingley's ideas for this DAB page do not appear to be shared by anyone else. Finally a discussion is running on the talk page, but he has reverted again since starting it. See also WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751 and WT:Disambiguation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is just about the most farcical waste of time and effort I've yet seen on WP. R'n'B admits that he doesn't understand what Joinery is, and asks for clarification at Talk:Joinery. The entirely reasonable request to rename the disambig so that an editor with knowledge of the subject can write an encyclopedia article on it has been stalled for no good reason. This same rename and disambig issue was already active at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751 and Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation, yet none of these editors took part in those discussions. The reasonable request "What is joinery?" was answered by adding a dicdef where it would be visible to all, yet that was deleted by Boing! said Zebedee (who then requested an explanation of what Joinery was).
 * We also have R'n'B changing a correct link to joinery to an incorrect link to joiner and also edit-warring to re-add this same incorrect link on Joinery terms and Carpentry.
 * Now R'n'B has dragged me off to 3RR with the tagline "User has not violated 3RR " and EdJohnston (of whom I expect better, to be honest) has protected the article without even a chance for a decent response (Hey Ed, some of us are busy, especially during local working hours).
 * None of this time-wasting crap moves the encyclopedia forward, or does anything useful other than to let a bunch of people with more interest in WP: namespaces than an encyclopedia to play at doing adminny stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to propose a forum in which this issue could be resolved. You yourself made three reverts at Joinery, so people may assume that you contributed to this 'waste of time.' Unclear that anyone supports your recent edits. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite your sarcastic, "Finally a discussion is running on the talk page,", I started that talk page discussion immediately (OK, four minutes) after the first reversion. Two (now three) editors there have quite reasonably asked for clarification of the subject matter. Yet when I started to give them this, it was deleted (wasn't even moved elsewhere). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have taken a cursory glance at the Joinery related articles. They are an omniashambles to use a popular UK related term. We need to start with three major lead articles. Carpentry- rough wood construction. Joinery- using squared planed timber. Cabinet making making (to that you could add ship building- and working with formed wood-based sheets). From these the other topics stem. Often industrial terms change their meaning over the centuries and location so it may be that terms will die out completely in one location and be unfamiliar to an editor having been educated there.


 * The way forward is to do the obvious, rename the disambig page that has captured the name needed for a major article, copy the definition suggested by Andy from the Talk page over to main space to form the stub that can then be expanded. Navel gazing and wiki-whinging are as other have said a waste of time.


 * To some of us who have worked in further education, or construction advising youngsters on whether to go for a carpentry of joinery course was a core element of our work. Commercial joinery course within Carpentry and Joinery faculty It is difficult to understand why Andy is being challenged- as what he is saying is so basic. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - take a look at Flank too. Too many admin wannabees looking for an excuse to wave around the ALLCAPS, rather than to improve mainspace article content (if you're not dong that, you're an overhead). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:199.234.90.214 reported by User:Mark Arsten (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:


 * Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Stemonitis reported by User:Stho002 (Result:Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 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:

the page history makes it obvious. I was trying to tag incorrect information. Stemonitis actually agrees the the information is incorrect, but refuses to tag it in any way, thus misleading readers ... Stho002 (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Stho002 has been warned about edit warring and content removal by more than one editor recently, but is recalcitrant. In this case, his complaint appears to be that I would not include two mutually redundant cleanup tags to an article that was already referenced to a source we normally consider reliable. His claim that I "[refuse] to tag it in any way" is patently false; the article is so tagged, despite the tolerable sourcing. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, the page history clearly demonstrates that User:Stemonitis reverted my edits 3 times ... Stho002 (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Also, it is only his opinion that the tags were redundant, and it is clear from his comments on my talk page that he wanted to remove all tags at one stage in the very recent past ... Stho002 (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not edit warring if your removing something that's against policy or reverting a problem editor. I belive you've just shot yourself in the foot. Any admin can clearly see your pattern of editing which is against consensus and policy. — raeky  t  11:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So your definition of a "problem editor" is someone who wants to tag misinformation! I don't think so ... Stho002 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should read WP:TE and seriously look at your behavior... either take a step back and take a break or a break may be forced on you if you keep up this pattern... (or should I say, another forced break, since this isn't your first time at the rodeo). — raeky  t  22:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should take two steps back, and realise that, whatever else is going on, the particular case of squat lobster is a clear breach of 3rr by User:Stemonitis, no matter how much of a general "bastard" I am, or you think I am. It is made worse by the fact that he breached 3rr while at the same time warning me not to do so, and he is such an advocate of the strict adherence to policy except, it seems, when it comes to his own breaches of 3rr ... Stho002 (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You fail to see that he did not violate 3RR because his edits was to remove a pointless pointy problem edits by you, only one at fault here is you... — raeky  t  22:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE CAN SOMEONE ATTEND TO THIS MATTER WITH SOME URGENCY, AS MY TAGGING OF MISINFORMATION ON squat lobster KEEPS GETTING REVERTED FOR BOGUS REASONS, AND I CAN'T KEEP REVERTING IT BACK WITHOUT RISKING 3rr, SO I AM ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE HERE, NOT FOR MY OWN BENEFIT, BUT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT WP ARTICLES TO CONTAIN UNTAGGED MISINFORMATION ... Stho002 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AGAIN, MY TAG HAS BEEN REVERTED. I AM BEING LURED INTO A 3rr TRAP. I AM NOT GOING TO FALL INTO THAT TRAP. User:Stemonitis HAS A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE A WISE CHOICE OF SOURCE. HE ADMITS THAT THE SOURCE HAS GOT IT WRONG IN THIS CASE, AND THERE IS NO REASON WHY HE HAS TO CONTINUE TO USE THIS SOURCE, BUT HE DOES SO! I AM BEING PREVENTED FROM TAGGING THE SOURCE AS BEING EVEN POSSIBLY UNRELIABLE FOR THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE. THIS MATTER NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION FROM ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS GOING ON. IF WP BACKS User:Stemonitis ON THIS MATTER, THEN IT ENDORSES AND PROMOTES MISINFORMATION IN ITS ARTICLES ... Stho002 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * When you feel it becomes necessary for you to yell (talking all in caps) it's time to back away from the keyboard. No further investigation to come at this time.  Work it out on the article talkpage, all of you ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

So, WP does endorse and promote misinformation in its articles, after all! You are hopelessly naive to believe that consensus can be reached on a talk page, when, it is obvious that established editors band together in territoriality wars against newcomers, and twist policy to suit themselves. Here we have a blatant case of an editor who is deliberately blocking attempts to tag as even possibly unreliable information which they know and admit to being incorrect. I guess that for as long as idiots are in the majority in the world, any attempts at "community managed knowledge" is just going to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator. Pity ... Stho002 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise reported by User:JCAla (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: (claiming source falsification while himself falsifying the source)
 * 2nd revert: (in this edit, removing 11,000 bytes of content, he sneaked the rejected content of above edit back in)
 * 3rd revert: (although rejected per WP:BRD and explained on talk, he again removed 10,000 bytes of content (which in itself was rejected) and sneaked controversial content back in)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Fut.Perf. has repeatedly reinserted contested content back into the Ahmad Shah Massoud article. He has also repeatedly removed more than 11,000 bytes of content although this was rejected per WP:BRD on the article's talk page. It was made very clear to him on the talk page what exactly is rejected about his edits. I tried very much to engage him into a constructive and civil discussion on the talk page on how to improve that article. Note that this is not about whether or not the article needs to be improved or not (because I agree that it needs to be improved which includes a reduction of the so-called quote-farm). What is contested here is the way Fut.Perf. is doing it even removing some of the valuable quotes without discussing and weighing it before and introducing some contested (factually incorrect) content. But Fut.Perf. is unwilling to constructively discuss so making grotesque accusations and declaring the end of the discussion restoring his favourite version. While this might not be a violation of 3RR, this certainly constitutes edit warring, and it makes any reasonable collaboration on the content of that article impossible. JCAla (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit #1 (which was 6 days ago) wasn't a revert, but an entirely fresh edit. Edit #2 (today) was a partial revert, yes. Edit #3 was also a revert, after discussion on the talk page demonstrated without any doubt that JCAla had no logically coherent argument against this edit and was merely filibustering against it with his usual WP:SOUP smokescreen tactics. I do not intend to make more reverts today, but I also will not let these tactics obstruct the much-needed cleanup of this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You should know that even if you think you are right, you need to find a consensus on the talk. You might consider that other editors too have valid points to raise. But you restoring your favourite version without taking into account what others say, makes any reasonable collaboration on the article impossible. You should self-rv so that we can start anew, working on that article together in a civil manner and see what needs to be changed from how it was before you unilaterally and repeatedly removed 11,000 bytes of content. JCAla (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: Article protected one month. There was a long discussion at ANI where FP complained that JCAla's edits on this article were a falsification of sources, but the thread was archived with no formal action. While the ANI was running there was a block of JCAla per a 3RR complaint on the Massoud article. This article seems likely to go in circles if only two people with strongly opposed views are working on it. In my opinion, the protection might be lifted once the two editors have agreed on a process for resolving the dispute. In the meantime, editrequest can be used to make any changes that are supported by consensus. I caution JCAla that if he continues to communicate with walls of text, as he did at ANI, he is unlikely to win many people to his point of view. Due to the large volume of words, I am not sure if more than one person at ANI examined the claim of falsification of sources in any detail. User:Akhilleus is the only person who mentioned in their ANI comment that they had read one of the sources to see if JCAla had falsified it. At present I think FP's best option is a sincere effort at dispute resolution. If that leads nowhere, and he continues to believe there are conduct issues, he could open an RFC/U. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:Darkness Shines (who is familiar with the topics) also investigated the sources and said the opposite of what User:Akhilleus (who is not familiar with the issues) claimed. I would like a similar recommendation by EdJohnston what to do if FP's false accusations continue while he himself has falsified the sources in the article as well as edit summaries. I find it troublesome to let the version of the one who edit-warred stand, this sends a wrong message. All other such protections restored the version pre-edit war. JCAla (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is normal to protect the current version of the article, per WP:PROTECT. If you think you can get consensus for some other version, try proposing that on the talk page and use editprotect to get the attention of an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. What if the current version has blatant source falsifications and Future Perfect at Sunrise thinks (because you kept his favourite version produced through edit warring) that "this discussion is over"? JCAla (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Open a *brief* discussion on the article talk page and make your points clearly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shall I now propose every bit of the 11,000 bytes again as they were unilaterally and without consensus removed against WP:BRD? According to wikipedia policy it is the proposer of bold changes who needs to propose not vice-versa. JCAla (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you shouldn't. It is the person who supports the inclusion of information who must provide unambiguous sources and which must gain consensus to include said information.  See WP:BURDEN, which states, and I quote, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". (bold in original)  In other words, if something is removed, don't put it back until it has been resolved to the satisfaction of WP:CONSENSUS to put it back.  -- Jayron  32  18:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, Jayron. According to this policy, Fut.Perf.'s controversial additions need to be removed again until a consensus version can be found. JCAla (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, at this point making unilateral demands for any changes is not helpful. I have no dog in this fight, but the best way forward is to engage in discussion, invite uninvolved editors to analyze and comment, and only make any changes based on the results of those consensus-building discussions.  Once a conflict has reached the point where an article needs protection, the article should be left alone in the state it is in, and discussion needs to happen first before any changes are made.  If FPAS's additions are so eggregious, then it will not be hard to establish that they are through a discussion at the talk page.  Go do that.  -- Jayron  32  19:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, note that I have filed for a review at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (where, incidentally, JCAla has promptly seen fit to reassert his views with yet another huge wall of text). Apart from this, I will no longer be available for any process that involves me having to talk to him as though to a rational participant in discussion, since by now I am more than firmly convinced this is purely a conduct (and competence) issue on his part and any further debate with him would be a waste of time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen Fut.Perf. question the competence of all editors with whom he had content discussions in a rather uncivil manner. (see here as one example out of many) JCAla (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Baku Shad-do reported by User:99.132.67.105 (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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has edited the  numerous times with conjectured statements along with non reliable and selfpublished sources that don't fit Wikipedia's Neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.132.67.105 (talk • contribs)


 * The sources that this user is using have no factual basis to their criticism, thusly I have added a rebuttal (with proper sources). In addition, he is a person who previously made false claims (in regards to the genre) under a different user name, so he is currently hiding behind an IP address, and now posts quotes from articles that have been shown to be factually incorrect, in an attempt to discredit a music genre. Baku Shad-do (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition he was already reported (for this problem and due to his long history of problem editing) on the incidents page before he posted this here. The Wikipedia music genres task force should become involved in this to decide an outcome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force Baku Shad-do (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To the next passing admin: I don't know if there is merit to the complaint. I can't count up to three. I have left 3RR warnings for both; both are guilty as far as I'm concerned. Any following revert by either one should result in a block. In the meantime, I have removed some of the glaring original research from the article (which is a mess), so I won't be blocking either one of them (unless they start messing with my house or my dog). Note that there is an ANI thread, started by the registered account. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:RhymeNero reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

... and more. See article history.
 * 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:

Appears to be utterly clueless as to what the subject of the science of biological anthropology is. Possible sockpuppet? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This user above me purposely goaded me to break this rule by constantly reverting my edits with no discussion and only mockery or insults. If I made an error then I am sorry and will not do so again, however this person is not wholly guiltless himself. RhymeNero (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that two other contributors had reverted RhymeNero before I did. He/she seems not to understand even the basics of how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I was willing to make compromises and to make modifications but the individual AndyTheGrump seemed to be more inclined to make ad hominem attacks. RhymeNero (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * RhymeNero, a question. Have you contributed to Wikipedia before under another name? Your immediate familiarity with the innermost workings of Wikipedia seems to suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, and wikipedia can check IP adress to make sure. I may have done a few edits here and there but this is my first and only account. I am chemical engineering student so perhaps I simply learn fast. RhymeNero (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks and smells like a baited hook to me. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking very much like a sock of a banned user at this point, also blatant 3rr violation. Monty  845  05:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence at all? There is none, because I am not a sock and you can scour the entirety of wikipedia to find it but you will not. Because this is my only account that I've ever had. RhymeNero (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever: in any case, you are edit warring - and your arguments are based on nothing but your own opinions. Wikipedia content is based on published sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And your arguments are also based on nothing more than opinions but I'm at least using legitimate ones while you simply resort to name calling. RhymeNero (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mttll reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: Protected)
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 user is consistently removed sourced material, claiming the source is an amateur source. The user is refusing to cite all numbers (as a range or so) with their sources to give a comprehensive idea of the number estimates in the absence of any official census or even estimates. The user is simply sticking to a Turkish language reference that talks about numbers of native Arabic speakers to claim these are the numbers of Arabs in Turkey, ignoring that most Arabs in Turkey have lost their mother tongue. The source used by the user estimates the number of Arabs in Turkey to be 500,000, when an American congress study talks about Hatay province (1.5 million) being predominantly Arab. The user refuses to put these facts in the article and keep deleting them. Thanks. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who is in the right, or if you're both in the wrong — especially because I'm unfamiliar with the sources in question. I do note that you had to leave the "diff of edit warring/3RR warning" bit blank, because you didn't leave a 3RR warning.  I'm therefore hesitant to block anyone, and thus I've protected the article for a week.  Please work it out at the talk page.  Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for stepping in. Actually, I didn't warn him/her, as I didn't think it's my job to do that. Protecting the page at the current status rewards him/her, as s/he had the last revert on the page, so I suggest reverting to the edit before his last revert before protecting the page. S/He accused me of POV-pushing when s/he is the one doing that. This user is also edit-warring here and with an IP here and earlier on this page. Thanks again. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to leave warning, and except in egregious cases, it's not right to levy a first-time 3RR block on someone who's not been warned. Moreover, we protect pages at their current status in the case of content disputes, regardless of who most recently edited; the only case in which it would be appropriate for me to protect a page and then to revert the most recent edit would be in cases of vandalism by multiple people.  Finally, regarding your links to other pages — none of those are close to current edit warring; we don't issue edit warring blocks for things that happened weeks ago, and the remaining links go to pages where the recent disputes aren't active enough to be blockable.  Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I reported the earlier pages is just to show that this user has this attitude of edit warring. Thanks. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Some facts about the user, عمرو بن كلثوم, here:
 * 1. His dispute is not just with me, but also with two other editors whom I don't personally know. See the talk page of the article: Link.
 * 2. His edits often consists of trying to express his personal views in the article. For example: 1, 2.
 * 3. About sources, he is: (a) very insistent on trying to quote a beyond amateurish website just because it fits his agenda, (b) trying to pick and choose parts he likes from a source, (c) clearly mistaken about what another source is saying and not willing to find out the truth. --Mttll (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

user:68.173.248.54 reported by user:bryonmorrigan (Result: 24 hours)
Modern liberalism in the United States Modern liberalism in the United States

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:

This guy is obviously using reverting to impose an un-scholarly POV on this page. It's pretty blatant, and he HAS been warned. -- Bryon Morrigan --  Talk  16:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted Bryon Morrigan's tendentious edits, painting elements within the Democratic Party who opposed segregation as being conservatives, providing absolutely no sources or scholarly material to back up this claim. What I receive in return for merely reverting unsourced claims are personal attacks and threats.


 * This little routine from Morrigan, pretending to be an impartial mediator, is nothing more than a charade. Examples of his extreme political bents are found all over his user page, including using phrases such as "Christian Taliban", and making unhistorical, revisionist claims, such as that Nazism, a form of socialism, is right wing. Extremists and revisionists such as Bryon Morrigan distoring Wikipedia articles according to their own deep political biases run contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of neutrality and impartiality.--68.173.248.54 (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Clear 3RR violation, and obviously a tendentious agenda behind it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:GPieczenik reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result:Already blocked for legal threats )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 9 May 2012 (edit summary: varied)
 * 2) 16:20, 12 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 492163973 by Staticd (talk)")
 * 3) 22:59, 12 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 492163973 by Staticd (talk)")
 * 4) 23:33, 12 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 492163973 by Staticd (talk)")

—Tgeairn (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning: here, and here
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: here
 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection request: Can the page phage display be semi-protected against IPs and new users because the user in question has used multiple IPs previously and going by his absolute and arrogant disregard for all forms of wikipedia policy, I fear he will disrupt everyones work with edits from a IP or a new account. Thanks. Staticd (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Without showing proof, no, I will not preemptively do so. Let us know if it does happen ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, he has started re-adding the claims and irrelevant links one example under an IP, not a peep on his talk page. Please semi protect to force some sort of discussion. Editing rights for this editor just enables him to tromp around like a tank while we shout ourselves hoarse on the talk pages. too much inefficiency and wikistress all around. Staticd (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by User:Pdfpdf (Result: Malformed driveby)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Nikoli%C4%87&curid=14697520&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAndrew_Nikoli%C4%87&action=history

Despite unbelievably lengthy discussion on the talk page, Youreallycan seems to be obstructionist, likes to make demonstrably and obviously false statements, and seems to like to edit-war. I've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, but Youreallycan refuses to explain himself, refuses to reply to questions, and refuses to supply references to support his opinions which he presents as facts. When factual counterarguments, with supporting references, are presented to him, he ignores them and presses on editwarring regardless.

He has now taken to making libelous statements, false statements, and accuse me of being a sockpuppet, all without any supporting evidence. I think this is unacceptable, but don't know what to do about it - I've had no response to a help me that I posted over an hour ago.

His talk pages (yes, he has two), seem to suggest that he likes conflict. I don't think he should be rewarded for being more obnoxious than everybody else he encounters. I'm going to bed now. Goodnight, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus, if you're simply going to drop a partially-formed report and "go to bed" without opportunity for follow-up questions or concerns, then you're really not trying to resolve anything ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeez. Just close ranks, why dontcha? Why should OffToRioRob get away with stuff just cos he trolls around ANI and Mummy Jimbo's page all day? Another example of one rule for newbies, no rules for "the cogniscenti." 86.135.17.155 (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A single-entry IP from the neighborhood of the banned user "Light current" accuses someone else of trolling. That's rich. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Block 'em both. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Although there are fans of OTRR/YRC's self-appointment to the job of policy policeman, it's hardly "closing ranks" to advise the use of the required format and specific diffs in drawing up what seems to be a litany of serious complaints about his behaviour.  Writegeist (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and I hardly think I would be considered one of those fans. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The nature of the blocks leaves a great deal to be desired. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

18hangar18 reported by User:Nmate (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user began editing articles like Miklós Horthy, Hungarization and Slovakization that contain contentious pieces of POV material. I tried to invite the user to participate in a discussion on the matter ,however, said user did not listen to me, and continued edit-warring on calling Miklos Horty a facist instead.--Nmate (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * . I'll also note that you, Nmate, are at 3 reverts, which is fine, but make sure you don't go over that. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Jabotito48 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This page, like all pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed, is subject to 1RR. See WP:ARBPIA. Editors who violate 1RR may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. See Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement, which is on the Talk page of dozens of articles Jabotito48 edits. (Note: the template was not on Talk:List of massacres in Israel at the time of Jabotito48's infraction, but the editor works exclusively in the subject area and should be familiar with it.) I offered Jabotito48 the opportunity to self-revert, but the editor has chosen to ignore my message. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

User:70.101.104.207 reported by User:Favonian (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 01:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User:91.176.223.236 reported by User:GrayFullbuster (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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments: Besides edit warring, IP also appears to be a sock of Yengamaurice [|User:Yengamaurice] given that after said user was warned for possible edit warring, such IP appeared made the same edits, which is reverted edits done by User:Tintor2 and myself. IP and supposed sockmaster also messaged Tintor2 telling them to stop reverting their edits. User and reported IP have already been reported to SPI for likelihood of sockpuppetry given their edits. GrayFullbuster (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bluesatellite reported by User:Itsbydesign (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: [link]

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

Comments:

User is blindly reverting, removing properly cited information along with fixes to verbiage, wikilink and addition of new material. User also continuously moved article, disregarding Wikipedia policy, which was explained on the user's talk page. User made no attempted at a discussion. He/she stated in edit messages about a discussion on the article's talk page. Here, the user directs to a poster using the article of "the", which is not in adherence to policy. User appears to have no regard for policies set forth within Wikipedia. Itsbydesign (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I just reverted all undiscussed change you have made. You even didn't bother to explain anything on the article's talk page before making change you like. Wikipedia is not your own site, every crucial thing should be disucessed first on the article's talk page (not by warning me on my personal talk page). That's it. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not the first person to have problem with your blindly, undiscussed change. Administator should take a look to these WP:3RR violations , before blaming me for this edit-warring. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Cristiano Tomás reported by User:92.36.173.254 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and  (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is impossible to work with. I have actually begged him to discuss, to no avail. He had been ignoring all my attempts to discuss the issue so I warned him twice that I would report him for edit warring. He first responded by ignoring the warning and then by saying: go ahead and report me. I am afraid I had no other option. While the reverts did not happen within 24 hours, I believe it is more than obvious that the user has no intention of ever discussing anything with me. 92.36.173.254 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Calypso13 reported by User:MichiHenning (Result: )
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:

Comments:

I'm looking for help how to deal with this. It appears to be a case of retaliatory editing, in response to the speedy deletion of Gerald Achee (which has just been re-created following the speedy deletion in early May.

Please see the talk page. Repeated requests to provide reliable sources as to the notability of the persons in question have been ignored. I strongly suspect that Calypso13 is Gerald Achee or a close associate of Gerald Achee --MichiHenning (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit war appears to be ongoing: I'm not familiar enough with this kind of problem to be sure; should this trigger the three revert rule? --MichiHenning (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

User:MarcusHookPa reported by User:Mr.choppers (Result: protected, rights revoked, blocks next time)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: (at redirect page)
 * 6th revert: (at redirect page)
 * 7th revert: (at redirect, may be over 24 hours but the edit warring continues apace)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, in edit summary

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

Comments:

User also has a history of edit warring and has been warned several times in the past:,. He is currently trying to creat POV forks at Subaru Legacy Outback and Subaru Impreza Outback Sport.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see bad behavior here by multiple editors. There are multiple editors and lots of reverts on both sides of this argument.  Mr.choppers and others are employing a tactic they have employed in the past - gutting an article in an attempt to force their desire to merge that article with another.  It is Wikibullying at its worst.  I suggest protecting the article, as well as a bit of discipline behavioral encouragement to the multiple editors involved in the current edit war.  Ebikeguy (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to second this comment. There has been a repeated, wholesale and abrupt merger of the Subaru Baja article (now protected also) without the first attempt at creating consensus. This behavior invites poor behavior from others.  It's clear from some of the name calling here that Marcus is not alone at fault.842U (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've previously dipped into this article and there was a discussion prior to its reorganisation, so I think the term bullying used by Ebikeguy is rather strong. The more recent and multiple wholesale reverts by MarcusHookPa were without reference to that debate or older discussion in the talk page, and no attempt to edit the article - just to revert. Warren (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I admitted my wrong doing, I overlooked the talk page; however, Mr.choppers blatantly ignored the concerns or others and continues to do so even after the consensus was split and then favoring my actions. I may have violated WP guidelines, but Mr.choppers did also, he reverted nearly as many times as I did and, as stated prior, ignored the concerns of others. I would also have to say that this is Wikibullying because the general consensus seems to be favoring my actions, while Mr.choppers and OSX have been reverting the article regardless of the concerns of others. MarcusHookPa (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I also would like to add that I was planning to stop working on the Subaru articles until concerns from others rose about the integrity of the article. The only reason that I continued my work on the articles is because of the concerns from others that were blatantly ignored by OSX, Mr.choppers, and possibly Warren. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * various articles that you people are cross-article edit-warring on; revoked rollbacker from Mr.Choppers for using rollback in an edit war. Since there seems to be confusion on the matter, let me make this perfectly clear: edit warring to begin with is not acceptable. Edit warring across 6&mdash;SIX&mdash; articles is woefully unacceptable...and those are just the ones that popped out to me. If I missed a few dozen, make no mistake, this warning applies to those as well. All of you should take this as your one and only warning: anyone who continues this edit war in any way, shape, or form&mdash;no matter how right you think you are&mdash;is fair game for a block. Resolve your disputes and build consensus first. If it requires opening an RFC, then I highly encourage you to do so as soon as possible. This ends now. -- slakr  \ talk / 07:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for your intervention—we needed it thanks to Marcus. However, I am very concerned that you've protected the version that Marcus decided we should have rather than the version accepted by all other editors. Please restore the the version that the consensus originally agreed to. It's such a shame we have such vicious trolls like Marcus here; editors that should be blocked immediately. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if people did read the consensus first rather than taking in the Marcus Hook's drivel unquestioned. The decision to undertake the merger was made here and here. North wiki, Regushee, OSX, IFCAR, Bookster45, Warren Whyte, Mr.choppers, Pineapple Fez all agreed with the merger. User:O was the sole editor opposing this. After the merger was done, Marcus then came along and decided his vote is worth so much more than everyone else's—drawing a consensus at 2 votes versus the 8 editors supporting the merge! I believe the protection should therefore reflect the views of the original 8 editors, not the 2 opposers. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from disparaging another editor's comments so rudely. This is disruptive. "The Merger" at the Subaru Baja article was never discussed on that page.  The article was then reverted to a merger several times without discussion.  This is disruptive editing.  Please resolve your disputes and start again using consensus building.  Thanks. 842U (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Disparaging? I thanked the editor for intervening and pointed out an error in their judgement. That is not disparaging. I don't care about the Baja. We're dealing with the Outback here. The Baja can stay separate as far as I care. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the editors involved here are classic participants in edit warring and intimidation. They are members of a sect within WikiProject Automobiles that exhibit protectionist behavior continuously. They aren't interested in information, rather protection of their "fiefdom" and use a committee approach to everything they perceive as belonging to them, and any edits made to articles they perceive as belonging to them, will be approved by them, or they will be reverted. The assertion that consensus has been achieved with regards to articles being edited only applies to members of the cabal that matter. Consensus in its genuine definition is not what they are interested in. To the mediator, good luck.(Regushee (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

User:PDS Expert reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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


 * 1st revert for PDS Expert (immediately after last IP revert):
 * 2nd revert for PDS Expert::
 * 3rd revert for PDS Expert::


 * And another revert from the IP:
 * And now the named account has returned:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: before and  after PDS Expert's latest revert, before PDS Expert removed it. Similar history at Passive optical network, without IP.

Comments:

Long-term promotional edit warring, two reverts today there and three today on passive optical network. The same text has been inserted into protective distribution system over the past couple of months. PDS Expert created Cable manufacturing business earlier today, apparently promoting Cable Management, Inc. (which geolocates to the same place as the IP), which was deleted as spam. Cable Management, Inc. changed their name to "Armored Shield", which figures prominently in the diffs above. The IP and now the named account appear to be trying to place the new trade name into the articles: I find no evidence that the term is generic. PDS Expert has removed the warnings and attempts at discussion from their talkpage.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IP is picking up today where they left off with the named account.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Named account is back after removing my notification of this discussion then reverting as linked above.   Acroterion   (talk)   15:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 07:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

99.192.75.90, 99.192.61.78, 99.192.75.44 reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Additional reverts made after posting this notice Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This user says the continuity reference to Last Cigarette Ever is WP:OR. I have argued on the talk page that their claims over WP:OR are overrode by WP:Common sense. This IP basically ignored my warning at 17:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC) on User talk:99.192.61.78. They edited as 99.192.61.78 at 17:24, so they should have received my warning before changing IPs. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thegreyanomaly has just arrived at this page and does not seem aware that the article has been under attack by a persistant vandal for over two weeks who has registered several one-time-only-use accounts and used a variety of IP addresses to make the same vandalism edits. Reverting vandalism is not a violation of 3RR. 99.192.75.90 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, it is this IPs opinion that this is vandalism. To me and others this is a policy dispute over WP:OR. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 06:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

User:ULC4me reported by User:NatGertler (Result: 31h)
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:

Comments: Not a WP:3RR case due to the time over which its been done, but editor has been repeatedly making the same revert against consensus (four different editors have undone the revert and one other has addressed it on user and article talk page; no other significant editing has taken place during this period.) Editor has been warned and has been repeatedly encouraged to take it to talk page, via edit summary and via his talk page. Also has received an NPOV warning for same edits. Editor is a WP:SPA; the only article space edit he's done not on this article was on article for founder of the church that is the subject of this article. Edits are perceived as having a strong promotional tendency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGertler (talk • contribs)


 * Both FisherQueen and I left messages to ULC4me at around 11:00 UTC this morning. S/He has not edited since that time. I'm willing to give this account one last chance to take the issue to the talk page; that said, I'm also ready to block if one more revert happens without discussion. I think no action is the best course at this time—especially since ULC4me has made no edits since the messages earlier today. —C.Fred (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I was ready to block if one more revert happened, and it did. Blocked for 31 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Hospitaller2003 reported by User:Yopie (Result: )
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 user talk page:, , ,. He deleted without explanation infobox, interwiki, categories, wikilinks, references, picture etc. in the article, and was informed and warned four times, that he must explain his deletion, but without reply.

I know, that it is not classic 3RR vio, but it is edit-warring - six reverts in nine days, without comment or explanation. Is clear, that his edits are disrupting, because deletion of categories, interwiki etc. is disruptive.

Comments:

--Yopie (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

User:147.114.44.209 reported by User:Widefox (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: [diff]
 * 2nd revert: [diff]
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff] a few hours outside 24hr - likely gaming system

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

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

Comments:

long-term edit warring, and other disruptive issues - am listing here as courtesy for editor who incorrectly listed at AIV:
 *  – vandalism after final warning. Right back from block was blocked for 1 month for block evasion.Appears to a sock through not sure. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it vandalism to improve an article? is it vandalism to use the discussion pages? NO! This is a case of Irish Nationalists averting the course of Fact on wikipedia and gaming the 1RR rule and getting away with it. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia anymore. Damned!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.209(talk) 16:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC) 
 * reporting for 3RR violation, long-term edit warring and yes is a sock. Just not getting through to this editor that their actions are not acceptable. book -> throw. Widefox (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  The IP is at 3RR but has not yet broken it, and has not edited that page since the warning. If they make a fourth revert, report atWP:EWN. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Widefox (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

User:PlatonPskov reported by User:Kober (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Beyond being an extremely poorly cooperative user, PlatonPskov continues to wage edit war on Svan people, despite [my attempts at dissuading him from implementing controversial changes amid the ongoing discussion on [[Talk:Svan people]] and the related Talk:Mingrelians. To make things worse, he has been using personal attacks and ad hominem remarks, such as labeling me "supporter of Stalin", "supporter of pseudo-science", etc. on Talk:Mingrelians. --KoberTalk 16:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ))) Dear! I not attacks you. I against the politic in sciences (in Georgia and the World) ,against language policy of Stalin (assimilation, Georgianisation) in Georgian SSR and now. --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:


 * 1) Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Can not hear the arguments, except their own. Playing rules (the war with a party edits : 1 + 2 - After connecting a mediator, but to no avail -> 1 + 2. --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) The article commented Talk:Svan people arguments and edited - still went to cancel the update in spite of sources --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but GeorgianJorjadze is not part of the discussion and his arrival on the battlefield was a response to your unilateral edits when the discussion was still going on. We, you and me, have been engaged in the discussion. So it's our responsibility to achieve a consensus and prevent the page from being torn apart in an edit war. I've asked you several times to remain civil and don't implement controversial changes when the discussion is ongoing.--KoberTalk 16:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You see all the one-sided (unilateral) -PlatonPskov (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Admin comment: It is hard to escape the impression that part of the problem here is PlatonPskov's very poor command of English. Competence is required in editing Wikipedia, and that includes competence in English. Of course, people with imperfect and non-native command of English are generally welcome on Wikipedia (I am one myself), and there are many things people with imperfect English can usefully do, but negotiating complex NPOV issues over how to represent academic consensus in sensitive ideological questions may not be one of them, if one's English isn't sufficient to make one's thoughts clearly understood and to understand others. Question to both participants: do you feel that PlatonPskov's English has been a factor in hampering dispute resolution in this case? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do feel that and I have noted this barrier on the article talk page, but I still think this is not the main reason behind his recalcitrance and refusal to accept a number of academic sources I have cited.--KoberTalk 05:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes... I am a supporter of the two points of view (oficial and scientific (linguistic)) /WP:neutral point of view/. I do not deny academic sources (that was said). You Kober, reject another point of view scientific (linguistic)). (Games with rules: the requirements of academic sources on the second point of view. Rejecting other sources and logic) --PlatonPskov (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the edit warring on that article is actually by GeorgianJorjadze: he has made numerous reverts, and done most of them without giving any edit summary justifications at all. GeorgianJorjadze appears unwilling to engage with other editors in the article's talk page (he has made no posts there) yet on the few occasions when he does give an edit summary justification, it is along the lines of "Discuss first on talk page". Faced with that sort of editing and that sort of editor, it is easy to understand why PlatonPskov (who has at least been trying to engage with others on the article's talk page) can start to feel the only option is to indulge in reverting as well. Kober is incorrect if he is saying that discussion and consensus is needed before inserting material. I don't think "ongoing discussion" is a valid reason to block and delete new additions to the article as long as they are properly cited and on-topic (even if they are controversial, since "controversial" does not mean "wrong", and a "controversial" label is often a matter of opinion). Meowy 20:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Separately: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --PlatonPskov (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Patagonian reported by User:Emerson7 (Result: Stale)
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: Cafe Odeon discussion diff,

Comments:


 * revert #3 was executed by, evidence strongly suggests it is Patagonian's sockpuppet.
 * Yes, it's Patagonian. Probably not a sock. Just forgot to log in: []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:WhiteWriter (Result: )
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: diff

Comments:

This is clear example of gaming the system. It is not in 24h, but user doing this constantly. leave it for few days, and then restart edit warring. User was blocked 10 times for edit warring in the past, among other things, while longest block was just five days. Talk page is useless, as user only repeats his own POV, without any possible compromise from that side, and all with rude comments like "nationalistic nonsense", etc... More about his violation, next to the chronic edit warring can be seen here. User is hiding behind the "everything is clear, fact and sourced" arguments, while it is actually not like that. I asked for 3O in order to gain someone else who is neutral, but none still responded. I want to conclude with fact that this article is under the scope of ARBMAC, and therefor, one sided edit war must be stopped, at once. WhiteWriterspeaks 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes well, these are User:WhiteWriter's reverts on the exact same issue. Frankly I can't believe he's reporting me here. I will enclose reverts posted by his good friend  whom he has no doubt invited to help him edit-war so that he may post this report, and really quite ironically - game the system himself . However, while they may look like "something" all piled up like that, when spread out over the course of several days in my view they appear a lot less noteworthy.


 * The bottom line, in my view, is that 3RR has not been violated, and that WhiteWriter is abusing this noticeboard to further his position in a content dispute. His position being without any sources whatsoever, I might add as a side note. Further, having not violated 3RR, I already made clear, in underlined statement, that I have no intention whatever of continuing the edit war. I believe this is also a "preemptive report", as I have indicated I intend to bring WhiteWriter's actions up in the appropriate venue. Unless it is felt punitive action is appropriate, I hope sanctions shall not be thought necessary. Needless to say, I intend to abide by my previously given statement on not reverting again. In closing I'll add that I've not been properly notified of this report either. -- Director  ( talk )  19:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WW and DIREKTOR focusing on past blocks that happened about half a year ago is counterproductive. Regarding this dispute DIREKTOR's total reverts are two in the past 24 hours (WW has 1 revert like PRODUCER and Antidiskriminator, who was warned about another edit-war recently (May 2012) by Toddst1, has two reverts too). That being said since you're both counting reverts in a given period, it should be mentioned that you have about the same number of total reverts (5). There's already been a report on ANI about your content dispute and like I said reports with arguments that apply to all participants are not the way to get ahead in content disputes.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 20:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted my self that time, and that, so called first was more then 20 days ago. Fabrication. Also, i didnt invited anyone in that discussion, so that is rude fabrication and false accusation that anyone disagrees with DIREKTOR was invited in, send for, etc.. User:Antidiskriminator gave you arguments and wiki rules, but you have ignored them. Also, i would completely agree to disband this report if user DIREKTOR really stick to his statement that he will not revert this article anymore, unless we gain consensus on talk page. I will not leave that page until we agree on something, but without editwarring. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * this edit summary actualy shows the intentional assumption of bad faith and it is intentionaly provocative and insulting in this context. This user has abused of this for long time now, and has allways menaged to get unpunished with the excuse "yes, I know I am not civil, but anyway..." Enough.  Also, this user Direktor has been persuing for long time now a strange agenda of replacing official languages with an inexisting former one, this has become disruptive as he never seeks to gain consensus but he allways edit-wars. FkpCascais (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think that sentence "Rv Serbian nationalist vandalism" is indeed insulting - Serbian language is the official language of the Republic of Serbia and usage of this language in the articles about Serbia is certainly not example of "Serbian nationalist vandalism". It is clear to me that this user have an anti-Serbian political attitude and that he wants to implement his attitude with aggressive revert warring. PANONIAN  22:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "Serbian" language separate and independent from Serbo-Croatian. Anyone looking to foist that minority pseudo-nationalist view by resorting to administrative actions against other editors requires a swift dose of WP:BOOMERANG. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Constitution of Serbia: Language and script, Article 10. "Serbian language and Cyrillic script shall be in official use in the Republic of Serbia." -- WhiteWriterspeaks 23:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba, this is rather philosophical question. The point is that Serbian language is the official language of Serbia and as such it is recognized in Wikipedia (there is Wikipedia in this language, you know: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Главна_страна ). It is not question whether this language is same as Serbo-Croatian or not. It is an official language of an democratic country, i.e. the official language used by all citizens of that country and it is very insulting if one want to claim that usage of this name for this language is "nationalistic" (that would mean that all citizens of Serbia who using this language are nationalists and that is obviously an insult addressed to entire nation). It is simply not example of acceptable rhetorics here. PANONIAN  23:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the following should be noted:
 * 1. DIREKTOR have a very long block log: . Since user obviously did not improved his behavior, I think that some more serious sanctions are needed,
 * 2. Besides "Serbian nationalist vandalism" insult, DIREKTOR also posted threat adressed to other user that he will "report this vandalism": . Note that this is content dispute and that opponent of user DIREKTOR is an established user and is certainly not a proven vandal. So, what we have here is a long history of revert warring, evidence of repeated disruptive revert warring behavior, evidence of ethnic-based political attitude, evidence of incivility, evidence of threats sent to other users and evidence of bad faith assumption towards other users. PANONIAN  23:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Raulseixas reported by User:Radiopathy (Result: No action for the moment)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * The edit war seems to have stopped, so I'd rather avoid issuing blocks. Should it reignite, please reopen this thread. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Raulseixas reported by User:Radiopathy (Result: No action for the moment)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * The edit war seems to have stopped, so I'd rather avoid issuing blocks. Should it reignite, please reopen this thread. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:81.98.252.198 reported by hgilbert (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 11:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


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

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5


 * 6
 * 7
 * 8
 * Diff of warning: here

The IP user is adding material to this article about education that is sourced to a blog by a pharmacologist. Note that, aside from the anyway egregious violation of WP:RS, this article is under arbitration restrictions only to use peer-reviewed sources.
 * Talk page discussion and attempt to resolve: here

—hgilbert (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

user:Ubiquinoid reported by User:Moxy (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Despite an ongoing t;ak on the matter and being warned the editor refuses to stop edit waring. We have a very high profile article were a talk in ongoing about over linking.


 * all can be seen here X 6 reverts all the same. We have many days of reverts and 4 in the last 24 hours.
 * warning to stop here .. next edit was a revert again.


 * Per the Canada talk page: When an editor (Nikkimaria) reverts, doesn't partake in discussion on the talk page yet defers other editors to it, and persists, 'peanut gallery editing' is exactly what that behaviour is, despite the other editor's accomplishments. In fact, I would expect an administrator, no less, to conduct themselves better.  If retracting that commentary fosters amity, I offer it, but see no reason to. Ubiquinoid (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As well, to have edit war means there are sides ... and a number of editors have exhibited similar behaviour in this dispute (over de/linking of relevant terms in the lead) - consult the talk page and history. Ubiquinoid (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct others are edit warring - but only you have broken the 3 revert rule at this point. Others have not achieved over 3 reverts as of yet - or I would also report them. Edit warring on any article let alone a high profile article is not positive for anyone - editors and our readers alike. I agree all have been editing Willy- Nilly at this point. Could we get you  here an now to commit  to  talking about this over reverting/editing the same thing..  As I said on your talk page I dont want to see you (or anyone) blocked for simply linking or unlinking words -  but disruptive editing will not be tolerated by me on our FA and GA articles. Moxy (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As you know, I have been discussing this issue throughout but I will not edit war if others do not. Ubiquinoid (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So to be clear your saying you will revert the edits again if they are changed again? So you will edit war if others do right?Moxy (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If a consensus doesn't support removing the links, and it currently does not, I will deliberate doing so. Ubiquinoid (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok then if you believe thats how it works all the best of luck. Consensus - Editing policy . Moxy (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

User:BetterIndia reported by User:Sitush (Result: A day)
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: The entire of User talk:BetterIndia. I also left notes at User talk:49.138.115.91 and User talk:49.138.197.27, who seems likely to be the same person.

Comments:

Problems relating to addition of unsourced material re: this caste have been occurring across several articles, involving IPs in the 49.138.* range and, eg: Lunar Dynasty. Please note that just prior to the start point listed above, I had done a large policy-compliant edit of the article: removing gibberish, duplication, BLP violations, unsourced puffery etc and also re-removing content previously taken out by others (eg: see this). - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (and an editing restriction) Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:71.127.130.83 reported by User:IRWolfie- (Result:blocked by another Admin for 48 hours )
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

then he moved to Jimbo's page pasting the same content:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5
 * 6
 * 7
 * 8
 * 9
 * 10
 * 11
 * 12
 * 13

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

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

Comments:


 * User is already blocked. Since I don't work here, I will let someone else cleanup.  Maybe next month I will drag the mop in here.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  16:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Crzyclarks reported by User:Wikiwind (Result: A day)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Undid revision 493218485 by Scientiom (talk) Best to differentiate between homosexuals and who's, perhaps does a lesso scene in a porno.
 * 2nd revert: Undid revision 493223525 Unless the information added was wrongly put that the studies came to the 1-3% conclusion, and the 2-13% separate conclusion, then it should state what the studies actually say
 * 3rd revert: Undid revision 493225503 Had a look at the sources, unfortunately several of them require payment to view. The ones that I did see, said varied things, none said homosexuality was over 1-3% (except 1)
 * 4th revert: Undid revision 493233482 by Wikiwind What do you mean stable? The sources have put the number of homosexual people at 1-3%. Same sex contact is separate, at 2-13%
 * 5th revert: Undid revision 493235589 I'm not the one who originally made the change. Combining two very different results into one, separate from the studies is OR. It's also synthesising. Justify it on the talk page before editing.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: already warned two days ago for edit warring on the same article, also see this

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Homosexuality -- В и к и  T   19:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Comments:


 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:TopGun (Result: 1 week (escalation of previous) )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

1RR Sanction:

Warned 1RR warning and a courtesy chance to self revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: JCAla was warned for repeatedly baiting my 1RR restriction in attempts to get me to editwar. I however did not fall for it and asked an admin to intervene at which JCAla was put on 1RR when reverting me or another user with 1RR. This restriction was still violated by JCAla once before; that report was filled in by him with walls of text which saved him a block but was still put under a 30 day 0RR type restriction. Not learning from that, he has again made a second revert on my edits masked with some fixing of links. While I might not disagree with fixing of those links, I do however disagree with 1) his change of sentence structure and 2) his gaming the edits to look as such that I can not make any further edits to the article now or I will appear to violate 1RR construed as reverting content contributed once before since my edits will not be apparently consecutive. This is plain violation of 1RR on his part as he again amended content that he first removed and was reverted by me. I'm really tired of such attempts to bait me.. even the first removal by JCAla was inspite of discussion present on the talk page which objected to the removal in so many words just on WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. Also note that JCAla first tried to mislead about his restriction in the previous report till I quoted the words to him. Just in case this is acted on late, the case is not stale because this is a repeated violation and not taking action on this report will definitely cause repeated such acts as evident from previous cases which were marked as stale and yet this happened. -- lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) First one was a revert of content rejected repeatedly per WP:BRD for which TG failed to build consensus and for which he failed to provide a working ref.
 * 2) Second is not a revert. Content was left in article, but embedded into context, plus a working source was provided (homework for TG) and context of the verifiable source added.
 * 3) The rest is complete nonsense which I will refrain from commenting.
 * JCAla (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * JCAla has repeatedly invoked BRD to revert to his favoured version. That is not what BRD is. He later sneaked out the content when I made a normal revert with explanation to another user so that I couldn't revert him because of 1RR. It was later restored and was objected just now and got reverted. JCAla should have completed the discussion in the first place. He instead chose to revert. Since JCAla has agreed the first edit was a revert, I'll not explain it further. The second edit was a clear cut amend of the reverted content which is also a revert. The fact that he fixed a link does not make the rest of his edit not a revert. JCAla, you have not done me any favour by correcting that link either. See WP:VOLUNTEER. I can't care less if you didn't. The ref was present, the link was not working but JCAla removed the ref without respecting WP:DEADLINK and WP:SOURCEACCESS. That is in the vandalism category actually. These are two reverts in anycase. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Complete nonsense. TG restored the content for which he repeatedly failed to gain consensus on May 8 (talking of baiting, when I couldn't edit the page) and he also restored other unsourced content which was rejected by other editors about the film industry (but that is not the issue here). I did one revert. TG reverted again. THEN, I did nothing but provide a verifiable source (which he failed to do all along), correct spelling and provide the context for the content. The content was not removed a second time. I am not aware of any sanction that would hinder TG of improving the content and its language. Whether the content as a whole belongs into that article will have to be resolved by RFC. We have several sections of different articles now that are bad quality because TG is blocking any positive work on it and simply refusing to discuss on content on the talk pages, instead he has made it his hobby to cite unrelated wikipedia essays and repeatedly bother wikipedia noticeboards with nonsense - first complaining about people citing too many sources, now complaining about the provision of historical context and the improvement of spelling all the while on-content discussions remain unanswered. He is also suddenly popping up on articles I just edited few hours earlier which are not in the Pakistan-Afghanistan-India topic area and which, in recent history, he never edited before. JCAla (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will not respond to the personal attacks about "my hobbies" because JCAla does not seem to understand cited policies, essays and guidelines. For the article I edited, I just updated its hatenote which has nothing to do with JCAla's edits and I don't even want to edit that article in future. This was a cheap shot at me creating more walls of text which help JCAla avoid blocks always. I made a single edit and JCAla reverted a second time... there's nothing more than that which I could do as a single revert is not disruptive in anyway and just shows that objection from the past is still standing. JCAla has however made two reverts which I reported. I'll try not to respond further to keep this short. JCAla can have the last word. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

is likely a sockpuppet of and banned. He is also likely behind. JCAla has been defending the minority Shias of Afghanistan-Pakistan since 2010, the same thing Inuit18 was doing, and bashing Sunni groups of Afghanistan and Pakistan (Pashtuns, Taliban, Pakistan's politicians). This indicates that he is Shia and the users Hazara-Birar and Gharjistan are both obviously Hazara Afghan Shias. If an admin files a SPI or run a CU they will be able to confirm all of this. Btw, Hazara-Birar is located in Melbourne, Australia, and has used these socks: User:Hazaraboyz, User:Hazaraboys, User:TheHazaraBoy, User:Nurbandma, User:Time Buddha, and a number of others.--182.177.111.174 (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL. Above IP-sock is indef. banned User:Lagoo sab. If anyone needed any more proof that there is a politically-motivated hounding campaign going on, well, there it is. Will the hounders at least find a common line of approach. I may point out that it is inconsistent when one accuses me of defending a Sunni Afghan group versus a Shia group and the other accuses me of "bashing Sunni groups of Afghanistan" and "defending the minority Shia". JCAla (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The personal attack above should be taken as a second offense for accusing me of hounding in league with a banned user who actually called me a sock puppet similarly and got blocked not a long time ago . No more to say to this as I think this is an attempt to malign this report. I "hat"ed this part but was partially reverted. I request an admin to fully hat this useless discussion unrelated to the report. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * TG coming to an article he never edited before, which isn't even in the Afghanistan-Pakistan-India topic area, mere hours after I edited it for the first time is hounding. I guess I do not need to provide diffs for Lagoo sab's hounding. Enough said. JCAla (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that an IP address and Top Gun have both been blocked for 12hrs for edit-warring on this very report. Should ANY OF YOU believe that there are socks in play, you report them to WP:SPI and do not remove any aspects of reports because you believe they are a sock.  Shameful. It is probably also the time for either an interaction ban between TopGun and JCAla if not some kind of topic ban, but this is not the place for such a discussion ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)