Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive186

Juhachi: reported by Superboy:137.52.209.97 (Result: Stale)
Hourou Musuko: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Son

Juhachi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Juhachi

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wandering_Son&diff=493167169&oldid=493142156


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wandering_Son&oldid=493087651
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wandering_Son&oldid=493094434
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wandering_Son&oldid=493123677
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wandering_Son&oldid=493137675

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Juhachi#Hourou_Musuko_Agressive_Editing

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

Comments: Juhachi doesn't understand the broad overarching theme of the manga which is transsexuality, and erases mention of LGBT issues from the pages work and describes everything as crossdressing when accurately and transgender resource will say that a transperson wearing the clothes of their identified gender is not considered crossdressing http://www.spectrumwny.org/info/gender_id101.htm Juhachi has stated such cissexist commentary such as "Yuki has already transitioned, so she's a woman" and has demonstrated a refusal to respect a transsexual person until after SRS, which is unreasonable in this situation because they are transchildren and can neither come out to their parents or receive treatment. Also, defining a transperson by their genitals goes directly against the common courtesy and teachings of Transsexuality, which is unacceptable in a page connected to the LGBT Wikiproject. The Wikipedia code of conduct requires transpeople to be referred to by their personal gender identity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IDENTITY#Identity, and the page for Birdo has been edited to reflect that, showing that it does indeed apply to fictional characters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdo, who nevertheless represent the struggles of real people.


 * I realize I may have acted rashly, but I felt I was justified in my reverts based on Wikipedia policy, as stated at Talk:Wandering Son, even more so since the article's a GA and must maintain a certain level of quality to retain that status. Even if MOS:IDENTITY could be applied to fictional characters, that's not what the guideline was written for. Not to mention that the first line of that guideline states that WP:V and WP:NPOV trumps MOS:IDENTITY when in cases of disputes, as with this one. The IP also stated as the reader we are aware of their true gender identity but this is simply original research.


 * Furthermore, I contend that the characters in question don't actually identify as the opposite sex, as they have never actually stated they are a member of the opposite sex. Dressing and acting as the opposite sex is not necessarily identifying, or are you suggesting that all drag queens identify as women? I'm not suggesting Shuu is a drag queen, I'm just saying he hasn't actually stated he "is a girl" once; same for Yoshino never saying "I'm a boy". The work itself and reliable sources use the pronouns for the characters biological sexes, so there's no reason why Wikipedia should be any different. This is basically my argument for my reverts. Besides, I wouldn't be the major contributor on the article, nor would I have brought the article to GA, had I had some "extreme prejudice" against transsexualism, as this IP has suggested.--  十  八  13:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . Last revert by Juhachi was yesterday.  However, should it restart I'm probably going to semiprotect the page and see if I can get some of the other editors there to discuss things.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Roscelese (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (each revert will be explained)


 * 1st revert: / these consecutive edits remove material that Adjwilley added here and that I added here
 * 2nd revert: removes material added most recently here by myself but also earlier by Adjwilley
 * 3rd revert: removes material added most recently here by Adjwilley
 * 4th revert: removes material that I added here in an attempt to address one of Kwami's own concerns
 * 5th revert: removes material Adjwilley added here

Diff of edit warring / 4RR warning: (user made a fifth revert after this warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: several sections on talkpage, all (except for arbitrary breaks) started by myself

Comments:

Kwamikagami has reverted five times in the past hour and a half, after an RFC I started found hir to be virtually alone in the desire to remove sourced critical material and after refusing to compromise with other users (eg. here, where I've articulated a problem with Kwami's language misrepresenting the source, but acknowledge hir concerns and, since my compromise solutions have been reverted, ask hir to suggest hir own compromise wording, to which zie replies with the same wording we've already said is a problem). KKG is an experienced user and knows that this is not the way to behave, and I'm tired of this article ownership.

–Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that both editors were willing participants in the edit war. R's edit summary of
 * rstr sourced mtl. at this point, you need to gain consensus to remove what many users agree to keep. "BLP BLP!" =/= secret code for "I can edit-war against consensus to rmv sourced material if I feel like it" rv nonsense removal of Manji paraphrase

is troubling, however. BTW, I only count at most 4RR in the period 18 - 19 May for KKG, and 6RR for Roscolese, the OP here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, you are not a good party to comment at this board given that you've demonstrated in the past that you do not understand RR rules and that you have a habit of spuriously crying BLP while deliberately misrepresenting sources. I am not at 6RR, as can be easily determined by counting my edits, and you should be ashamed of yourself for making this sort of false accusation. Likewise, there is no BLP issue here. BLP is a policy whose purpose is to protect living people that we cover in our encyclopedia, not to serve as a last resort for edit warriors who have repeatedly failed to get a consensus of editors to agree with their opinion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that my generous treatment of both editors here scarcely warrants your tirade in response. Your edit summary, unfortunately, stands out too well.  As for your gratuitous ad homs here -- be glad that an admin did not note them.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * for 48 hours. It would be easy to block both of you, but I'm going to give people there a chance to work things out on the talkpage.  Incidentally, I don't consider this a BLP issue, so using that as a reason to revert doesn't garner any favor from me. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

user:GeorgianJorjadze reported by User:PlatonPskov (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: +

Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive185

Previous version reverted to: (or new)


 * They continued to:
 * 1 1 +
 * 2 2. /again user:GeorgianJorjadze/
 * It is normal? (without discussion and explanation of the reasons). Is there any admins & linguists? --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And again and again, non discussion:
 * 3 ,
 * 4 ,
 * 5 ... +
 * 6 ,
 * 7 ,
 * 8 ,
 * 9 ... How much can you?--PlatonPskov (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Pay attention to this: Deleting a page discussing and the warnings and here. --RosssW (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Again edits without discussion and clarification, the war of edits:
 * 10 +
 * 11 +
 * 12 and now. GeorgianJorjadze the sources did not even look (it is "more important" to cancel without looking). --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 13 And here, without explanation and without discussion. And he introduces destructive changes (information not contained in the sources (See my explanation and critique of the destructive edits of the GeorgianJorjadze: 1-6 points. Below are the arguments of my edits, sources and information: 1-8 points.)) --PlatonPskov (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 14 And here, without explanation and without discussion. I need help! Where are the administrators? --PlatonPskov (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 15 And here... --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 16 And here... --PlatonPskov (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The wars is the approve? --PlatonPskov (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Football history reported by User:Abhishek191288 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:

User is also engaged in an edit war on List of Brazilian football champions. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . Normally I wouldn't action something this far after the fact, but this is a very slow-motion edit war involving one person reverting against consensus, and I think a block could be helpful here. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

User:219.163.197.4, User:219.163.197.5, user:218.225.58.206 reported by User:Jojalozzo (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported: User being reported: These three IPs appear to be the same person.

Previous version reverted to: This is my bold edit. I'm not wedded to it and there may be merit in reverting my edits but the IP(s) just revert and won't discuss.

These diffs span more than 24 hours but it's still an edit war without any discussion going on.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warnings: , , 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has not responded to my requests for discussion. I'd like to get their attention so we can work this out on the talk page. Page protection was refused because the edits "appear to be in good faith". That hasn't stopped the warring. Joja lozzo  04:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Three different IPs who have reverted lately all originate from the same town in Japan. One of the marketing books mentioned in the article was first published in Japanese, and it's not a wild surmise to think that the author or people connected with his school of thought could be reverting the article in concert. Multiple IPs operated by the same person in an edit war is a violation of WP:SOCK. In the ideal case, we would get this person to participate in discussions. At present I don't see many alternatives to semiprotection. The protection might be lifted if the person would join the talk page and stop using multiple accounts. The complete non-response by the IPs after multiple warnings is a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected one month, due to the evident socking, after Dennis Brown indicated on his talk page that he doesn't object. If the editor behind the multiple IPs will join in discussions and express interest in consensus it may be reasonable to lift the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Litmanen87 reported by User:El0i (Result: Indef)
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 edit warring against consensus, I suspect user has edit warred under another account and various IPs and have opened a SPI case El0i (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that this is almost certainly Enkonga100 returning again, I'm blocking indefinitely. Even on the off chance it isn't, then it's probably a meatpuppet. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:World historia‎ reported by User:Kusunose (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

This report is page moving warring, not 3RR violation.

Previous title reverted to: Emperor_Gwanggaeto


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The reported editor keeps to move the page in question from the stable title Gwanggaeto the Great to the new title Emperor_Gwanggaeto. Initially, he/she asked User:SwisterTwister how to move the page, and SwisterTwister moved it. As I see the new title is agaist established guidelines per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NC-KO, and controversial, I reverted. Then the editor him/herself moved the page. I reverted again per WP:STATUSQUO, initiated WP:RM discussion, and notified them. Still, he/she continue to move the page without participating the discussion dispite being warned. --Kusunose 02:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * for 48 hours. Ordinarily, I'd simply protect it on whatever current wrong version I found it at, except that I think moving things in the middle of an RM is highly disruptive, so I've moved it back.  Hopefully this will obviate the need to block. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Kusunose reported by User:World historia (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Gwanggaeto the Great


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

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

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

Comments:


 * In fact, User:World historia is the one edit warring here. There is currently a page move discussion on the article's talk page, with (so far) an overwhelming support for the current name, not the one that World Historia prefers. Until such time as consensus arises for a change in the order, World Historia needs to stop edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * World historia moved Gwanggaeto Stele to Tomb monument of Emperor Gwanggaeto without responding to above requested move. Furthermore the user began edit warring at Tomb monument of Emperor Gwanggaeto. I recommend to block the user for a extended period of time. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:68.45.180.34 reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor insists on the word "captured" instead of "abducted." The article is under 1RR restriction. The editor is already up to 7RR. He was warned. In his last revert he proclaims "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Shalit&diff=prev&oldid=493691964 "We can do this forever. I'll just revert your reversals.]"


 * Slon02 (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

User:BozokluAdam reported by User:Sitush (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * by User:Boing! said Zebedee - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Milkshake6789 reported by User:72Dino (Result:24hr )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

User is edit-warring at Skyfall.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Talk:Skyfall

Comments:

Editor continues to post disputed content without discussion and after being asked in edit summaries and both user and article talk pages. 72Dino (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * much earlier today ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 00:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ladyzaib reported by User:QuiteUnusual (Result:24hr...and now indef )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: User added content per this diff linking to an image. Reverted by User:Animeshkulkarni as a copyright violation. User:Ladyzaib then reverted per the list below making comments that they were the "official" representative of the subject of the article and asserting ownership.


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Conflict of interest warning here link.

Discussion here (on user page not on article talk page): diff, but the user ignored this and all comments on their own talk page.

Comments:

The images the user has been adding have been uploaded to Commons and then speedied as copyvios (two deleted, third copyvio now uploaded there). Basically they seem determined to exercise their "official" status and add copyright violating images to the article. You can see the talk page notices for these images at Commons QU TalkQu 21:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * by one admin, then extended by another ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:91.122.4.153 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:91.122.4.153

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Re-adding original research against consensus - 3 different users have reverted this IP's additions. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Including all the addresses used by this edit, I think it is 7 other editors who have reverted him/her. Requests to discuss this on the talk page are just met with insults. I asked for semi-protection about 2 or 3 hours ago. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius reported by User:Homunculus (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

All reverts pertain to a short paragraph about allegations that Chinese politician Bo Xilai was involved in torture against Falun Gong adherents in northeast China. In particular, editor tried repeatedly to delete reliably sourced information that Bo was indicted by the Spanish National Court on allegations of genocide and torture, and found liable for torture in an Autralian court.

4 reverts within 24-hour period:


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

The only time that Ohconfucius contributed to the talk page discussion during this 24-hour period was to make this WP:FORUM-like comment.

Ohconfucius was warned about breaking the 3RR immediately. He responded by calling this very "droll". I decided to hold off on filing this report for a few days, as I wanted to see if he would become more constructive after the warning. That didn't happen.

Yesterday, I restored some deleted references and information. I explained this edit on the talk page, and several other editors had previously expressed support for the inclusion of this content. I also believed (perhaps wrongly) that Ohconfucius agreed to allow me to correct the inaccurate information on the page.

Ohconfucius again promptly reverted with very terse edit summaries:
 * 
 * 

When I asked him to explain on talk page why he deleted this content again, he declines and makes what I think was intended to be an insult against me (?).

I encouraged the editor to self-revert. He refused.

Attempts to resolve constructively: After his first revert, I asked Ohconfucius in his talk page if he could explain. He did not answer. I then tried numerous times to advance a constructive talk page conversation about the disputed material:  I also asked three previously uninvolved editors to weigh in so as to enable a clearer consensus to emerge..

Additional comments on my involvement: This edit war was catalyzed by an edit that I made, which added some references and noted the outcome of the legal actions. I did not anticipate this change would be controversial. The dispute that ensued was regrettable, as was my involvement. When my repeated attempts to engage Ohconfucius were ignored, I reverted him several times. I did not violate the 3RR, though I came much closer than I would like. After Ohconfucius' most recent revert, I've resolved to stay away entirely from the 'undo' button, and I am going to make a concerted effort in the future to refrain from edit warring. Homunculus (duihua) 04:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Response by Ohconfucius
I thought we were engaged in an iterative process to find the right balance for the article, and felt frustrated that two editors appeared to tag team to impose a certain wording. To his credit, Homunculus seemed to acknowledge that his own action had set off a chain edits. Indeed, this caused Colipon to remove the paragraph outright. but thereafter, not only did he continue in his obstinacy to insert text, he did so in a much more aggressive manner. His three reverts are as follows: 123(+intervening tag-team edit - chronologically between 1 and 2)

I made my one revert. H made some comment on the talk page (at 4:05 am my time), and TSTF responded (at 7:50 am my time) and reincluded the disputed section even before any imaginary ink would have dried. He acted with such apparent haste that I reverted whilst regrettably implying he was behaving like the sidekick of Homunculus. I then proceeded to rewrite the section in wording that I felt was encyclopaedically neutral. This is what my rewritten vision would have resembled in its entirety had Homunculus not performed a blanket revert before I had finished editing after my so called second revert. So, included in the preceding diff was one he labelled as my third revert – an accident caused by an edit conflict that crushed his version – this was clearly noted in my edit summary. Whilst I was in the middle of reintroducing the text as separate sentences, carefully copyedited, he had reinserted the entire disputed paragraph as a block, which then made it look like I reverted a third time. I don't know how he came to the belief that I had "given consent" to allow him to "correct an inaccurate description of lawsuit outcomes," but that matters little. My voice is but one that makes up the consensus.

As to establishing a consensus, I and Colipon made some comments, as had some others noted above. What is ignored is the opinion of Shrigley. Jayen466, who is an expert on religious groups, has edited Falun Gong before, briefly. Ferox also seemed to disapprove of further expansion of the paragraph. At no time has Homunculus proposed to revert to the version prior to the one that precipitated the chain reaction, so his mea culpa seems hollow and disingenuous. This diff shows that despite his acknowledgement, the final version of the offending paragraph is much more aggressive, and has a much weaker consensus supporting it. He attempted to justify it, but the wording remained disputed. I refused his invitation to revert myself, and instead asked him to reexamine his own actions. Of course, I also pointed out that blocks were not meant to be punitive. I warned him he could be blocked pre-emptively "if you are intent on warring"; the underlying implication of my comment was that I would not revert again. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 08:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh this is a yawn. I don't know the issues (and I do have a CoI in that OC is a wikifriend of mine). The reverting is most unfortunate, but the "warring" status is a bit fuzzy. I wonder why both parties don't agree to take this to WP:DRN, where there are people who are prepared to work hard to extract fact, edit histories, and any emotional aspect in such scenarios, to try to find a resolution. Tony   (talk)  12:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tony. I would be open to the idea of dispute resolution, and prior to filing this I inquired with another veteran editor about the best mediation or dispute resolution process to address this. I was advised to file this report. It's my understanding that there is a bright line on the 3RR.  Ohconfucius crossed it. He did so while refusing to discuss on the talk page. Given warnings and advised to self-reverted, he responded by calling this funny, and suggesting he would be immune to blocks declaring that no one would punitively block him. Maybe these details were lost in my verbose report above (sorry). Homunculus (duihua) 12:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're lying again. I never said or implied that I was immune to blocks. I already corrected you once above. And you have the temerity to continue to misrepresent me in this way. Or could it be you're still trying to get me blocked for appearing to be arrogant and blasé? --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 17:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd amended my comment above
 * I don't know what's intended by "you're still trying to get me blocked for appearing to be arrogant and blasé". I have never before tried to get you blocked for anything.  In this case, I'm trying to get you blocked because you broke 3RR,  continued edit warring after being warned, refused to answer good faith questions on the talk page, and refused to self-revert when given the chance. I will say no more.Homunculus (duihua) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for refactoring. Anyone who said they were immune to blocks would rightly be termed "arrogant and blasé", and that's what you implied when you misrepresented my comment. Of course, if you kindly offered me the opportunity of eating/doing something I did not want, I would decline. In the case in question, I did not believe the stance adopted in the article was a reasonable one, so I naturally refused. Voilà! -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Musicfreak7676 reported by User:219.79.91.156 (Result:No violation (although filer *should* have been blocked) )
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: Not applicable, the revert was already on a talk page.

Comments:

Hi there, I don't know if this is the correct way of resolving this. I am not asking for anyone to get blocked, I would just like to get a third opinion on this. I feel like I have lost all possible avenues of engagement with User:Musicfreak7676. I do recognise that my initial bid might have come across as harsh, and yes, I do see the irony of that and I am sorry for that. I have tried to remove what I thought was causing offence in my subsequent attempts, but this was reverted on sight.

All I would like is for my comment to stay on that page, which I believe WP:TALK permits, or in fact encourages. Thanks for any insights. 219.79.91.156 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, quoting from WP:TALK, this is why I think my comment should stay. I have also posted this in my last edit, but it was also reverted.
 * Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.
 * [It's OK to] Remov[e] harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

219.79.91.156 (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note. You are quoting from a section that refers to article talk pages. Please see WP:OWNTALK, Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, which appears to be all Musicfreak is doing. My advice is to forget about it - your comments were read and continuing to re-add them will achieve no further purpose. QU TalkQu 23:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't see that. The sentence does continue saying though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. This however seems inconsistent with the policy I quoted above. 219.79.91.156 (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You would be well to recognize that WP:3RR does apply to your own reverts of someone else's talk page, so beware of the WP:BOOMERANG that your own edit-warring may cause. Elizium23 (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I disagree. I was modifying my comment and trying to accommodate user's complaints about it. I also added the quote of the policy above as a basis of further discussion. You may also notice that I was the one who stopped the war. 219.79.91.156 (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The section I quoted from WP:OWNTALK is a different guideline to WP:TALK and are deliberately inconsistent. That is, the guidelines are intended to be different. You can't rely on WP:TALK to cover actions on a user talk page because it is a guideline related to article talk pages only. QU TalkQu 07:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaah OK sorry my bad, I didn't read your first post properly - nor the policy unfortunately. Still, the "archiving is preferred" clause applies, and I still think that it doesn't make sense to allow users to selectively remove comments that they do not like, for the same reasons why archival of a talk pages makes sense, or the same reasons why removing warnings from your talk page is disallowed. But I guess this should be brought to a different forum. Thanks for your help. 219.79.91.156 (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it's only preferred and not required, the "archiving is preferred" clause really doesn't matter. Oh, and removing warnings from your talk page is not disallowed either. --Onorem♠Dil 13:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:OWNTALK is the valid related policy. Edit-warring do keep your comments on someone's talkpage usually leads to a block of your own.  When told to "go away", you're best to actually go away.  Removal of comments from one's own talkpage is implicit notification that it has been read.  Do not ever replace them in the future ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Theleftorium reported by User:Scott93205 (Result: Scott93205 blocked for 24 hrs)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scott93205

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


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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scott93205

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

Comments:

Sorry if I’m doing this wrong, but I’m engaged in an “edit war,” and find it difficult to navigate this site. I’ve done my best with this template, and understand that before reporting a problem to you, I must notify the contributor with whom I am in conflict that I have taken this action. I don’t know if I’m in conflict with one contributor or two, but I will notify Theleftorium after leaving this page that I have mentioned him/her here.

Theleftorium, according to his/her profile, is a huge fan of THE SIMPSONs on TV (even his/her Username is a reference to the series), and has a problem with a paragraph I wish to add to the page on Harry Shearer. Harry Shearer does eleven voices for THE SIMPSONS, but among film buffs, his biggest claim to fame is that he is (allegedly) “one of only eight individuals” who have seen Jerry Lewis’s unfinished film THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED. Shearer’s name and Lewis’s are intertwined in countless magazine articles, books in several languages, and all over the Internet. I did a Google search on JERRY LEWIS / SHEARER and stopped counting at the thirtieth instance of an article on Lewis containing remarks from Harry Shearer, who is viewed as an authority on Lewis due to his having (allegedly) viewed the clown film, as well as for having written extensively (and negatively) about Lewis’s work for the Muscular Dystrophy Association. I did a search on THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED / SHEARER and stopped counting at the hundredth consecutive instance of Shearer’s name being attached to Lewis’s film, again with wholly negative remarks.

This is what I find significant enough to warrant adding a paragraph to the Harry Shearer page: Initially Shearer’s story was that he had been shown the film “by Lewis himself at a private gathering.”  He told Lewis the film was terrible, and Lewis flew into a rage. But recently Shearer changed his story entirely. He says that Lewis didn’t show him the film after all. Rather, a secret acquaintance of Shearer’s somehow obtained the film from Lewis’s private vault and shared it with him. I think this information is worth sharing, and I believe I have the necessary citations.

It’s troubling that footage of the making of the film (which can now be seen at YouTube) contradicts most of Shearer’s assertions (i.e., that Lewis wears expensive shoes and jewelry while locked away in a Nazi concentration camp, and that he wears his hair jet black and oily as an aged, starving clown – in fact, his hair is gray). I dislike that Shearer’s remarks carry weight with those who aren’t aware that his credibility is faulty. When a public figure deceives the public (in this case, at the expense of another public figure), I think his page should reflect that. I’m willing to work on my paragraph, and even to place it elsewhere on the page if necessary, but I can’t accept that what I have to contribute is mere “trivia”. Below is my paragraph, removed for a third time without a word to me: “Shearer has attracted attention as one of a handful of people purported to have seen Jerry Lewis’s unfinished film, The Day the Clown Cried. In May 1992, Shearer told Spy magazine that Lewis had shown him a rough cut of the film, only to fly into a rage when Shearer told him it was terrible. More recently, however, on the Howard Stern Show, Shearer changed his story and said that he had seen the film behind Lewis's back. Shearer has yet to explain how an unnamed acquaintance of his acquired a copy of the film from Lewis’s private vault. Production stills and footage of the making of the film reveal a number of innacuracies in statements made about the film by Shearer, MDA telethon director Joshua White, and unauthorized Lewis biographer Shawn Levy.”

Scott93205 (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Scott93205 -->
 * You have to understand that on Wikipedia, everything needs to be cited to a reliable source, especially information about living persons. See Verifiability and Biographies of living persons. Since you have not cited a source that supports the last part of your paragraph, your information is nothing but original research and that can't be used on Wikipedia. Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * has been for edit warring. I see no violation by . &mdash; Scientizzle 17:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Carthage44 reported by User:Despayre (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:       


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: N/A
 * 4th revert: N/A
 * This is more of a slow-burn case of constant reversions due to WP:OWN issues. I could revert him again, and he would revert again I think, and be at 3RR, but I have no interest in this article or in provoking an edit war. I saw the issue reported recently at DRN (here) and tried to help out. I left a note on the talk page in the relevant section, here, to which he had already responded to previous editors by saying "there is no need to update these stats daily or even weekly.". I think I was straighforward and neutral in my description of the problem, and the expected behaviour of all editors. He waited a few days, and has now started doing the exact same thing again. Notes on his talk page get deleted by him without response. I have not warned him of 3RR because technically he has not (unless you mean did I leave the subst:uw-3RR), yes, I have done that, here, it's more of (as I've said on the talk page) issues with WP:IDHT and WP:OWN, esp. when you factor in his other comments on the talk page, such as "You might want to stick to updating other pages and stay away from the sports pages because you clearly do not know what you are doing. Leave the updating to me since I know how to update stats on sports pages."

I've also added a link on his talk page to this section. That has now also been deleted (his talk page, he can do what he wants, but I wouldn't want you thinking I didn't notify him. His deletions are here and here).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * My specific diffs on the talk page (it's a short section):, and

Comments:

If you feel that since he has not technically violated 3RR I should take this to a more appropriate noticeboard, please point me there and I will re-file. I considered filing this an ANI, but that seems to be for items that are more urgent. This doesn't seem urgent, just needs a little behaviour correction I think. Since he started using edit summaries, his last two were "WRONG game on the 16th has not been played yet so date is through 15th HAHAHAHAHAHA" and "Updated stats, BEAT YOU TO IT!", doesn't seem to be helping the adversarial attitude he's creating over there. When he reverted the last user, I checked the stats with baseball-reference.com, and confirmed they had been correct, I left the following edit summary when I reverted him, "Undid revision 494057698 by Carthage44 (talk) Unless there is something wrong with the stats (which should be in the edit summary), stop deleting updates, you have already been informed", he reverted my revert with a summary of "Undid revision 494076938 by Despayre (talk) Stats are not correct", but that is not true. The stats are correct. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 07:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I left this problem here 2 days ago, and not 1 comment yet, helpful or not. I can only assume it's not important. I will close this and re-file with the inevitable edit war instead, I'm sure that won't take long. A little help here would have avoided some disruption on that article. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No attempts to discuss directly with the other editor, and no attempts to redress through WP:DRN. I see no 3RR vios, but perhaps some WP:TE that is not the purview of this board.  Perhaps this discussion has already prevented the "future" edit-war, but the whole idea of warnings from one editor to another is to advise the other party of correct behaviour to prevent blocks ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No attempts to redress through DRN? There was definitely an attempt to do so in the "Adam Dunn reverts" thread. Furthermore, both I and another user (Zepppep) posted messages on Carthage44's talk page, messages that were deleted. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Stumink reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (89.168.123.112 is Stumink's IP address - see: User talk:Stumink and note the similarities in contribution histories between  and  )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Very lengthy discussion of this at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) a few weeks ago resulting in consensus to not include these figures.

Comments:

This is a report of serious edit warring, though it's not a 3RR violation. A couple of weeks ago there was a discussion about whether to include figures for Taliban casualties apparently calculated from the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article's infobox at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and WP:DRN. This ended with a clear consensus against including these figures. The List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan article was also deleted yesterday per Articles for deletion/List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan. Despite this, Stumink has started trying to edit war the figures into the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) referencing a mirror of the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan article on another website, and has now done so twice. He or she explained their rationale for doing so here, in which they acknowledge that this is a Wikipedia mirror but also try to claim that it's somehow different to the article previously hosted here and as a result the consensus doesn't apply. Stumink had been invited to take part in the original discussion about these figures at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) at the time, ), but prefered to just edit war then as well rather than provide comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't edit warring. You guys wanted a different source and i gave it. I did acknowledge that they originally came from wiki, but it is different because the consensus was to not use an accumulated figure from that page which in your eyes would of counted as original research. This is different because this source had a total on it, so how are the figures original research which is what the consensus was about. You guys asked for a source that wasn't original research or from a wiki article and i did get one. The first time undid the revision was because it was unfairly reverted before for apparent edit warring. The first time i added these figures i was without a doubt not edit warring becuase i was using a different source with a total on it so not original research. May someone please give me a reason why this source isn't good enough other than your consensus argument from weeks that does not apply for this source?
 * Also might i add that the information on this source is nowhere to be found on Wikipedia so what is wrong with it? The figures i used were never on the wiki fatality page. All i did was find a source which i thought was good enough for what was required and i added it and i still think it is good enough. I was just trying to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 10:30, 24 May 2012‎
 * What you "referenced" is an exact copy of the former Wikipedia page, and is clearly marked as such. You edited that page when it was still here. I note that you're now continuing to edit war by logging out and using your IP, and have added an extra diff above. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How is that continuing to edit war. I know it contains the same info but the total was never on that wiki page and i explained my points above. I wasn't edit warring. If you want to convince me I'm wrong, please address each of the points i made above and tell me why I'm wrong if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs)

"I note that you're now continuing to edit war by logging out and using your IP, and have added an extra diff above." What exactly are you referring to here? How can I edit the Afghan page without logging in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Also the source i used is not a wiki mirror. It is not an exact copy. The yearly totals and overall total were never on the wiki page and neither was all the info at the top. The source i used calcultad all the yearly totals themselves. As the casualties were taken from a website which made the totals themselves and this is not actually a wiki mirror as they made the totals themselves so this is not original research and the consesus weeks ago was not to use the an accumulated figure from that wiki page which was never actually written on that page so you said it was original research but how does that apply to figure calculated from an independant website. As the consensus was about original research, that only applies to wiki, how could it apply to figures made by another website. Also will someone please try and argue each of my points becuase nick-d failed to adress any of my points.

has warned Stumink about this. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Well if no one wants to answer my points, cba debating on this page. If i didn't realise i was edit warring, i wasn't edit warring. Finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius reported by User:TheSoundAndTheFury (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: reverted to this version by reverting this edit


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert (consecutive):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The edit warring happened when I was sleeping, so I didn't warn the user. See comment below on why that's not really necessary in this case.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page discussion is here Talk:Cult_suicide; the user is in another 3RR dispute on a Falun Gong topic below and has edited this area for some years so he knows the rules.

User is notified of this 3RR case here. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Response by Ohconfucius (bis)
-- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No case to answer, as the evidence is rather contrived:
 * Diff 1 in no way satisfies any of the conditions of a Revert as defined in the policy - reinstatement of material removed months ago by a blocked editor that I was unaware of until reading a relatively recent talk page comment.
 * Diff 2 was a modified text that attempted to address the concerns raised on the talk page and was accompanied by a talk page comment
 * Diff 3 – revert enhanced with a suitable citation in response to additional concerns raised about "synthesis"
 * Diff 4 – in no way satisfies any of the conditions of a Revert as defined in the policy removal of material newly introduced by Homunculus in the edit immediately preceding. I sincerely thought we had reached some sort of understanding that the material clearly belonged and were beginning to cooperate in editing. I further added sources where they were deficient, and the diffs relate to my editing the added material down to integrate and better summarise.
 * I have not edited the page nor the talk page since the edits in Diff 4, except to supply evidence requested and further discuss same.
 * The 3RR policy says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." The diff 1 edit summary identifies it as a revert; as for diff 4, a revert is defined under the WP:EW policy as "undoing the actions of another editor." The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

I thought I said this before; I guess it's gotten lost. In any case, Diffs 2, 3, and 4 are clearly reverts. Diff 1 is a revert unless the editor removing the material had been blocked at the time, and was using sockpuppets to edit. If that is the case, then OC has not violated WP:3RR, although WP:EW needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The user HappyInGeneral was not blocked at the time of editing (see Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong); I am not aware of any evidence of the editor using a sockpuppet. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:The Modest Associate reported by User:Equazcion (Result: Blocked as sock/edit warrior)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

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

Comments:

User is sock of banned puppetmaster User:CentristFiasco. SPI reopened at Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco‎.  Equazcion  ( talk )  14:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Disregard, already blocked.  Equazcion  ( talk )  14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JamesM403 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 31hr)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 10:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 07:39, 25 May 2012  (edit summary: "/* On-Air Schedule */")
 * 2) 10:22, 25 May 2012  (edit summary: "/* Program Guide */")
 * 3) 10:28, 25 May 2012  (edit summary: "/* Program Guide */")
 * 4) 10:38, 25 May 2012  (edit summary: "/* History */")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

I've tried to inform the editor that it breaches WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE (policy) however the editor has not responded to the edit summaries and talkpage. Bidgee (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...which has, of course, expired now. Let me know if it recurs ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:OSX reported by User:MarcusHookPa (Result: Resolved )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusHookPa (talk • contribs) 02:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user keeps clearing the warning off of his talk page, and deleting my contributions to the talk page of the article and article. I made a proposal to undo the article merge, and it was deleted without any consensus to do so. This user may have already deleted the link on his page where I have warned him. He has been extremely unreasonable and chooses to ignore consensus. This user has also been undoing edits that I have made that had nothing to do with any of his work. He has also been making personal attacks against me in the edit history of the article Subaru Outback. MarcusHookPa (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue may be resolved very shortly. OSX and I are coming to an agreement. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue has been resolved, no need for any used to be blocked or penalized for this report.MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

OSX and I have overcome all of our differences. MarcusHookPa (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Jakew reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Jakew has four times reverted two seperate editors: Myself and User:NeilN in a 25 hour period. Also note there are several high-quality medical sources that dispute his "strong" version, for example, , , , , , ,. I believe a caution is insufficient because Jakew is well aware of 3RR policies judging by his frequent visits here (e.g., , , , , , )  Pass a Method   talk  10:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * PassaMethod did not inform me of this report, which in any case is not a 3RR violation (the timestamp of the first diff is 08:10, May 26, 2012; the last is 10:35, May 27, 2012 &mdash; approx. 26 and a half hours later). Two editors (Pass a Method and NeilN) have attempted to make these changes; two (Yobol and myself) have reverted.  There is a discussion at Talk:Circumcision, which PassaMethod appears to have abandoned; his/her latest revert didn't even include an edit summary. Jakew (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jake, i clarified myself to you further in this AN/I post, so there's no need to say I "abandoned a discussion". As for the edit summary, i did not write anything because you did not properly respond to my latest talk page post nor at this AN/I post, and simply wikilinked some wikipedia guidelines. Im not sure how to respond when somebody diverts from the original discussion. Pass a Method   talk  13:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me just note: breaking 3RR just outside the 24hr period is still considered to be breaking 3RR. Of course, WP:EW can apply to a single revert :-) ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That article is a war zone. Please discuss issues on the talk page. --  tariq abjotu  20:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Alan.Ford.Jn reported by User:Jesuislafete (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User Alan.Ford.Jn has on multiple occasions reverted all edits by by myself and another user to an older version. Note that Alan.Ford.Jn has never used the discussion page to explain their edits. I have made an effort to source all the additions I have added so user Alan.Ford.Jn could have no excuse to delete my contributions; unfortunately, it has had no effect. In this first reversal user adds the summary "Removal of sourced information" in spite of the "(-2,561)" negative number recorded in the edit history. In fact, looking at the page's edit history shows consistent negative numbers in accordance to the removal of text: (-1,255)‎, (-1,656) , (-3,499)‎, (-1,810) ‎, (-2,250)‎. In another edit Alan.Ford.Jn wrote: "Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Second Edition says nothing about attack within Kakanj?! provide online WP:RS source)", which although somewhat difficult to discern their language, appears to be mocking the Encyclopedia of Human Rights as an unreliable source that does not even mention the attack in Kakanj (simple Google search showed that it did.) Another round of reverting  has Alan.Ford.Jn saying "are you kidding me? you haven't even read the article, haven't you realised that you put wrong paragraph into wrong section with false data? April 1993 comes after December 1992, not before?!" Even though I find it difficult to understand the language, user Alan.Ford has never attempted to use the discussion page to discuss what article, what false data, and what other problems he seems to have with additional edits by other users.

I even left a note on Alan.Ford.Jn's talk page but they never responded or acknowledged it. From April 18, 2012 to May 27, Alan.Ford.Jn has made 12 edits, all on the Croat-Bosniak War page; the last edit before April 18 was on 20 September 2011. I don't know why they only concentrate on reversing on page, and although I don't think they are attempting to troll, it is disruptive. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon reported by User:RJFF (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

User is edit-warring at Lega Nord The Right, and Democratic Party (Italy), too, but hasn't breached 3RR yet.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

No attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page so far.

Comments:

The reverts you link to are not within a single 24 hour period as required for 3RR violation. Perhaps you are not familiar with the rules? Zerotalk 09:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * - Nick.mon has not edited the article since May 16. He seems to have given up his campaign to describe this party as right-wing in the infobox, so there is no continuing dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Kusunose‎ reported by User:World historia (Result: Canceled)
Page:

User being reported:

This report is page moving warring, not 3RR violation.

Previous title reverted to: Gwanggaeto the Great

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * This old report is about a requested move for which the discussion was closed on 22 May. The result was to leave the article under the title Gwanggaeto the Great. There were conflicting opinions as to whether Gwanggaeto should be called an emperor in the article title. An admin left a warning at Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great that anyone continuing the move war may be blocked. Since the war has not continued since the move discussion ended, this report can now be archived. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Stale 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: [link]

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

Comments:

The repeated edits of Andrzejbanas and Lugnuts are in contradiction of the text of the article. There is a discussion in progress about the nationality of the film. There was a previous discussion on this subject on the article's talk page. The subject is addressed in the article but their changes contradict it. They were aware of that issue but continued to change the article. I would suggest protection for the page so the discussion can continue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My "repeated" edit was just one edit to restore the status quo. You made four reverts within 12 hours, which is not acceptable, esp. for an editor with your experience and history.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except they aren't, you just claim I haven't read the page and are ignoring when I make my points just saying how ridiculous things are or how much of an "interesting idea" someone says something. I've bloody well copy and pasted information explaining when I'm right, you just assume I "haven't read things". You have a reputation for not backing down until you get your way which is not civil if you ask me. You do not own the article and until you get your points across with some actual respect. Your edits are considered vandalism. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments contain falsehoods. I was restoring the status quo, as you are aware. But I thank you for acknowledging the validity of that. There is a discussion about your proposed changes that is ongoing even now. Your attempts to include incorrect material is not good, and, since you do not understand your error, I would suggest you pull back until you comprehend it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reporting this as a 3RR violation would seem almost part of intentional baiting, if I were not to assume good faith. I would agree that Ring Cinema could have stopped reacting, but it is valid to perceive this insertion as some kind of peculiar POV pushing by Italian and French film advocates. Again, not knowing the history between all the parties, but knowing that Ring Cinema is a very active editor on many film articles, it is hard to see the labeling of the country from which this film originates being Italy and France in a good light. Assuming good intentions, I think all editors should wait for consensus on the talk page, determine what the general practice has been in other articles, and if necessary use dispute resolution. Reverting this as vandalism (or POV baiting etc.) is I think a valid response, or at any rate should not be punished. The quickness to litigate against other editors is disruptive in and of itself. Obotlig (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a POV when it's been established by the community on the infobox, a discussion in which Ring was the only member who was against and fully understood what was going on. He may have assumed good intentions, but his only discussions were "i don't get it" and reverted my edits. That is vandalism as he's been around enough to know better and is removed cited material with out explanation outside of "you don't get it". Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Obotlig has missed the point completly - this editor has a history of repeated 3RR violations. Look at his non-talkpage edit history. So what if he's a "very active editor on many film articles" when this thing goes on and on time and time again.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . Ring Cinema is fortunate that I didn't come across this and action it at the time, because it was a clear 3RR violation; however, there haven't been any reverts in 20 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Northen Lights - you missed the following reverts (the first one just before you posted your reply, the second one, just after:


 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out; blocked 24 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Eik Corell reported by User:Jtle515 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19 January 2012
 * 2nd revert: 29 January 2012
 * 3rd revert: 31 January 2012
 * 4th revert: 27 February 2012
 * 5th revert: 27 April 2012
 * 6th revert: 1 May 2012
 * 7th revert: 26 May 2012

Diff of edit warring warning:

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

Comments:

The content that Eik Corell persists in deleting is the description, and usually even the mention, of the third-party servers which allow players to continue to play Tribes 2 beyond the shutdown of the main servers by Vivendi. This information is clearly relevant to the game, and it does not fall under WP:GAMECRUFT. Eik Corell's stated justification for removing it is WP:V, but WP:V does not justify his removals: as I have pointed out, TribesNext's site is clearly allowed as a source on its own activities, as per WP:ABOUTSELF. I have told him this in the edit summaries, in the article talk, and on his user talk. He refuses to respond in any way soever except to parrot "WP:V" in the edit summaries, while giving no reply at all on either talk page. He wilfully ignores WP:ABOUTSELF, saying things like (in his edit summary for "6th revert" above): "If this is notable, it will have received coverage in reliable, third-party source." This is simply closed-minded deletionism. --Jtle515 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that multiple editors besides myself (Ahodacsek, various unregistered users) have also believed the TribesNext section worthy of inclusion, while Eik Corell is the only editor to delete it. Also note that Eik Corell's talk page is absolutely full of users' complaints about his heavy-handed deletions. --Jtle515 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The key phrase here is 'about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities'. This is not an article about this fan project for the game, it's an article about the game itself, which is why I find the appeal to WP:ABOUTSELF unconvincing. By the same standard, we should mention every mod, fan project, or whatever because their websites can be sources about themselves. Now, the amount of people complaining on my talk page is not relevant unless you can prove that I was the wrong in those cases. In other words, people complaining is not an argument. As far as not responding on my user talk page, that's due to procrastination pretty much. Here's an example of something similar that was kept: check the sources, and the talk page, plus the archived version. Eik Corell (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the key word in that phrase is usually, because there are exceptions. TribesNext is fundamentally different from "every mod, fan project, or whatever". It's not some silly gameplay mod that makes the weapons purple or transports the action to Middle-Earth or something. TribesNext is the only way that players are now able to play the game, and as such it is centrally important to the game, not an irrelevant digression. --Jtle515 (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I see nothing worth blocking over right now, but I could support protecting the article if editors continue to re-insert "available servers" against not only WP:ELNO, not WP:NOTHOWTO (this coming from an admin who I don't believe has really edited any game articles, so I'm definitely 3rd opinion here - one based on policy). I could personally fully understand a mention that "third party and fan-support servers have been created to allow continued gameplay since Vivendi has discontinued support", but there should be no specific advertisements of who they are ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Honestly, I am and have always been completely baffled at Wikipedia's distaste for including clearly relevant information (such as, in this case, the TribesNext name). Wikipedia should be useful, and throwing up barricades to stop fans of the game from learning of important developments in the game's history is simply unhelpful. But, if policy demands it, I would be willing to accept the compromise of not having the TribesNext name mentioned in the body, as long as the third-party support is mentioned in the Legacy section, with a citation to the TribesNext site. --Jtle515 (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Doncsecz reported by User:Dfsdsrsersdf (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

He insists adding Hungary and Croatia as beligerants, with no source. In the template of battles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Long_War_(Ottoman_wars). Hungary isn't anywhere as combatant

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He replied with personal attacks.

Comments:

He was also blocked before for edit warring Dfsdsrsersdf (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Dfsdsrsersdf is not telling the truth, the campaignbox of the Long war is absolute wrong: most of the battles was in Hungary in the Long war. Doncsecztalk 10:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The question was not "Where?", but "Who?". The Location section is something, and Belligerents section is another thing. For instance Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812) was fought in the Danubian Principalities, on "neutral field" and the Danubian Principalities were not belligerents Dfsdsrsersdf (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I completed the campaignbox for new names of sieges. In this sieges Hungarian, Croatian, Allied soldiers and mercenaries fought againts the Ottomans. The most important battles was not in the Balkan, but in Hungary: the first and most important goal of Long war is the liberation of Hungary; second phase the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. Doncsecztalk 10:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius reported by User:TheSoundAndTheFury (Result:48hr but unblock request accepted )
'''This is a refiling of a request that was not dealt with. An admin is requested to resolve this request.''' The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: reverted to this version by reverting this edit


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert (consecutive):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The edit warring happened when I was sleeping, so I didn't warn the user. See comment below on why that's not really necessary in this case.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page discussion is here Talk:Cult_suicide; the user is in another 3RR dispute on a Falun Gong topic below and has edited this area for some years so he knows the rules.

User is notified of this 3RR case here. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Response by Ohconfucius (bis)
-- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No case to answer, as the evidence is rather contrived:
 * Diff 1 in no way satisfies any of the conditions of a Revert as defined in the policy - reinstatement of material removed months ago by a blocked editor that I was unaware of until reading a relatively recent talk page comment.
 * Diff 2 was a modified text that attempted to address the concerns raised on the talk page and was accompanied by a talk page comment
 * Diff 3 – revert enhanced with a suitable citation in response to additional concerns raised about "synthesis"
 * Diff 4 – in no way satisfies any of the conditions of a Revert as defined in the policy removal of material newly introduced by Homunculus in the edit immediately preceding. I sincerely thought we had reached some sort of understanding that the material clearly belonged and were beginning to cooperate in editing. I further added sources where they were deficient, and the diffs relate to my editing the added material down to integrate and better summarise.
 * I have not edited the page nor the talk page since the edits in Diff 4, except to supply evidence requested and further discuss same.
 * The 3RR policy says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." The diff 1 edit summary identifies it as a revert; as for diff 4, a revert is defined under the WP:EW policy as "undoing the actions of another editor." The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

I thought I said this before; I guess it's gotten lost. In any case, Diffs 2, 3, and 4 are clearly reverts. Diff 1 is a revert unless the editor removing the material had been blocked at the time, and was using sockpuppets to edit. If that is the case, then OC has not violated WP:3RR, although WP:EW needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The user HappyInGeneral was not blocked at the time of editing (see Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong); I am not aware of any evidence of the editor using a sockpuppet. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * - Arthur Rubin puts it best, so no need for me to repeat it. Although the editor claims to have not edited other than to provide "evidence" and "discuss", the absolute shocking statement that - after all this time, and at least 2 previous EW/3RR blocks - that their edits are not somehow in violation is a shock.  As such, 48 will hopefully be enough to protect the project, AND give the editor appropriate time to understand/digets both WP:EW and WP:3RR - including all definitions so that this does not recur ever in the future ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting that the editor is now unblocked by another Administrator basically on the grounds that this was stale. I probably would have declined this myself. Obviously it's still possible to pursue other avenues if there is a concern that edit warring will begin again and that the short block isn't enough of a warning. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The article is under 1RR as part of WP:ARBPIA area the user should also receive a notification of sanctions as he low quality sources not suitable for such articles.--Shrike (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . I will also issue an ARBPIA notification.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Mar4d reported by Darkness Shines
I am on my mobile so am unable to file this. Correctly. Mar4d is under a 1R restriction on articles we both edit. He has broken this restriction on Pakistan and state terrorisim article. I have begun a discussion on the talk page as soon as I reverted him. I have asked him to self revert on his talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Kairportflier reported by Michael Greiner (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:06, 28 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 494398745 by 173.55.252.28 (talk)")
 * 2nd revert: 14:06, 28 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 494733111 by Robbie2448 (talk)")
 * 3rd revert 14:07, 28 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 494630095 by Mtaszarek (talk)")
 * 4th revert 23:56, 28 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 494846045 by B767-500 (talk) the rest is not important")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not exactly, but I did ask the reported user to use the article talk page to resolve disputes without reverting:. It was blanked.

Comments:

As an admin with a bunch of edits on the article (none recently) and a previous comment to the editor in question about using the talk page for dispute resolution, I think it would be best for someone else to apply the block. —Michael Greiner 02:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You've been an admin for four and a half years and you don't know that's not a violation of the three-revert rule? --  tariq abjotu  05:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Qogir reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: )
Page: Page:

User being reported:

User notified

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

1982 Lebanon War


 * 1) First edit  Edits "Result" section, 23 April 2012‎
 * 2) First revert Edits "Result" section, 6 May 2012
 * 3) Second revert Edits "Result" section  16:21, 22 May 2012‎
 * 4) Third revert Edits "Result" section 15:46, 23 May 2012‎
 * 5) Fourth revert Edits "Result" section 21:41, 24 May 2012‎
 * 6) Fifth revert Edits "Result" section 03:35, 27 May 2012


 * Both articles are subject to 1r per Notice of 1r restriction is conspicuously posted on both articles 2006 Lebanon War and 1982 Lebanon War


 * Additional comment: Pretty much a bright-line infraction for both articles. Nothing more to say really other than the fact that he's been reverted by multiple editors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * May I ask how there is a "bright-line infraction"? The 1RR is over the course of a twenty-four hour period, not over the course of a week. There is one twenty-four hour period where this was violated on 1982 Lebanon War, but I'm a bit curious why you waited so long to report that. The is especially perplexing for the 2006 Lebanon War article, where the reversions were from weeks ago, and there was never a situation where two reverts were made in even a 36-hour period. I'm not saying such editing techniques are acceptable, but this doesn't seem as clear-cut as you claim. --  tariq abjotu  05:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Brightline for and this  Two reverts within 24 hours. I see that as bright-line. As for the rest, a strong showing can be made for slow motion edit warring. As for not bringing anything sooner, I just thought it would get the message that it was being reverted by multiple editors and I wouldn't have to bring any action. I've crossed out 2006 Lebanon War to make things less complicated--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Debgarratt reported by User:MastCell (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 04:19, 28 May 2012


 * 1st revert: 04:24, 28 May 2012
 * 2nd revert: 04:51, 28 May 2012
 * 3rd revert: 06:13, 28 May 2012
 * 4th revert: 07:37, 28 May 2012
 * 5th revert: 07:51, 28 May 2012
 * 6th revert: 02:35, 29 May 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:27, 28 May 2012, 05:03, 28 May 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Despite the above warnings/requests for talkpage engagement, this editor has not participated in talkpage discussion.

Comments:

Continuing to re-add this material despite multiple warnings, and shows no signs of bothering to use the talkpage or stopping anytime soon. MastCell Talk 03:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Abortion articles are also under 1RR after ArbCom. I've just warned the user about this, although seeing as though she's completely ignored the ordinary 3RR even after being warned, I don't know that it'll make a difference. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like a case of WP:DONTBITE. Let's give her a couple of months to learn the ropes. And if she is still disruptive we can maybe perhaps think about forming a committee to deliberate on a proposal to possibly block her.– Lionel (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the 1RR; arguably this article is abortion-related, but the article doesn't contain any 1RR notices on the talkpage or article header. 1RR could be applied prospectively from this point forward, but probably not retrospectively to this editor's earlier edits. In any case, 6RR despite notes/requests/warnings would seem to warrant some sort of intervention. MastCell Talk 05:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Yogesh Khandke reported by User:Sitush (Result: 48 hours)
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: Talk:Sudheendra_Kulkarni and Talk:Sudheendra Kulkarni

Comments:

This is complex, sorry. We have both stepped over the mark, but I have been careful not to change content added by since opening a discussion. Being aware of Yogesh Khanke having a troublesome contribution history, I also contacted earlier but have had no response. Dougweller unblocked Yogesh Khandke, not long after a topic ban had been enforced. The ban is could be considered related to this article, given that there are matters of historical record in it, but I thought that too specious to mention and my main concern was Yogesh's early personalisation of a content dispute. Subsequently, other aspects of Yogesh's past behaviour have emerged once more - most notably his sanitisation of BJP-related political content by incorrect application of policies such as WP:SYN, WP:OR and WP:DUE. All of these misinterpretations/wikilawyering have been subject to various reports at WP:ANI etc over at least the last 12 months. I quite understand if the decision here is either either fully protect the page (which, on past experience, would just lead to interminable lawyering) or to pass the entire farrago on to WP:ANI due to wider behavioural issues. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm looking into this now... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . Although both of you were reverting, upon a close examination I see some pretty serious BLP issues as well as some problems with OR in Yogesh's edits.  I don't think it's within the spirit of EW to revert blatant OR, and it's definitely not within the letter of EW to revert BLP problems.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 14:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the user who doesn't cry first get blocked? Is that written somewhere in your admin handbook? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reread everything, then respond again. You're misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting the situation.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget it! Don't wanna waste my time. YK is probably now used to be being blocked just as you people are used to misuse powers. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, suit yourself. But next time, try to actually inform yourself before making comments.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 19:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Darknessshines reported by Starsgazing (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)]]
The above user has just crossed the line hes now blaming me of being a account of another user Nangprbat (something like that) I need urgent help though I am not sure if this is the correct place thankyou Starsgazing (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  19:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Maeveamelia reported by User:Buggie111 (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:

Comments:


 * Also possible socks created/used, see User:Directionerxx.Buggie111 (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:BruceGrubb reported by User:Tom harrison (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: "The term conspiracy theory refers to any hypothesis alleging..."


 * 1st refert: 00:22, 29 May 2012
 * 2nd revert: 00:15, 29 May 2012
 * 3rd revert: 15:06, 28 May 2012
 * 4th revert: 14:40, 28 May 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:15, 29 May 2012

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Conspiracy theory

Comments: Tom Harrison Talk 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * IMHO yet another example of an editor crying to Administrators noticeboard to get his way. Tom harrison's reverts have removed the POV tag and as I explained on the talk page citing WP:CON quality is the deciding factor.  Furthermore, Tom harrison has made NO comments on the talk page since November 2011.  Please note that Talk:Conspiracy_theory post dates the above reference by Tom Harrison ie the one he is citing is possibly out of date with regard to WP:CON.


 * Also note that WP:CONS expressly states that "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Since Loremaster and Mystichumwipe (see []) did NOT disputed or revert my changes (but rather cleaned them up) this claim of consensus for the old version that Tom Harrison and Calton keep reverting to is demonstrably false.  They are claiming something that per WP:CONS is no longer true.


 * I was using conspiracy theory as an example of some of the misunderstanding VnT gets User_talk:Jimbo_Wales and have added this current situation regarding WP:CONS to the list.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * --  tariq abjotu  05:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, it is my opinion (and also my experience from other pages) that it is Tom Harrison who is the disprutive influence in this case. She/he has reverted something which has been thrashed out on the discussions page by those involved (three editors) over a period of time and which she/he has NOT been involved in at all. She/he has done so in breach of a request to discuss any concerns about the changes made before reverting.
 * No clear or reasonable explanation has been given for his/her revert, - as was requested - and so I am still not clear what is wrong with the changes made as they imo fit all the criteria that the different parties have argued for. Thus, the reason for a revert appears to be unfounded in any compromisable difference, but seems merely an unreasonable resistance to ANY change at all.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is utter nonsense. Bruce and two other editors were arguing for a substantial change in the page. I, along with several other editors objected. Our views were completely ignored (and based on Bruce's post this morning, he clearly did not read anything I wrote over the past 4 days on the talk page.) They then claimed they were being "bold" by making the edits, as if that's a good excuse for ignoring the rule on consensus. Bruce's edits were entirely disruptive.JoelWhy (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should temper my remark by saying that I do think Bruce is editing in good faith. I don't think he's intending to be disruptive, or trying to make the article NPOV. I just think a small, yet critical component of his additions needed to be changed. And, obviously, edit warring is not the way to achieve the end goal of improving the article.JoelWhy (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand and appreciate that you "think a small, yet critical component of his additions needed to be changed" but that is NOT what actually happened. ALL his changes were reverted, not just a "small component": And the reverts by TomHarrison and Calton were made without any discussion at all. THAT is the disputive behaviour: editors who reverted changes without being involved in or adding anything to the discussion. PLUS in complete disregard of the 'good faith' request to discuss BEFORE reverting. No page could EVER be improved if this was the norm, that changes and improvements are never allowed to be attempted without reverting by silent observers who take no part in the articles content other than to block amendments/improvements.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

UserMar4d reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )
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:

Mar4d is on a 1RR resr=triction on articles which both he and I edit, he has again broken this restriction. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Funny how this thread is started right after another user reverts my edit anyway (see history of the article) so as to trap me. Pathetic attempt. Since you're so fond of WP:BRD, how about discuss your issue on the talk page this time and also not give lame one-liner justifications there for content removal?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Look above, I had already reported you but was unable to do it correctly, I now have. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a revert, this is simply me editing and expanding the article. You showed up after I made that edit, meaning you hounded/followed me to that article. Technically, it should be me reporting you for misuse of WP:BRD and finding a way to get around it using the excuse of 1RR. BRD also requires discussion on talk page, you clearly didn't start any thread apart from a vague one line sentence.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * O please, anyone can look at that articles history and see I have edited it before. Your constant accusations of hounding are wearing thin. Your first edit is a revert, you not only changed another editors contributions, you removed a great deal of content. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, nothing was removed or changed in that edit. Rather, extra content was added. Perhaps you should take out some time to read the definition of what a revert is.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(out)You have most certainly removed content, do you think perhaps people can't follow a link? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just reverted a sock on a proxy, anyone care to block it please. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

|IP 182.182.56.188 reported by User:Nabbedhigh
IP is vandalising and engaging in edit wars on many page. Nabbedhigh (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

IP has already broken the three revert rule on Battle of Panipat (1761). Nabbedhigh (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:WP Editor 2011 reported by User:Mzilikazi1939Mzilikazi1939 (Result: )
Page: Aesop's Fables and Aesop

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aesop%27s_Fables&oldid=494371250

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


 * 1st revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aesop%27s_Fables&oldid=494789698
 * 2nd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aesop%27s_Fables&oldid=494880321
 * 3rd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aesop%27s_Fables&oldid=495112431
 * 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesop#Don.27t_care.2FOther

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesop#B.2FCE_dates and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WP_Editor_2011#BC.2FCE

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

Comments:I considered an arbitration board discussion but, even granting good faith, the personal animosity shown seems too advanced for such an approach to be acceptable to the other party

Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:R3venans reported by User:Cold Season (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * . Tiptoety  talk 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:69.180.114.242 reported by User:Jasper Deng (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: various talk page postings on other users' talk pages

Comments:


 * . Tiptoety  talk 21:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:86.24.132.65 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 18:24, 30 May 2012 (edit summary: "")

2. 18:55, 30 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 495172537 by Typ932 (talk)")

3. 20:25, 30 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 495173825 by CZmarlin (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Identical and disruptive edits have been previously done under several other accounts. The result of those were blocks, but apparently this user has not reflected on those and continues to impose their edits. —CZmarlin (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am fairly certain that this is simply a sockpuppet of User:HJawad (cf. their edit histories at Automobile classification, Car classification, and Compact executive car), but as he changes his ip's so frequently I have given up on reporting them - they usually go stale before any admins get around to it.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Seherali reported by User:Jagadhatri (Result: Warned)
Page: 

User being reported:


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

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

Comments: This user is continuously edit warring and he says that the person whose correct information he is deleting is the male protagonist and what proof we have that he is not, he even once tried to delete the reference which says that he is not. This user was doing same with the article, Ashish Kapoor. So I put him a warning against for his edits in Ashish Kapoor, while another user did for Dekha Ek Khwaab.-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 09:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * . User hasn't received a warning about 3RR, so I'll leave a note; if it continues, link to it here and I'll take action. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Lost-n-translation reported by User:Tkuvho (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: preferred version


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

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

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

Comments: User:Lost-n-translation pursued additional reverts even after I engaged him in a discussion at Talk:Manifold, which clearly has not been resolved.

I specifically asked the user to "please join discussion on the talk page before deleting material" here but the user reverted again within less than 24 hours. Tkuvho (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the trouble. I spend most of time researching and lecturing on mathematics and not editing Wikipedia pages, and so I am somewhat ignorant of protocol. I have engaged in talk, but in any case it wasn't clear to me that talk was required before making edits to Wikipedia pages. (Tkuvho doesn't seem to have engaged in talk before he deleted material at 18:20, 7 February 2012) (edit)Lost-n-translation (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please consult WP:BRD. Tkuvho (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Edmonton7838 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) first group of edits, to 19:01, 30 May 2012 (edit summaries: mostly about "de-puffing")
 * 2) 21:07, 30 May 2012  (selection from second group of edits; edit summary: "/* Academic career */ Wow. That whole sentence would NEVER have survived in a Rep politician's biography. Mo Puff No Mo.")
 * 3) 21:40, 30 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 495195618 by Gandydancer (talk) reverted removal of relevant, fully reliably sourced information which was removed without discussion or consensus. Go to talk.")
 * 4) 21:46, 30 May 2012  (edit summary: "/* Early life and education */ removed non-notable information.")
 * 5) 21:55, 30 May 2012  (reverting previous edit by Gandydancer; edit summary: "It is not about "nursing" it is about a pattern of making claims that cannot be supported. You have not gone to talk.  Go to talk.")
 * 6) 00:47, 31 May 2012  (fifth group of edits, deleting material; edit summary of second: "/* Early life and education */ removed non-notable material.")
 * 7) 13:06, 31 May 2012  (restores material deleted in earlier edit -- including the sources removed per RS here while adding others as well; edit summary: "Added reliable sources to Cherokee complaints.")


 * Diff of warning: here, 02:11, 31 May 2012
 * Each of the above is from a separate "group" of this editor's activities on the article, and every one of them is a revert. A key point is that this editor expresses the intention to carry on editing despite the advice to stop per 3RR ("Your snide comments will not stop me from editing the Elizabeth Warren article".)

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of the "reverts" are simply copyedits not affecting any utile substance. The fact is that the article is heavy filled with Marshmallow Fluff, and this attempt to convert proper edits into a perceived "edit war" fails. Calling " Her mother went to work answering answered phones at Sears and  and the like as "reverts" is not how this noticeboard has looked at simple English word order in the past. BTW, warnings in the nature of You need to learn about WP:3RR. You're done on Elizabeth Warren for a spell. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC) are, indeed, "snide."   Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that #4 is not of much concern. What is of concern is that #7 came after being advised of 3RR together with the expressed intention to carry on even after being advised again.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say that I would edit today or even tomorrow but I will not walk away from the article because you are making snide comments.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. There looks to be a bright-line 3RR violation involving substantive reverts as well as a clear pattern of edit-warring as defined in policy. Lack of talkpage engagement is an aggravating factor. MastCell Talk 18:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bryccan reported by User:Cuchullain (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:

Comments:


 * I maintain that the edit shown here as a supposed fourth "revert" is no such thing (see the Craic talk page). Do I have to participate much here? I mean can you reach a decision with as little input from me as possible? I really can't be bothered with this sort of thing, it takes all the fun out of editing. As long as Cuchullain's happy to lessen the quality of the article and I'm happy to not intervene, what's all the fuss about? Just give me one of those temp ban things. Bryccan (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bryccan, the policy is clear that "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." I asked you to undo your own edit to avoid the violation, and you did not. I'm more than happy to see you avoid a block if you stop engaging in this behavior and work in a collaborative manner.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your material wasn't undone, it was built upon. And sourced. If that does violate the rule then Christ, what an awful rule. But as I say go for it, block away. You already got your way mate, the Scots/Nrn. English use (that is, the original use) of the term has already been almost entirely written out of the introduction. You don't have to mess around with this shite, save yourself the bother. Bryccan (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User:119.236.141.31 reported by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:16, 25 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 492854966 by Paul 012 (talk)")
 * 2) 15:26, 30 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 494910625 by Paul 012 (talk)")
 * 3) 17:59, 31 May 2012  (edit summary: "Undid revision 495169021 by Paul 012 (talk)")
 * 4) 18:02, 31 May 2012  (edit summary: "dated")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Summary: Unexplained repeated insertion of material that is cited by merely promotional material. —GotR Talk 18:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Meow reported by User:Jpuligan_12 (Result:No vio )
Page: 2012 Pacific typhoon season User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: In this revert, Meow is deleting the right information I'm putting about tropical storm Ambo's casualties in 2012 Pacific Typhoon season
 * 2nd revert: In this revert, Meow is replacing my work of Meteorological history about Severe Tropical Storm Sanvu. I just don't understand why that Meow is deleting my works. I have compiled the requirements for editing reliable source, right information, etc.)
 * 3rd revert: In this revert, Meow is replacing the dissipation date of Severe Tropical Storm Pakhar. The storm dissipated April 2nd but Meow still putting it currently active.
 * 4th revert: In this revert, Meow is replacing the photo of Severe Tropical Storm Pakhar that I uploaded.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

We are settling the edit war in the revision history of 2012 Pacific Typhoon season. However, I warned Meow several times about replacing my works but Meow is not answering at all. Last weeks ago, I'm trying to communicate to Meow just the dispute between us will resolve. But Meow has no response at all and continues to change my edits without any notification. Meow also called me "troublemaker" which I disagree very much.

Comments:

I really want to settle this. For infact I'm a member of Wikiproject: Wikipedia Tropical Cyclones and I guess I have the more authority to maintain stability and correct information about Tropical Cyclone pages. Through Meow is not a member of the said institute, I still respect that person for the contribution. Jpuligan 12 (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dealing with many issues on filer's talkpage ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Memphisto reported by User:118.8.2.54 (Result: WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: 21:27, 31 May 2012‎
 * 2nd revert: 21:47, 31 May 2012‎
 * 3rd revert: 22:05, 31 May 2012‎
 * 4th revert: 09:37, 1 June 2012‎
 * 5th revert: 10:35, 1 June 2012‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.8.2.54 (talk)
 * 6th revert: 11:00, 1 June 2012
 * 7th revert: 11:40, 1 June 2012
 * 8th revert: 12:02, 1 June 2012
 * 9th revert: 12:10, 1 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.8.2.54 (talk)
 * 10th revert: 12:18, 1 June 2012
 * 11th revert: 12:50, 1 June 2012
 * 12th revert: 13:09, 1 June 2012
 * 13th revert: 13:13, 1 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.8.2.54 (talk)
 * 14th revert: 13:23, 1 June 2012‎
 * 15th revert: 13:29, 1 June 2012‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Muhandes keeps removing non-links, red links and redirect links from Template:Anticon. 118.8.2.54 (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you ever read WP:BRD ... or WP:CONSENSUS? There's only one party close to being blocked right now, and their "name" begins with 118 ... ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the decidedly less than civil edit summaries in Japanese (I can roughly translate them if you really want), I'm blocking the IP for 31 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User:114.164.142.128 reported by User:Memphisto (Result: prot)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1) 21:10, 31 May 2012  (edit summary: "added artists and compilations")
 * 2) 21:43, 31 May 2012  (edit summary: "see Template:Rhymesayers and Template:Atmosphere. non-links can appear in a navbox.")
 * 3) 21:51, 31 May 2012  (edit summary: "read Template:Rhymesayers,  Template:Atmosphere and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. navbox reflects the article, no more, no less.")
 * 4) 22:10, 31 May 2012  (edit summary: "Template:R. Kelly singles has non-links.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:114.164.142.128&oldid=495364502

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

Comments:

I removed the non-links which comprised a great many of the entries in this navbox, and at the time noted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums that I awaited the reverting of my edits. Sure enough this user has been reverting my edits even though I explained in my edit summary that non-links do not belong in navboxes. This editor also seems to have been editing in a similar fashion as User:118.6.121.168, User:122.26.187.139 and User:118.8.2.54.


 * by J04n. Also see related report below. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User:‎Mguvendiren reported by User:LardoBalsamico (Result: stale)
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:


 * . There also may be WP:BLP issues in play. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Hypesmasher
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Note: No 4RR violation. See below.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert (4RR):
 * 6th revert (3RR):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 3rd party report: Both edit warriors have discussed dispute at length on article talk page.

Comments:

Note: I made an error and did not count the 31st, thus this was a slow edit war, not a 4RR violation.

I apologize for the error. I have made corrections below. --Guy Macon

Adjwilley: Material introduced 14:55, 22 May 2012

Hypesmasher 1RR 02:28, 30 May 2012

Adjwilley 1RR 16:40, 30 May 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR 23:26, 30 May 2012

Adjwilley 2RR 23:39, 30 May 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's first revert 02:28, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's first revert 16:40, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's second revert 23:26, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's second revert 23:39, 31 May 2012

Hypesmasher 1RR (3rd revert) 00:22, 1 June 2012

Adjwilley 1RR (3rd revert)00:35, 1 June 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR (4th revert) 01:05, 1 June 2012

Adjwilley 2RR (4th revert) 03:36, 1 June 2012

Hypesmasher 3RR (5th revert) 20:05, 1 June 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's 1RR (3rd revert) 00:22, 2 June 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's 1RR (3rd revert) 00:35, 2 June 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR (6th revert) 05:58, 2 June 2012

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Adjwilley
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Note: No 4RR violation. See below.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 3rd party report: Both edit warriors have discussed dispute at length on article talk page.

Comments:

Note: I made an error and did not count the 31st, thus this was a slow edit war, not a 4RR violation.

I apologize for the error. I have made corrections below. --Guy Macon

Adjwilley: Material introduced 14:55, 22 May 2012

Hypesmasher 1RR 02:28, 30 May 2012

Adjwilley 1RR 16:40, 30 May 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR 23:26, 30 May 2012

Adjwilley 2RR 23:39, 30 May 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's first revert 02:28, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's first revert 16:40, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's second revert 23:26, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's second revert 23:39, 31 May 2012

Hypesmasher 1RR (3rd revert) 00:22, 1 June 2012

Adjwilley 1RR (3rd revert)00:35, 1 June 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR (4th revert) 01:05, 1 June 2012

Adjwilley 2RR (4th revert) 03:36, 1 June 2012

Hypesmasher 3RR (5th revert) 20:05, 1 June 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's 1RR (3rd revert) 00:22, 2 June 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's 1RR (3rd revert) 00:35, 2 June 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR (6th revert) 05:58, 2 June 2012

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Result
Page protected. Since they're going to the talk page, blocking would be harmful, especially as it's been quite a while since the last edit warring on the page (why did it take so long for someone to take action on this report?). By the way, why did you only report Adjwilley, since Hypersmasher was equally involved? Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind; I just now noticed the section above this one. Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a note for the record: the timeline above is a little misleading. It leaves out one day (May 31). Two of my reverts were on May 30, and two were on June 1. I never got above 2RR, though above I'm listed as 4RR. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Adjwilley is correct. I have corrected it on both talk pages, both noticeboard entries and on the article talk page. I apologize for the mistake. --Guy Macon (talk) 2:48 pm, Today (UTC+0)


 * Nyttend, I saw no obvious way of reporting two users at once using the form, so I put in two reports. Is there a way of reporting two users in one report other than manually editing after submitting? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Jack of All, Master of None reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours )
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: Talk:Baburam Bhattarai

Comments:

The editor is inserting material that isn't clearly supported by the sources given, and in violation of WP:BLP and WP:TERRORIST. Instead of addressing these issues, the editor attempts to deflect by accusing myself and another editor of sockpuppetry and "personal liking for" the article's subject, and reverts instead of addressing the issues, and in fact makes it clear he intends to edit war indefinitely. - SudoGhost 18:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Clear edit warring and 3RR violation made worse by the BLP violation of adding negative material that is not supported by the sources given.--Slp1 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * His very first edit after the block expired was the make the exact same edit, continuing to edit war. The editor's comments express an intention to continue to edit war, ignoring the comments on the talk page by multiple editors. - SudoGhost 20:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indefed pending agreement to stop edit warring.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (31 May)
 * 2nd revert: (2 June)

Page:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: (28 May)
 * 2nd revert: (30 May)

Page:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: (28 May)
 * 2nd revert: (30 May)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: Discussion

Comments:

User is under a 1RR restriction but is continuously reverting without any interest to discuss and is trying to game the system by not reverting in 24 Hour period on a single page. -- S M S  Talk 09:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: As for Template:Kashmir separatist movement, DS's first revert cited by SMS was a revert of sock now blocked. As for Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed DS is well acting on consensus. Please see this discussion which also refutes SMS's allegation DS wasn't trying to discuss. JCAla (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well to me this report looks more like a way to get past content disputes on multiple articles by trying to get the other party blocked. Bravo User:Smsarmad-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ   10:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * . Not discussing hey? Darkness Shines (talk)

User:Misssaigon07 reported by User:Thine Antique Pen (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - N/A

Thanks! --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 12:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * . Or rather semiprotected.  Misssaigon07 hasn't reverted in several hours, so I don't see what would be gained from blocking at this point, but I see a larger issue with anons and new users there, so I'll semiprotect it for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Berean_Hunter reported by User:92.118.252.49 (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Before Edit Warring, previous version reverted by me to: [Revision as of 17:49, 28 May 2012]

Then, Berean_Hunter started reverting, dismissing my revisions as "nonsense" and despite subsequent comments in "talk"
 * 17:59, 28 May 2012: [diff]
 * 19:44, 28 May 2012: [diff]
 * 21:18, 31 May 2012: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff1] [diff2]

Comments: ''As an expert, I saw fit to update and improve the article by adding information on current uses of the term in question in fields other than Clinical Psychology. I supported my academic position in length in the "Talk". User Berean_Hunter asked for sources that Wikipedia considers "vetted", and I have provided those. Despite all that, I found the article reverted by him today without any further contribution in "Talk" from his part, and despite my appeal to put an end to the edit warring by referring the article to mediation should he still disagree. This is blatant edit warring, and such users should be blocked, even if they consider themselves Wikipedia "hotshots"''. I have also asked Full Protection for the page in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.252.49 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2012‎ (UTC)


 * (I wasn't notified of this thread) If anything, boomerang. The IP edit-warred their contrib into the article and per WP:BRD, I reverted. I began a thread on the article talk page and the IP engaged but still insisted on forcing their edit into the article. The edit will need to stay out of the article until it has consensus. After they persisted, I gave them a warning a few days ago which they decided to issue to me today and without me having edited since the warning, the IP came straight here a half hour after issuing the warning to file this report.


 * The IP's
 * Initial edit
 * revert 1
 * revert 2
 * revert 3 ⋙–Berean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  20:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * . Or rather semiprotected.  Upon looking at the article's history, there haven't been any helpful anonymous edits in a long time, so I'm going to semiprotect it for 3 months.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit War at East London (bus company)
May I please request Administrator intervention at this article, where a serious edit war has broken out. I am not involved, but monitor the page as a result of historic edits there.

User:Smithbuses has attempted to add unsourced information about an alleged pending change in operating procedures by this bus company. User:CourtneyBonnick (who is a regular editor on the page) initially reverted this, and requested a source for the information. Subsequently the edit war has broken out with User:Smithbuses recently editing under a series of IP addresses beginning "92.29" or "92.25", but the edit summaries make it clear that the same person is responsible for all the edits. Recent edit summaries have been increasingly provocative, including:
 * "CournteyBonnick stop changing it and if you do I will keep editing it as said before so I will never get bored"
 * "Keep changing it and I will do what I said till you get bored"
 * "My Mouth is your reliable source, So dont get bored I will do as I said"

I believe that User:CourtneyBonnick has been very patient and good natured, but unfortunately an edit war has begun, and does no good for anybody.  Timothy Titus <sup style="color:orange;">Talk To TT  17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I have fully protected the page for 6 hours to stop the immediate problem; however, this seems to be an ongoing issue, which needs resolution. Although (as far as I can see) no one has violated the three revert rule, a long-term edit war without any discussion is taking place. I would advise CourtneyBonnick to follow the steps at Dispute resolution and attempt discussion through the article's talk page (edit summary discussion is not sufficient). I would strongly advise CourtneyBonnick to follow a one revert rule on this page (and any related pages). If discussion is attempted and other users ignore attempts at communication and continue being disruptive, please follow the steps at Disruptive editing (or ask me for assistance); continuing to edit war is not appropriate. If, once the protection lapses, edit warring continues and no discussion is attempted (even if 3RR is not strictly broken), I will block those involved in the edit war. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance.  Timothy Titus <sup style="color:orange;">Talk To TT  19:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Akhilleus reported by User:WP Editor 2011 (Result: Reporter blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: (by User:Dougweller)
 * 2nd revert: (by User:Akhilleus)
 * 3rd revert: (by User:Studerby)
 * 4th revert: (by User:Akhilleus)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User:Akhilleus has not reverted four times although his actions certainly constitute edit warring. In December 2011, User:Urbanus Secundus suggested changing Apollo from BCE/CE to BC/AD. This discussion went for 5 months then, 1 month later, I made the change. I waited this 1 month in order to ensure there was no disagreement. All of a sudden, User:Akhilleus and his friends hijacked the article in contravention of WP:MOS and this talk page consensus, then came to the talk page to declare the discussion illegitimate just because they hadn't participated. User:Dougweller, User:Cynwolfe and User:Akhilleus even attacked me with ad hominem arguments. User:Akhilleus also placed the subst:uw-3rr template on my talk page and insulted me some more even though I only reverted the article 3 times, not 4. User:Akhilleus and his friends lied in all of their edit summaries when they reverted Apollo. The whole thing is outrageous. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC))
 * WP:BOOMERANG block of WP Editor 2011 is needed. He is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and is actively involved in edit warring at the page he listed.  His reverts are   . Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Warning you when you hit 3RR is absolutely correct. It's to let you know that you are in danger of being blocked. And I note you responded by warning an editor who had 2 reverts and have now brought him here. Calling other people liars is an extremely bad ideal, particularly when they are simply saying there is no consensus on the talk page. Changing eras with an edit summary that says "grammar and links" is unacceptable, as is searching for old changes to BCE/CE so that you can revert them, as you admitted when you said "I was already planning to stop searching for chances to uphold that rule as soon as the issue with Mzilikazi is resolved." At Talk:Apollo I don't see a discussion that had gone on for five months, I see an editor 5 1/2 months ago saying the article, being on religious history, should not use the 'new atheist system' (I can point you to Christian theologians who use it in reliable sources, by the way) and another editor demurring the next day, and then you coming along over 4 months later, agreeing with the first editor, and then yesterday deciding to effectively close the discussion and implement it, something that perhaps an editor with at that time only 379 editors shouldn't be doing, particularly if they are searching for chances to change BCE/CE to BC/AD. I agree with Ryan Vesey although obviously, unlike Ryan Vesey, I'm involved. I'd already explained to WP Editor 2011 on his talk page that his actions were ill-advised and that he should avoid editing on this issue but he continued. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a new editor doesn't prohibit me from editing the encyclopaedia; even IP editors who have never edited before are allowed to do so. Ryan Vesey is totally wrong about this Boomerang nonsense; I was the opposite of disruptive. I was reverting the disruptive actions of Akhilleus, Dougweller and the other guy. Wouldn't everyone assume this had happened anyway? How could the disruptive edits add up to the 4 above if they hadn't been reverted in between? Akhilleus' warning on my talk page was done with the 3RR template and he added a sentence at the end, repeating his accusation that I had reached 4 reversions; this is not true and was a misuse of the template. The template that I put on his page was a different one though and it was specifically made for edit warring with less than 4 reversions. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC))
 * Your disruption is in bringing the argument here and adding an edit warring template on Akhilleus' talk page. Boomerang refers to you bringing an edit warring discussion up here when you are the edit warrior. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * . The reporter, WP Editor 2011, is blocked for thirty-six hours for edit-warring and repeated violations of WP:ERA despite warnings to stop. --  tariq abjotu  05:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth II (Result: withdrawn)
Can somebody please take a look at this.

Some months ago, I negotiated with two apparent "owners" of this page to get the Introduction written into a more balanced form. I proposed everything from minor changes to deletions of unnecessary stuff and rearrangement of sections. To no avail. I wrote a "plan" of paragraphs with headings such as "achievements" and "challenges" and left it open for the two "authors to implement, with a list of possible inclusions of important matters.

Every point was negated with questions that indicated that authors' lack of broad knowledge. (I have just been asked, today, by the reverter: "Why is it significant that the Queen visited Germany? they are a German family.")

In the light of the previous lack of response, I raged on the talk page about my distress at having such an imbalance in the intro, of the biography of a living person, for whom this time, and today in particular, are very significant. I have been suitably told-off for raising my voice, by a couple of editors.

I was very hesitant about editing the article, having got such negative response previously, and not wanting to start an edit war at a crucial time in the article's life. However, I bought into it because of the comments left by three experienced editors who considered the Intro to be "unbalanced".

DrKeirnan has reverted my edits three times. I have tried to negotiate to no avail.

The edits that I have made were written offline, and pasted, so as not to disrupt the article by piecemeal editing. They are properly sourced, referenced and linked, and include a notable quotation from a notable person.

Can someone look into this? I do't really want to see a contributor like DrKeirnan blocked.

Amandajm (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ignore: A settlement appears to have been reached. :-)  Amandajm (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * report withdrawn. I would be reluctant to lock a prominent article with a current event, and it looks like no admin intervention is called for at the moment (though the day is just getting started in the UK). The current editing environment looks basically healthy, if robust. Amandajm, I would be much more likely to block you than DrKeirnan if it came down to it, though neither looks likely. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for 3RR advice (Result: advice given, Dreadstar advised)
Captain America: The First Avenger

I'm being accused of multiple reverts and edit warring at the above article by User:Dreadstar and I'm somewhat perplexed at his interpretation of events and as we are completely at opposite polar sides of this I needed outside professional input.

I made the following edits:
 * Dreadstar made 7 edits to the article, I did not undo any of them, I removed an Easter Egg link and I moved a note he had added to the lede to the plot because I believed this made more sense than directing someone to the footnotes in the lede. As far as I am aware this a bold edit. I did this here, he is classing this as my 1st revert. 1
 * He added more info and I removed the following information as it was inserted into the plot where it did not belong and pertained to information from a different medium that did not belong at all in the article. This is what is being classed as my 2nd revert. Here. At this point Dreadstar already accuses me of edit warring when as far as I am aware/concerned I'm copy editing his edits and removing inappropriate information.
 * This is what is classed as my third revert, where he readded that separate information and I removed it as inappropriate.
 * This is what is classed as my fourth revert on a separate matter with a separate individual that I removed as unsourced and factually incorrect.

Now maybe I should be more tactful and use undo for things like number 4, but am I edit warring or on my 4th inappropriately used revert here? I am really confused and frustrated because as far as I am concerned I was making fixes, I haven't restored it to a state prior to his edits nor was there any warring as far as I am aware, yet I was almost immediately accused of both. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That is just normal editing until Dreadstar's revert where they accuse you of edit warring. Dreadstar is absolutely correct on your talkpage that edit warring covers more than simply repeatedly removing the same material, but even from my perspective as one of the more hair-trigger admins for this sort of thing I would not have warned you for edit warring at that article. That said, there have been no comments to the talkpage for almost a month. That would be the best place to start. You also failed to notify Dreadstar of this discussion. It is true that you are just asking for advice more than making a formal report, but it is the sort of thing people like to know. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, as you say I just wanted advice I didn't realise I would have to inform him, but thank you for taking the time to give me some feedback, it is much appreciated. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Jokkmokks-Goran reported by User:Shrike (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The article in question is under 1RR as part WP:ARBPIA.The user has made the same change in text two times in less then 24h.
 * That first edit is not a revert. Also, you're supposed to warn someone, then report them if they continue in their actions. You're not supposed to warn them and report them at the same. There was no violation here and there was inadequate notice. Has this editor even been given the standard notice about the one-revert rule applying to all articles regarding Israel and Palestine? --  tariq abjotu  05:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The user was warned on sanctions and the page have the 1RR notice anyhow the WP:ARBPIA states quite clearly: --Shrike (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain how its not a revert?The editor changed the text?Of this reversion.Anyhow the language of WP:3RR is clear:

.--Shrike (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, nearly every person's edit to an article is a removal or partial removal of content of someone else's edit from some time ago. The question is, is that person aware that they are reverting someone else's change (and to a specific version)? That you are able to dig up the edit from two months earlier that includes the text "Islamic Resistance" does not demonstrate that that first edit was intended as a revert. From my vantage point, it looks like a change to the article that just happens to replicate text from a couple months earlier. And it looks like you're fishing for evidence to get a block. --  tariq abjotu  17:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Constant agitating for sanctions against editors you disagree with is disruptive to the topic area. Dlv999 (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agitate anything I just want to understand policy so it will be consistent.Also the admin asked me several questions that I have clarified for him.So yours statement is disruptive--Shrike (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)--
 * I think it is better to concentrate on gaining consensus and improving content. I don't like the way sanctions are being consistently used against good faith editors in the topic area. It could be seen as an attempt to game the system. Dlv999 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you really just wanted to understand policy you would have simply asked an admin without even involving Jokkmokks-Goran. It's not a 1RR violation as I explained at User_talk:Jokkmokks-Goran. You didn't demonstrate that the editor was edit warring with their first edit. Who were they edit warring with, Flayer from 2 months and umpteen edits ago ? You didn't even notify the editor when you filed this report which you are absolutely required to do and it's not the first time you have failed to comply with this requirement because you did it to me last year. It looks like you are misusing a rule intended to prevent edit warring (not to prevent editing in general) in the topic area, and you appear to be doing it in a partisan and disruptive way. The topic area is already a cesspool but it doesn't have to be. This kind of thing makes it worse. Agitating for sanctions against editors you disagree with is disruptive to the topic area. It's also wrong. Jokkmokks-Goran has said "It seems like you owe me an apology", I can understand why and you haven't even bothered to respond to them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was pretty sure It was a violation so my answer to admin question was a matter of clarification and I still think that the admin judgment on this case is wrong and no there is no obligation to notify anyone about report in this board. this have been changed recently anyhow in your case this notice was not existent back then and I removed the report back then so its irrelevant.--Shrike (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike, you failed to notify me when you reported me to this board, and looking back at your recent filings here shows a consistent pattern of failure to notify editors that you have reported them at this board. At the top of the board it clearly states in red, "You must notify any user you report. You may use (!--Template:An3-notice--) to do so." Now considering you find it appropriate that editors you disagree with should be sanctioned for perceived policy infringements, what do you think is the appropriate course of action for yourself in light of your systematic infringement of the rules of this board in your attempts to get others sanctioned? Dlv999 (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I already explained that is the first time I was informed that such notification is needed.In future I will issue the notification for edit warriors don't worry about thaT--Shrike (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You were pretty sure it was a violation ? Why haven't you filed reports against all the so called pro-Israel editors who routinely make 2 edits like this within 24 hours then ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but you didn't think twice about looking for sanctions against me on an article that you added a 1rr notice to after I had made my edits and then filed a case without notifying me of the case. Why do you think it is legitimate for an experienced editor such as yourself to claim ignorance for your mistakes (despite prominent display of the rules). But for inexperienced editors you disagree with it is perfectly acceptable to agitate for sanctions at the merest hint they have contravened a policy, whether they are aware of it or not. Dlv999 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dlv999, you were informed about your violation and you responded, "I vehemently deny that I have done so and I demand that you withdraw your accusations in full, or make a report through the appropriate channels". This was your confrontational response to a polite request which led to your block.
 * Sean, you have been previously warned about attacking other editors in reports that do not concern you. Please stop your battleground behaviour. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  13:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ankh, the the diff you cited was not a notification of a report to AN3 which is a clearly stated requirement of this board. As usual you are misrepresenting evidence. I think it is a major problem with the topic area at the moment that battleground editors are using the ARBPIA sanctions as weapons to attack and intimidate good faith editors. Shrike's consistent failure to follow the rules by notifying editors and your own misrepresentations here and at the current AE case against DLDD are good examples. Dlv999 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling. This report concerns me directly. I got involved right at the beginning long before it was filed. I tried hard to prevent it being filed precisely because someone needs to step in to try to stop the topic area being used as a battlefield. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "I got involved right at the beginning long before it was filed." - It is interesting that you state this because when I mentioned to you a similar point - "the edit in question had been discussed long before any sockpuppet involvement", with regards to you inserting the United Jerusalem Foundation views and this dubious source into an IP article, you disregarded this prior involvement and chose to peddle misleading statements.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  14:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling. It's disruptive. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is even more disruptive is adding shitty sources into an article despite your continued assertions about the high standard of sources required.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  14:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to stop trolling. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)