Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

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

Page: YPF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sherlock4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] ( but theres been so much warring its hard)

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]
• 6th revert: [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8][9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:YPF#Neutrality_problems_with_Economist_editorials]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bobrayner_and_User:Yopie_reported_by_User:Sherlock4000_.28Result:_page_protected.29 Is clearly misleading, it should be BOOMERANG as mentioned when filing a complaint because there was no war between the edits he mentioned that would contravene 3RR. said user is the only one with the probem and multiple reverts in 24 hours.

Mind you im uninvolved in the dispute and, for the record, its not about content its about the warring/3RR (which the above response doesnt seem to indicate a realisation thereof. The reply should be on the talk page to resolve the dispute instead of the 3RR that quite clearly took place. Per WRONGVERSION, the page is not running away. Right or wrong hthe precedence allowing blatant 3RR opens a can of worms.)

This user apparently still doesnt realie his actionin which he continues further with NP[A "Bobrayner, Yopie, and Lihass are so fond of". Is an attack...and i was never involved in any of this edits (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Stale / Page protected by someone else. --slakr^\ talk / 05:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [10]

• 1st revert: 02:09, 30 April 2012‎ [11]
• 2nd revert: 08:22, 30 April 2012‎ [12]
• 3rd revert: 14:42, 30 April 2012‎ [13]
• 4th revert: 18:51, 30 April 2012‎ [14]

4 reverts within c. 17 hours

• 5th revert: 20:01, 5 May 2012‎ [15] (After specifically asking to discuss in the talkpages and me waiting almost 5 days for his reply in one of the talk pages).

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16] The discussion was started first in his talk page. He replied with one short comment on 30 April 2012, 18:36 (UTC). The discussion in the talk page of the article was started after his 4th edit. He reverted again, after I posted a couple of more posts in his userpage explaining to him what is wrong with his reverting and refering to the discussion which was started in the article page. On 3 May 2012 at 05:40 (UTC) I gave him 48 hours to reply, since he went completely silent. He never commented in any of the talk pages, but reverted again. He does not want to discuss at all, nor does he have any references. Please read the comment below.

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I do a search on Google Books, I too get more than 200 hundred results that Chola rule' in Sri Lanka[17], [18], [19], [20]...etc.

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

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

According to the Mahavamsa – a historical poem written in the Pali language, of the kings of Sri Lanka – King Vijaya (543 – 505 BCE) married a Pandyan Princess. Along with Vijaya, all the men in his crew got married to Madurai girls and arrived Srilanka with a great celebration.[21]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Martinvl reported by User:94.197.100.97 (Result: WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED)

Page: Metrication of British transport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28] and [29] on user talk page.

Comments:

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

I stand by my accusation that this user is a sock-puppet of Defacto - see [[30]]. If the admin in question wants further evidence as to this user's bad faith,. I will provide it, but real life is making demands on my time. Martinvl (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.** IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

• 1st revert: [32]
• 2nd revert: [33]
• 3rd revert: [34]
• 4th revert: [35]
• 5th revert: [36] (note, outside 24hr period but in the same spirit as above).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38],[39]

Comments:
Note that the editor has received other warnings about these edits and acknowledged them (via removal from talk page). --MASEM (t) 13:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

THIS IS A LIE, albeit one likely due to lack of due diligence than actual malice, but one that does not speak well for the care Masem should have been taking before editing. The first edit was of me partially undoing an edit I myself made, with a coincidental edit to another section happening in between. Masem is therefore lying about my edit history to try and claim I violated policy. Further, the claimed "edit being reverted to" is NOT the edit being reverted to - the fair use section appears in every single one of those but the second, just in a slightly different place. Masem clearly has not even reviewed the edits in question.

The actual situation here was Ridernyc attempting to revert the policy back to a version from over a month ago, which had factual inaccuracies (it had a few quotes from other policies which no longer appeared, for instance). In a completely seperate issue, I had noticed issues with the fair use section, which I challenged, but that was a completely seperate issue, and one in which I agreed with Masem's analysis. However, I disagree with Rider's attempt to revert long-standing changes, including the correction of factual errors (quotes that do not appear in the policy they're claimed to) under the guise of pretending it's about another issue (which, as I said, I challenged, listened to Masem's argument, and accepted). 86.** IP (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is that you were making changes that appeared to remove long-standing text (and possibly with other changes and improvements). You were reverted. You started a talk page section about some of the changes - but not all - and were reverted by three editors.

Now, if there are conflicts or inconsistencies with other policies, fine - spell them out on the talk page instead of simply engaging in adding stuff in what appears to be edit warring. For example, it may be the case that the fair use policy page changed and thus the quote on WAF isn't consistent, but you never spelled that out until now. It doesn't matter how right you are - 3RR is not tolerated except in limited cases, and this is not one of them. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is again clear you STILL haven't reviewed the edits, which were Ridernyc reverting to a version from early April and me reverting it back. May i suggest you undo your reversion and back off, if you can't take the time to actually know what you're doing? 86.** IP (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: It looks to me that both parties have been edit warring over the period May 4-7. A sincere concern that policy be correct and up-to-date is laudable but it is not one of the listed exceptions to WP:EW. If both editors would agree to submit to a plan for resolving their conflict by getting wider consensus, this report might be closed. One option is a WP:Request for comment. User:86.** IP is advised to remove his claim that Masem is lying. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As I've noted, there's a talk page section, but only until now has 86 discussed the large scheme of edits they're making. I'm fine to discuss it there, given that there are likely conflicts with existing language due to the age of the policies. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So, in other words, yuou're still not going to review your actions, or retract the false allegations. 86.** IP (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've reviewed what happened, and will still say that your actions and attitude towards this are against the spirit of WP:EW even if they don't exactly match the letter of 3RR law (yes, including the reversion of a month-old version even if that falls out of 3RR's 24hr range); that's still potentially actionable, but I'd rather see discussion on the talk page to determine what part of the edits we should include there instead. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Masem is not the only editor to warn 86.*.IP about his edits. He has been told by at least 3 users to reach consensus before making changes to guideline pages. He responds with hostility and claims that his massive editing and rewording is simply copy editing. He has done this across a wide range of fiction related guidelines, even going so far as nominating one for deletion. He appears to be editing with an agenda and refuse to gain concuss for his changes. As you can see above simply asking him to edit with consensus gets an angry replyRidernyc (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If 86.** IP will not commit to a plan for reaching agreement he may be blocked. As an alternative, he could agree to take a break from editing policy or guideline pages for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Check the talk page of WP:MOSWAF, where I set the entire sequence of edits out as proposals. However, can we kindly deal with the fact that this section maliciously miserepresents my editing and Masem has refused to correct his lies? Because I think that's important. 86.** IP (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record this is the month of editing I undid [40] . None of this was discussed prior to IP.**86 making these changes. The changes were pretty massive for a guideline where if one word is changed it can change the entire meaning of the guideline, therefore I felt my only option was to roll back to a much earlier version and advise the editor to seek consensus before editing guidelines. The editor claims these edits were simply copy edits. As far as I can tell the editor has still not taken part in any sort of consensus gathering. They simply deny and revert. Ridernyc (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As we are having this conversation the editor is continuing to make edits to fiction guideline with out discussion. [41] Ridernyc (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

AND NOW PROPOSING CHANGES FOR DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE IS BEING TREATED AS NOT DISCUSSING?! THAT'S AN EDIT O THE TALK PAGE, AS PART OF PROPOSING THE CHANGES FOR DICUSSION! HOW FUCKING MISLEADING CAN YOU FUCKING GET! Using me discussing things on the talk page as evidence I'm not discussing things?86.** IP (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My mistake I saw the removal of removal materiel and failed to realize you were editing talk page comments. However the language here and in the edit summary should be noted. for example a real edit summary instead of "this is fucking stupid" would have helped prevent my mistake. This user has a major problem with consensus process. Ridernyc (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Page: Trujillo, Peru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rafaelkelvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Comments:
The user Milesmyth is a puppet from 190.118.210.133 IP blocked, he is adding false information in article Trujillo, Peru, Take a look his contributions.—Rafaelkelvin (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC) There is a talk about the "references" used by Milesmyth in spanish wikipedia, this references are speculative and interpretative, in other words the text added is false. The talk is , the user asured that Trujillo is the second most populated metropoli in Peru using for this puspose his "references". Exist a large campaign by the 190.118.210.133 IP for use this information. And Milesmyth created his user a litle after that the IP was blocked. Edit the same articles with the same references that the IP in others wikipedias.—Rafaelkelvin (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing of the information added is false all has its references. In case it's false Rafaelkelvin must demonstrate what is false. This user seems to suffer very much because Trujillo be the second must populous city of peru, is something not understandable.In the Spanish Wikipedia article has been blocked and can only be edited by administrators because of an edit warring caused by Rafaelkelvin and Cmonzonc users and the article in english currently has the same data as in Spanish Wikipedia. Those users seem always act together as an strategy, but very well made, when don't act one of them act the other.--Milesmyth (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See:[42], the article talks about metropolitan areas, the reference from INEI only talks about regions, provinces and districts. The real area of Trujillo metropolitano not is the area of the district as you believe it, Milesmyth. In your talk I showed you a section of the Plan director de Trujillo, not all districts are part of Trujillo metropolitano. Sorry but I believe that you are the IP blocked, the user Eagle c5 blocked too in spanish wikipedia. You are using the same argumentation and the same references. Rafaelkelvin (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don´t participe in this edit warring look here [43]—Rafaelkelvin (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you replicate the talk in order?. Not adding more in your last talk?—Rafaelkelvin (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I don't know who's that eagle. I'm only checking the editions. Sorry.--Milesmyth (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Strategy with others wikipedians?, wow sorry but you are wrong. I'm only read the references as they are.—Rafaelkelvin (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note Milesmyth (talk · contribs) has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Declined --slakr^\ talk / 06:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: Brain Gym (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.149.83.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

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

User:Spesh531 reported by User:99.237.236.218 (Result: No action)

Page: List of sovereign states in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spesh531 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]
• 5th revert: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments: Please note that the user (as well as myself) were both blocked for edit warring based on the above reverts (except #1 which is new). When I got blocked, I read the rules, realized my mistake, and explained to the admin that I will stop reverting and instead seek dispute resolution or try to reach consensus on the talk page. Because of that, I was unblocked. Spesh531 on the other hand tried to argue about his block and therefore his block was not reversed. Upon the block expiring, the very first thing Spesh531 did was go back to all the relevant articles (it's not only the 1980 article - also 1990, 2000, 2010) and revert again. He did this without any effort to join the conversation on the talk page or seek dispute resolution. Since I tried reasoning with him on his talk page and he rejected my call to stop edit warring, I figure this is the only thing left for me to do because I don't want to break the rules and continue edit warring, but if I don't report him then he will continue reverting and inserting incorrect, unsourced information to the articles. Thank you

• Result: No action. The supplied diffs don't include any which are later than May 6, which is when the last block of both parties expired. But if either party decides to continue the war before consensus is reached, sanctions are possible under WP:ARBPIA. It is fortunate that both editors are participating at WP:DRN#Palestine is/is not a sovereign state. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: Alkaline diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.93.139.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Since this report was written, the ip started a discussion Talk:Alkaline_diet#Concerns_about_criticisms, and reverted for the fifth time. --Ronz (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Concurring (as an involved editor) that this IP is now up to at least 6RR and counting, despite warnings, and asking for administrative intervention. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dale Chock reported by Aeusoes1 (Result: Wrong venue)

Pages:

• Diasystem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Diaphoneme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Russian phonology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported Dale Chock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dale's editing behavior in past few months has largely involved contentious content removals:

• Diasystem[52][53][54]
• Diaphoneme[55][56][57]
  • (My restorations[58][59][60])
• Russian phonology[61] [62][63][64][65]
  • (My restorations [66][67][68][69][70])

Dale's talk page behavior is generally hostile, often centering around attempts to discredit other editors. In my case, he fixates on my mistakes, particularl an instance when I misspoke at Talk:Diasystem, to portray me as untowardly ignorant:

• Diasystem
  • [71] "by this confusion, you absolutely demonstrate you are in over your head, while contributing to languages and linguistics articles profusely."
    "It's pathetic that you've taken such an interest in this article for years and haven't read the founding article."
  • [72] "As i pointed out in my previous post, you revealed yourself as utterly ignorant of the difference between the two major theory perspectives in the history of linguistics."
  • [73] "AEsos has shown he absolutely doesn't understand what he's reading and what he's writing."
    "But again, the quality of our linguistics articles suffers from AEsos's edits"
  • [74] "AEsos has demonstrated lack of rudimentary familiarity with the general area this article falls into, linguistics"
  • [75] "After all, the genuine problem with this article it has been written by people who were ignorant of linguistics and who didn't come close to properly researching it."
• Diaphoneme
  • [76] "Its author, who also wrote Diasystem alone between summer 2010 and January 2011, does not even realize the difference between structuralism and generative grammar"
  • [77] "He has shown in two articles he edited (this one and Diasystem) and their Talk pages that he has no expertise with which to "debate the content of" a linguistics related article."
  • [78] "This original research depends on--here i go for the 11th time--the writer's incomprehension of linguistic teaching (here, a misunderstanding of the definitions of diaphoneme)”
  • [79] "It is the usual combination of disregard for what the theoreticians considered important... WP:OR; incomprehension of the sources; misquoting; and refusal to identify sources." "As has been proven on this page, all AEsos's assessments of linguistic literature are uninformed and misinformed.”
• Russian Phonology
  • [80] "'AE' is pretending he's discussing theory. He has no understanding of the theory of any article he edits on languages or linguistics."
  • [81] "for AEsos to raise this objection only reaffirms his ignorance of even beginning Russian"
  • Also, see uncivil comments in edit summaries[82][83][84]

Removal of citation requests[85][86][87][88][89][90] (which I have continually had to restore[91][92][93][94][95]).

Dale has also removed citations for content he dislikes. Specifically, he removed the citations for tables he wished to remove (see removals, above), citing an apparent error in the page range[96]. However, edits just prior to this show him fixing the same page range error for another claim from the same source[97][98] and even a talk page contribution[99] explicitly shows that he has access to the source and knew the correct page range.

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

REPLY TO COMPLAINT BY ACCUSED. User aeusoes1 appears to be judge shopping. He already made this complaint, one week ago at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive750, 20:07 1 May 2012 (UTC). These two complaint reports have the essentially the same idea, differing only in their evidence lists. Notice his concluding sentence: ". . . and a pattern of abandoning threads before approaches toward consensus can be made, make for a general trend of disruption". "Disruptive editing" is precisely the title of his old complaint report. I replied to that earlier report with many links.

Half of his points are just a dressed up version of the sentiment, "Dale Chock persists in disagreeing with me on article content." You know what? He disagrees with me. (Please bear in mind that over the history of the three articles under discussion, he has effectively been the sole ongoing editor.) For this new report, he has come up with a new piece of rhetoric against me: "abandoning threads" before approaches toward consensus. That's his way of saying that after I think I've said enough, I don't repeat myself again, and I don't eventually give in to his nagging. Bear in mind that in fact he usually fails to discuss objections to his insertions, fails to engage with my arguments -- doesn't argue against them, just ignores them. After all, if you were to give due attention to the article talk pages, you would see that my combined arguments about article content issues are four times or eight times as long as his.

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

• Aaeusoes1 repeatedly innovates ways to violate rules on discussion in spirit and even in letter: (1) he moved my content from an article talk page to his user talk page[100][101]; (2) two days ago he posted extensive comments on the same article to my user talk page instead of the article talk page.[102], refer to the two comments dated 6 May.
• Two days ago, he took to hooliganism. Namely, on Talk:Russian phonology, he posted the following sneering remark: "Hmm. Still no source, eh? I can wait. I figure it's probably finals time for you, so three weeks should be enough time to find a source. Good luck. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)"[103] The significance of this comment is that he is referring to a content dispute in which he insists on a source for an insertion and I have countered that the demand for a source is invalid. I have even explained my stance on the talk page (essentially, his opinion is Original Research; if you read my explanations on the talk page23:55 2 May & 12:10 6 May and still don't follow, please ask me) and, as alluded to above, he has refused to counter my argument (and this is only of many occasions when he has had nothing to say against my arguments). In the passage quoted -- which is in fact a argumentless immediate reply to my arguments -- the imputation is that he expects me to come around to his demand after I have steadfastly resisted. Aeusoes1 acts like he is the arbiter of the articles of which he is the veteran editor. Point of information to the curious: the second half of his baroque user name is a phonetic transcription of "I'm friendly" in thick Southern accent.
• "Dale's editing behavior in past few months has largely involved contentious content removals." Aeusoes1 is complaining about me reverting him, but he is reverting me equally. I reject the notion that content removals are less contentious when done by him.
• He demands "consensus", which is laughable when in fact he has been effectively the sole editor of the article he's demanding consensus on, and also when you consider that consensus is not usually an allowed requirement for editing articles.

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

Within the last two weeks in Russian phonology, he swiftly reverted a new editor for excessive glossing[104] (a gloss is a very brief translation equivalent of a foreign word), for having given 2, 3, or 4 glosses each to -- get this -- a half dozen Russian words. This reversion is objectionable because since 2007 Aeusoes1's editing of the same article has been distinguished by excessive exemplification (for example, he piled up 62 examples of a single sound change[105] (the long table)).

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

Dale Chock (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Dale has made accusations against me here, I'll address them but keep them brief

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

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong venue. If you feel the need to pursue this, go to ANI. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I did. I didn't get a response. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You can unarchive a discussion if you want it to be reexamined; just make a note that you unarchived it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

• 1st revert: [106] (10:51, 2 May)
• 2nd revert: [107]
• 3rd revert: [108]
• 4th revert: [109]
• 5th revert: [110]
• 6th revert: [111]
• 7th revert: [112] Today
• 8th revert: [113]Today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

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

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: West Philippine Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 49.145.70.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

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

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

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

Comments:

• User has been told numerous times to discuss the issue with other editors on the talk page, and not so simply revert to the version that they prefer. Currently two long-term Wikipedia editors question the validity of this user's edits. User has refused to engage in meaningful discussion, and has accused User:Bazonka of being an internet-tyrant on Talk:West Philippine Sea. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I'll also note that you're at 3 reverts, which is fine, but make sure you don't go over that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

• Note: this is a report for edit warring, not 3RR. Garycompugeek is an editor with a long history of edit warring, as can be seen from his user talk page. Recently he has taken exception to the archiving rate of a talk page, made a bad-faith accusation of "tactical archiving" (with no evidence whatsoever). He then attempted to modify WP:TPG so that it is compatible with his desired rate of archiving and, failing to gain consensus for this has attempted to force his change through by slow edit warring. Also problematic are his claims to be following WP:BRD, and his claim that "rough consensus [had been achieved"] (which clearly misrepresented the facts.) In my view this has become disruptive, and needs to stop. Jakew (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I object to the above characterization. I do my best to follow WP:BRD and have no wish to edit war. It would be more true to say that Jake and I rarely see eye to eye. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering that your change has been reverted by five different editors, and objected to by a sixth, it would seem that the issue is actually with your not following WP:BRD, and with your wish instead to edit war. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

ah jayjg, my other most ardent supporter. No where does WP:BRD specify how many editors you may engage in discussion. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So you think that as long as you keep making posts on the Talk: page, you are complying with WP:BRD, are not edit-warring, and can revert an infinite number of editors? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

of course not, however I think we are having fruitful discussions. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

By "fruitful", do you mean "Gary makes a comment, everyone disagrees with him, and then Gary reverts"? If so, then in that sense they are "fruitful". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. A key part of WP:BRD is this (from the 'nutshell'): "If a revert is made, do not revert again but discuss and collaborate on consensus" (emph. added). Jakew (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Your accusations are not backed up by facts. I am heavily involved in discussion on the talk page and I am hardly alone in my assertion that the talk page size should be increased. It appears another editor has also just opened an RFC on the matter. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: Elise Testone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported appears to be using a dynamic IP address partcularly these 3:
User being reported: 190.98.50.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 190.98.51.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 190.98.51.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st edit by 190.98.50.178: diff, 00:16, 28 April 2012 (edit summary: <blank>)
• 2nd edit by 190.98.50.178: diff, 01:10, 28 April 2012 (edit summary: <blank>)
• 3rd edit by 190.98.51.251: diff, 19:28, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: <blank>)
• 4th edit by 190.98.51.253: diff, 08:39, 7 May 2012 (edit summary: <blank>)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:174.252.189.137 reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: 31 hours)

Page: World Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.252.189.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [123]

• 1st revert: [124]
• 2nd revert: [125]
• 3rd revert: [126]
• 4th revert: [127]
• 5th revert: [128]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

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

• IP never made it to to the article talk page. My advice on their talk page and further.

Comments:

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

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

Page: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: dlv999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [130]
• 2nd revert: [131]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

]

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

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. User was clearly given proper notifications, refused to self-revert. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)