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:Kermansh reported by User:Fram (Result: A day)

Page: List of people known as The Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kermansh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Comments:

User has also acted vindictive by reverting completely unrelated edits made by the first user who reverted him on this page, including a removal of an AfD message [7] and a few others. Fram (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hounding is obvious and editor could be blocked for that alone. I'd block for the 3RR but I've reverted this editor before this was brought. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of a day. I have no objections if another admin wants to increase the block due to hounding. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiaxar/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Vice regent reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Stale)

Page: 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [8] Removed content regarding traveling abroad to be indoctrinated in terror
• 2nd revert: [9] Amended reliably sourced undisputed content
• 3rd revert: [10]Removed reliably sourced content on facebook tribute
• 4th revert: [11]Removed The Independent as a source because of typo within article
• 5th revert: [12]Removed sourced graveyard vandalism content
• 6th revert: [13]Removed sourced content relating to rallies
• 7th revert: [14]Removed sourced content relating to rallies and graveyard vandalism
• 8th revert: [15]Amended sourced content
• 9th revert: [16]Removed Koran content
• 10th revert: [17]Removed "Allahu Akbar" content

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18][19][20] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21][22][23]

Comments:I must stress I have no 3rr complaints. My concern is the disruptive style of editing of this user. The user has frequently removed sourced content from the article and sources themselves. The user rarely discusses his changes on the talk page, and when they do, it is after several requests and a fait acompli amendment. There has been no WP:BRD as user has not discussed many of the above edits on the Talk page. For example the content removal regarding travelling abroad and today's removal of all references to the Koran and Allahu Akbar remain unexplained. I have asked whether third party assistance or arbitration will be of help but have been ignored.

Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, I would like to say several things. First, AnkhMorpork seems to have violated 3RR (and I reported it), but I asked the user to self-revert, and once he did so I withdrew my report.

The above quote "reverts" are not characteristic of edit-warring. When looked at along with the discussion, they resemble the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. My edits reflect the updated consensus I have formed with users on the talk page.

The following sections show that I do discuss: Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Deletion_of_Celebration_of_the_massacre, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Description_of_shooter, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Rallies, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#WP:UNDUE.

"I have asked whether third party assistance or arbitration will be of help but have been ignored". I suggested third party assistance, and have welcomed it. Yes, I have ignored requests for arbitration - its far too early for that.

(A report was filed against AnkhMorpork for making personal attacks against me, and it was resolved.)

VR _talk 15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Stale. The last revert shown above is from 30 March. Edits of the article by Vice regent and AnkhMorpork appear to be swamped by a large number of edits from others. Without great patience an admin would have trouble seeing if an actual revert war is taking place, in any direction. If you can focus on a specific issue, consider opening a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for other options you might consider. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:71.255.245.137 reported by AzureCitizen (talk) (Result: Article semied)

Page: Bradley Manning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.255.245.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Diff of warning: here

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

1. 06:29, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Given Manning's female gender identity, only female pronouns are correct. Included in this article is a quote implying she would rather be executed than misgendered.")
2. 06:39, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484657538 by Meco (talk) due to uncorrect pronoun usage")
3. 06:57, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484659173 by SatenikTamar (talk)")
4. 17:40, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484660805 by 180.254.97.177 (talk) It is incorrect to refer to a female-identified person by male pronouns.")
5. 22:30, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484760635 by Srich32977 (talk) Manning clearly identifies as female; reffering to her with masculine pronouns is both incorrect and disrespectful.")
6. 22:47, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484767749 by AzureCitizen (talk) See talk comment.")
7. 22:54, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484768170 by AzureCitizen (talk) If anyone had evidence for Manning identifying as male it might be appropriate to default to masculine pronouns; this is not the case.")

It appears this IP editor feels strongly that they are "right" and they do not understand the consensus process. The warning diff provided above happened between the IP user's 2nd and 3rd revert, so either they don't understand WP:3RR in this respect or they are simply ignoring it. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected by Department of Redundancy Department Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Banana Fingers reported by User:cloudz679 (Result: Stale, but warned about NPA)

Page: Stephan Schröck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Banana Fingers (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: some discussion here: User talk:Cyrus35334

Comments:
Banana Fingers is being very disruptive at a number of other articles including Rob Gier, usually making a high number of reverts without leaving comments anywhere, e.g. absent edit summaries, and making it difficult to establish reasons for change. After placing an edit warring notice on his user page this morning, he continued reverting in disregard of the matter. His manner and conduct should not be allowed to continue. Cloudz679 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Stale; last revert was several hours ago. Rereport if it starts up again. Given that Banana Fingers has been blocked twice for personal attacks, I will also issue an NPA warning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/69.210.244.202 Reported by User:Musicfreak7676 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Nicole Scherzinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.210.244.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]
• 4th revert: [27]

Comments:
This IP keeps undoing edits to Nicole Scherzinger and is acting a very "stan" way, and is very disruptive to the editing of Wikipedia. Their edits are not constructive or sourced. I warned them that YouTube is not a source, and they continue to add it and laugh in my face. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:216.227.26.56 reported by User:Tampabay721 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Florida State Seminoles football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.227.26.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32]
• 5th revert: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

Hasn't responded to others' comments in edit summaries, discussion on the talk page, or 3RR warning. Just puts all the material back without explanation or acknowledgement of disagreement with other editors. I have never reported anyone for 3RR before but this is all I know I can do without violating 3RR myself. Tampabay721 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesrand reported by User:Edcolins (Result: A day)

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

Previous version reverted to: [36]

• 1st revert: [37]
• 2nd revert: [38]
• 3rd revert: [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Brian Camelio#Patent Dispute sections (search for instance for "I agree with Nowa that "we should avoid burdening the article with the ongoing play by play of the lawsuit"." and "Neither I nor Nowa (I presume) are willing to remove the complete paragraph. In other words, I agree with this edit by Nowa")

Comments:
Very similar edit warring on the page Kickstarter [41] (which includes almost the same section...). --Edcolins (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Nikosgreencookie reported by User:SentientContrarian (Result: Both 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [42]

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

[48]

And on my talk page, I have been repeatedly harassed by this user who immediately accused me of vandalism.

[49]

Comments:

I ran into this article on Mr. Takis Fotopoulos, saw that the majority of the sources were either primary sources or sources affiliated with him or owned by him (as in the article on Jamie Zawinski and the user I am reporting started immediately putting up "vandalism" warnings on my Talk page and accusing me - without the slightest piece of evidence - of being here only to attack Mr. Takis Fotopoulos, the subject of the article. And now he even claims that I am... threatening the supporters of Inclusive Democracy (the political movement founded by Mr. Takis Fotopoulos). SentientContrarian (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked - 24 hours. One did not break 3RR, but this is clearly edit warring. Neither party seems to have a WP:BLP immunity for any of their reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: April Fools' Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.66.196.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [50]
• 2nd revert: [51]
• 3rd revert: [52]
• 4th revert: [53]
• 5th revert: [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

User persists in adding link to http://www.kevinkatovic.biz/blog/april-fools-day-pranks-for-2012/ , in some edits replacing an existing link while claiming to be deleting spam. Trivialist (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours For the continued reverting and spamming. Kuru (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: McKhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Ahbash Comments:
Mckhan broke the 3rr rule and he has been warned previously by others to not revert other peoples work on his talk page Baboon43 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel this way but I have not broken the 3RR rule. Thanks. McKhan (talk)

Technically true, but the pattern of reverts is clearly edit warring. A really bad idea on an article that being closely watched. Kuru (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48/72 hours respectively. Warning left on article talk page for future discussions. Wifione ^Message 03:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AmandaParker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

• Reporting editor Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. See above report. Wifione ^Message 03:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: Template:Frank Zappa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

1st revert on 26-Jan-2012, without edit summary. Pointy edit doubling a half live/half studio album.

2nd revert on 24-Feb-2012 with edit symmary "reverting vandalism"

3rd revert on 24-Feb-2012.

4th revert on 31-Mar-2012}}, skipping 3 intermediate versions

5th revert on 1-Apr-2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See message at template talk and long thread at Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa Template., involving several users.

Comments:

User Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) seems to behave in a rather disruptive way at Template:Frank Zappa and Frank Zappa discography. Yesterday I put this message at user's talk page ([59]).

Recent behaviour at Template:Frank Zappa is i.m.o. wp:disruptive.

• Against strong consensus (see talk page Talk:Frank_Zappa#Zappa_Template and Template_talk:Frank_Zappa), user have made 5 reverts of a long standing and stable version of the template:

First change to split on 19-Jan-2012, followed by properly motivated undo by 113.117.201.52 on 26-Jan-2012

#1 revert on 26-Jan-2012, without edit summary. Pointy edit doubling a half live/half studio album.

#2 revert on 24-Feb-2012 with edit symmary "reverting vandalism"

#3 revert on 24-Feb-2012.

#4 revert on 31-Mar-2012}}, skipping 3 intermediate versions

#5 revert on 1-Apr-2012 <== New

• Meanwhile, concerning placement of album Sheik Yerbouti:

Edit by Aerosmith366 on 21-Jan-2012

Your #1 revert on 25-Jan-2012, followed by revert by Aerosmith366 on 25-Jan-2012

Your #2 revert on 25-Jan-2012, followed by revert by 113.117.201.52 on 26-Jan-2012

...

Your #3 revert on 4-Feb-2012

• Meanwhile, on 11-Feb-2012, in response to my referring to Frank Zappa discography, this comment and shortly after, this pointy split of the discography article.

User was pointed to the following items at wp:disruptive.

• Wikipedia:Disruptive#Attempts_to_evade_detection:

"Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."

• Wikipedia:Disruptive#Signs_of_disruptive_editing:

"'...'continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors."

"repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits."

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

This resulted in

• #5 revert with edit summary "First of all, if you have no problem edit warring without consensus, why give me shit when I clearly do have consensus to do this?", also undoing two formatting issues by different users
• dismissal of talk page message with edit summary "No consensus? BULLSHIT."
• accusing me of ignoring consensus and of changing the template (which I have never reverted), with edit summary "Wrong. YOU are ignoring consensus. Stop making the template look worse..."
• reverting discography again, undoing 10 revisions by 8 users, with edit summary "rv to last good version".
• appeal "There has been repeated attempts to vandalize..." at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Apparently this is not the first appeal over there, see also previous appeal on 2-feb-2012, which got no response.

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [60]

• 1st revert: [61]
• 2nd revert: [62]
• 3rd revert: [63]
• 4th revert: [64]
• 5th revert: [65]
• 6th revert: [66]
• 7th revert: [67]
• 8th revert: [68]
• 9th revert: [69]

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four clear reverts in the last 24 hours; was warned. Kuru (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Greyhood reported by User:Malick78 (Result: )

Page: Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Greyhood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

• 1st revert: [71]
• 2nd revert: [72]
• 3rd revert: [73]
• 4th revert: [74]

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

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

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

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

• I've made a technical self-revert. The other editors asked me for the sources - I've provided them. If the sources were asked in correct and respectful way, that is by adding "citation needed" tags, I'd simply replace the tags with sources. But instead the whole material was outright deleted. So how could I have provided the requested sources without restoring it? Note that the editor Toddy1 on the talk found my addition of sources OK and helpful.[77] GreyHood ^Talk 13:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Note that editor Toddy1 reverted my self-revert [78]. GreyHood ^Talk 13:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

A neutral person would also have noted that User:Mootros is deleting the same material, over and over and over again. Notice how the paragraph explaining the naming of the donkey keeps being deleted (along with other stuff) in the following four edits

• [79] 16:13-17:10 1 April 2012.
• [80] 17:40 1 April 2012
• [81] 06:54-07:43 2 April 2012
• [82] 11:23-11:43 2 April 2012

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

User:Ashrf1979 reported by User:RJFF (Result: )

Page: Bahrani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ashrf1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

• 1st revert: [84]
• 2nd revert: [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Thread of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bahrani people#Phoenician, Chaldean, etc. origins and Talk:Bahrani people#Phoenician+Chaldean+North Arabian =Bahrani people

Comments:

The editor has not breached the 3RR in 24 h, but engages in a long-term edit war on this article (see hist), showing clear indications of article ownership. He/she has been warned of edit warring and/or page ownership at least four times. All attempts to resolve the issue (on the article's talk incl. 3rd opinion, on Ashrf1979's talk page and on my own one) have been effectless. Co-operation and communication with the user seems impossible. --RJFF (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [87]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of most recent attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Previous attempts are found in the following archive sections:

• FTN 1
• RSN
• FTN 2
• FTN 3

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

Bittergrey has claimed that the source Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) states that pharaphilic infantilism is pedophilia. The actual statement is from page 531 and says:

“ The erotic fantasies of persons with erotic identity disorders pertain less to any sexual partners and more to their transformed images of themselves; some authors refer to these paraphilias as autoerotic...[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia. ”

A literal reading of the statement is that paraphilic infantilism is a form of pedophilia but within the theory of erotic target location errors, the intent of the actual statements are to clearly distinguish between the two. The theory of "erotic target location error" when discussing paraphilic infantilists is that paraphilic infantilists are aroused by the idea of themselves being children and does not to say paraphilic infantilists wish to rape children. Quite the opposite.

The statement on the old version of the page summarized this as follows:

An additional theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centered on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child.