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 crossdressinghttp://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 identityhttp://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 charactershttp://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 atTalk:Wandering Son#Pronouns again, even more so since the article's a GA and must maintain a certain level of quality to retain that status. Even ifMOS: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 thatWP:V andWP:NPOV trumps MOS:IDENTITY when in cases of disputes, as with this one. The IP also statedas the reader we are aware of their true gender identity but this is simplyoriginal 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 alldrag 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)
• Stale. 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)

Page:Secular Islam Summit (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Kwamikagami (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

• 1st revert:[1]/[2] these consecutive edits remove material that Adjwilley addedhere and that I addedhere
• 2nd revert:[3] removes material added most recentlyhere by myself but also earlier by Adjwilley
• 3rd revert:[4] removes material added most recentlyhere by Adjwilley
• 4th revert:[5] removes material that I addedhere in an attempt to address one of Kwami's own concerns
• 5th revert:[6] removes material Adjwilley addedhere

Diff of edit warring / 4RR warning:[7] (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 thisarticle ownership.–Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs)06:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

One problem is thatboth 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'vedemonstrated 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 ⋅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 gratuitousad homs here -- be glad that an admin did not note them. Cheers.Collect (talk)19:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected 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, Idon'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)

Page:Svan people (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:GeorgianJorjadze (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) +
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive185#User:PlatonPskov reported by User:Kober (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:[8] (ornew)

They continued to:

11 +

22. /againuser: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[9],

4[10],

5[11]... +

6[12],

7[13],

8[14],

9[15]... How much can you?--PlatonPskov (talk)18:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

• Again edits without discussion and clarification, the war of edits:

10[16] +

11[17] +

12and 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 Andhere, without explanation and without discussion. And he introduces destructive changes (information not contained in the sources (Seemy 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 Andhere, without explanation and without discussion. I need help! Where are the administrators? --PlatonPskov (talk)17:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

15 Andhere... --PlatonPskov (talk)18:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

16 Andhere... --PlatonPskov (talk)18:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Page:Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Football history (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

Comments:
User is also engaged in an edit war onList of Brazilian football champions.— Abhishek ^Talk18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hours. 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)

Page:Marketing mix (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:219.163.197.4 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
User being reported:219.163.197.5 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
User being reported:218.225.58.206 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
These three IPs appear to be thesame person.

Previous version reverted to:[18]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.

• 1st revert:[19]
• 2nd revert:[20]
• 3rd revert:[21]
• 4th revert:[22]
• 5th revert:[23]

These diffs span more than 24 hours but it's still an edit war without any discussion going on.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warnings:[24],[25],[26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[27]

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[28] refused because the edits "appear to be in good faith". That hasn't stopped the warring.Jojalozzo04:25, 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 ofWP: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)

Page:El Clásico (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Litmanen87 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[29]

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

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

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

Comments:

User edit warring against consensus, I suspect user has edit warred under another account and various IPs and have opened aSPI caseEl0i (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)

Page:Gwanggaeto the Great (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:World historia‎ (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Previous title reverted to:Emperor_Gwanggaeto

• 1st revert:[36]
• 2nd revert:[37]
• 3rd revert:[38]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[39][40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[41]

Comments:

The reported editor keeps to move the page in question from the stable titleGwanggaeto the Great to the new titleEmperor_Gwanggaeto. Initially, he/she askedUser:SwisterTwister how to move the page, and SwisterTwister moved it. As I see the new title is agaist established guidelines perWP:COMMONNAME andWP:NC-KO, and controversial, I reverted. Then the editor him/herself moved the page. I reverted again perWP:STATUSQUO, initiatedWP:RM discussion, and notified them. Still, he/she continue to move the page without participating the discussion dispite being warned. --Kusunose02:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for 48 hours. Ordinarily, I'd simply protect it on whatever currentwrong 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)

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

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 movedGwanggaeto Stele toTomb monument of Emperor Gwanggaeto without responding to above requested move.[42] Furthermore the user began edit warring atTomb monument of Emperor Gwanggaeto. I recommend to block the user for a extended period of time. ――Phoenix7777 (talk)08:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Page:Gilad Shalit (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:68.45.180.34 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

• 1st revert:[43]
• 2nd revert:[44]
• 3rd revert:[45]
• 4th revert:[46]
• 5th revert:[47]
• 6th revert:[48]
• 7th revert:[49]

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

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

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 ""We can do this forever. I'll just revert your reversals."

• Blocked – for a period of48 hoursSlon02 (talk)19:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[52]

• 1st revert:[53]
• 2nd revert:[54]
• 3rd revert:[55]
• 4th revert:[56]
• 5th revert:[57]
• 6th revert:[58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: seehere andhere.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of48 hours byUser:Boing! said Zebedee -Sitush (talk)16:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Page:Skyfall (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Milkshake6789 (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]

User is edit-warring atSkyfall.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[65]

Talk:Skyfall#Marketing section

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)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hours much earlier today (talk→ BWilkins ←track)00:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Page:Mohammad Iqbal Khan (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Ladyzaib (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to: User added content per thisdiff 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 herelink.

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 atCommonsQU^TalkQu21:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Page:Ouroboros (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:91.122.4.153 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

• 1st revert:[66]
• 2nd revert:[67]
• 3rd revert:[68]
• 4th revert:[69]
• 5th revert:[70]
• 6th revert:[71]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[72][73]

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)

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

All reverts pertain to a short paragraph about allegations that Chinese politician Bo Xilai was involved in torture againstFalun 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:[74]
• 2nd revert:[75]
• 3rd revert:[76]
• 4th revert:[77]

The only time that Ohconfucius contributed to the talk page discussion during this 24-hour period was to make thisWP:FORUM-like comment[78].

Ohconfucius was warned about breaking the 3RR immediately.[79] He responded by calling this very "droll".[80] 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.[81] 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:

• [82]
• [83]

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 (?).[84]

I encouraged the editor to self-revert.[85] He refused.[86]

Attempts to resolve constructively: After his first revert, I asked Ohconfucius in his talk page if he could explain.[87] He did not answer. I then tried numerous times to advance a constructive talk page conversation about the disputed material:[88][89][90][91][92][93][94] I also asked three previously uninvolved editors to weigh in so as to enable a clearer consensus to emerge.[95][96][97].

Additional comments on my involvement:This edit war was catalyzed by an edit that I made[98], 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.[99][100][101] 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)

I thought we were engaged in aniterative process to find the right balance for the article, and felt frustrated that two editors appeared totag team to impose a certain wording. To his credit, Homunculus seemed to acknowledge thathis own action had set off a chain edits. Indeed, this caused Colipon toremove 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 myone revert. H madesome comment on the talk page (at 4:05 am my time), and TSTFresponded (at 7:50 am my time) andreincluded the disputed section even before any imaginary ink would have dried. He acted with such apparent haste that Ireverted 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 hadreinserted 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 ofShrigley.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 hismea culpa seems hollow and disingenuous.This diff shows that despite his acknowledgement, thefinal 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. Irefused his invitation to revert myself, and instead asked him to reexamine his own actions. Of course, I also pointed out that blocks werenot meant to be punitive. I warned him he could be blockedpre-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 toWP: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, andsuggesting 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)

Page:User talk:Musicfreak7676 (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Musicfreak7676 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[102]

• 1st revert:[103]
• 2nd revert:[104]
• 3rd revert:[105]
• 4th revert:[106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[107]

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 withUser: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 believeWP: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 fromWP: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 seeWP: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^TalkQu23:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that. The sentence does continue sayingthough 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 thatWP:3RRdoes apply to your own reverts of someone else's talk page, so beware of theWP: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 fromWP:OWNTALK is a different guideline toWP:TALK and are deliberately inconsistent. That is, the guidelines are intended to be different. You can't rely onWP:TALK to cover actions on a user talk page because it is a guideline related to article talk pages only.QU^TalkQu07:17, 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 isnot disallowed either. --Onorem♠Dil13:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• No violationWP: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 notever replace them in the future (talk→ BWilkins ←track)10:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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^[1], 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 areliable source, especially information about living persons. SeeWikipedia:Verifiability andWikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Since you have not cited a source that supports the last part of your paragraph, your information is nothing butoriginal research and that can't be used on Wikipedia. Regards,Theleftorium^(talk)17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Scott93205 (talk ·contribs) has beenBlocked – for a period of24 hours for edit warring. I see no violation byTheleftorium (talk ·contribs). —Scientizzle17:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Page:Adam Dunn (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Carthage44 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[108][109][110][111][112][113][114]

• 1st revert:[115]
• 2nd revert:[116]
• 3rd revert: N/A
• 4th revert: N/A
• This is more of a slow-burn case of constant reversions due toWP: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 withWP:IDHT andWP: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 arehere andhere).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

My specific diffs on the talk page (it's a short section):[117], and[118]

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 violation No attempts to discuss directly with the other editor, and no attempts to redress throughWP:DRN. I see no 3RR vios, but perhaps someWP:TE that is not the purview of this board. Perhaps this discussion has already prevented the "future" edit-war, but the whole idea ofwarnings from one editor to another is toadvise 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)

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

Previous version reverted to:[119]

• 1st revert:[120]
• 2nd revert:[121]
• 3rd revert:[122] (89.168.123.112 is Stumink's IP address - see:User talk:Stumink#Keep the main page simple and note the similarities in contribution histories between89.168.123.112 (talk ·contribs) andStumink (talk ·contribs) )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[123]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Very lengthy discussion of this atTalk: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 theList of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan in theWar in Afghanistan (2001–present) article's infobox atTalk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) andWP:DRN. This ended with a clear consensus against including these figures. TheList of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan article was also deleted yesterday perWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan. Despite this, Stumink has started trying to edit war the figures into theWar in Afghanistan (2001–present) referencing a mirror of theList of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan article on another website, and has now done so twice. He or she explained their rationale for doing sohere, 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 atTalk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) at the time ([124]),[125]), 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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byStumink (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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byStumink (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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byStumink (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.

Parsecboy (talk ·contribs) 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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byStumink (talk •contribs)19:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: reverted tothis version by revertingthis edit

• 1st revert:[126]
• 2nd revert:[127]
• 3rd revert:[128]
• 4th revert (consecutive):[129][130][131]

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 hereTalk:Cult_suicide#Falun_Gong_etc; 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 casehere.The Sound and the Fury (talk)15:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• No case to answer, as the evidence is rather contrived:
  1. Diff 1in 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.
  2. Diff 2 was a modified text that attempted to address the concerns raised on the talk page and was accompanied by atalk page comment
  3. Diff 3 – revert enhanced with a suitable citation in response to additional concerns raised about "synthesis"
  4. 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 theedit 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 bettersummarise.
• I have not edited the page nor the talk page since the edits in Diff 4, except tosupply evidence requested andfurther discuss same.

--Ohconfucius^¡digame!17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The 3RR policy says"An editor must not performmore than three reverts on asingle page within a24-hour period." The diff 1 edit summary identifies it as a revert; as for diff 4, a revert is defined under theWP: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 revertunless 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 violatedWP:3RR, althoughWP: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 (seeWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Log_of_blocks_and_bans); 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)

Page:Occupy Wall Street (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:The Modest Associate (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[132]

• 1st revert:[133]
• 2nd revert:[134]
• 3rd revert:[135]
• 4th revert:[136]
• 5th revert:[137]

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

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

Comments:
User is sock of banned puppetmasterUser:CentristFiasco. SPI reopened atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco‎.Equazcion^(talk)14:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Disregard, already blocked.Equazcion^(talk)14:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Page:5AA (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:JamesM403 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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 breachesWP:NOTRADIOGUIDE (policy) however the editor has not responded to the edit summaries andtalkpage.Bidgee (talk)10:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of31 hours...which has, of course, expired now. Let me know if it recurs (talk→ BWilkins ←track)13:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert:[138]
• 2nd revert:[139]
• 3rd revert:[140]
• 4th revert:[141]
• 5th revert:[142]— Precedingunsigned comment added byMarcusHookPa (talk •contribs)02:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[144]

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 articleSubaru 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)

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

Previous version reverted to:[145]

• 1st revert:[146]
• 2nd revert:[147]
• 3rd revert:[148]
• 4th revert:[149]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[150]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[151]

Comments:

Jakew has four times reverted two seperate editors: Myself andUser:NeilN in a 25 hour period. Also note there are several high-quality medical sources that dispute his "strong" version, for example[152],[153],[154],[155],[156],[157],[158],[159]. I believe a caution is insufficient because Jakew is well aware of 3RR policies judging by his frequent visits here (e.g.[160],[161],[162],[163],[164],[165],[166])Pass a Methodtalk10:00, 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 — 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 atTalk:Circumcision#recent revert of modification of "strong evidence" sentence, which PassaMethod appears to have abandoned; his/herlatest revert didn't even include an edit summary.Jakew (talk)11:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Jake, i clarified myself to you further inthis 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 atthis AN/I post, and simply wikilinked some wikipedia guidelines. Im not sure how to respond when somebody diverts from the original discussion.Pass a Methodtalk13:06, 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)

• Page protected That article is a war zone. Please discuss issues on the talk page. --tariqabjotu20:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Page:Croat–Bosniak War (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Alan.Ford.Jn (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[167]

• 1st revert:[168]
• 2nd revert:[169]
• 3rd revert:[170]
• 4th revert:[171]
• 5th revert:[172]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[173]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[174]

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[175] 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[176] shows consistent negative numbers in accordance to the removal of text: (-1,255)‎[177], (-1,656)[178], (-3,499)‎[179], (-1,810)[180]‎, (-2,250)‎[181]. In another edit[182] 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[183] 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[184] but they never responded or acknowledged it. From April 18, 2012 to May 27, Alan.Ford.Jn has made 12 edits, all on theCroat-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)

Page:The People of Freedom (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Nick.mon (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[185]

• 1st revert:[186]
• 2nd revert:[187]
• 3rd revert:[188]

User is edit-warring atLega NordThe Right, andDemocratic Party (Italy), too, but hasn't breached 3RR yet.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[189]

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?Zero^talk09:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)