Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Latest revision as of 15:01, 8 May 2012

Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

Administrator instructions

Noticeboards and related pages (Dashboard)

General	Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents Bot owners' noticeboard Department directory Editor's index Education noticeboard File namespace noticeboard General sanctions / Editing restrictions Media copyright questions Importing pages Page protection OTRS noticeboard MediaWiki messages

Content	Biographies of living persons Categorization Copyright problems / Contributor copyright investigations External links Fringe theories Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts Neutral point of view No original research Proposed mergers Reliable sources Requested moves Spam

User issues	Abuse response Conflict of interest Paid advocacy Editor assistance Editor review Help desk Long-term abuse New user help Open proxies Oversight Sockpuppets User page help Usernames Vandalism

Noticeboards	Arbitration: Request, Clarify, or Amend Enforcement Content disputes Drawing board Edit warring & 3RR Mediation: Formal / Informal Requests for comment Requests for feedback Wikiquette assistance

Click here to add a new report

If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

User being reported: Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

04:30, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "The Seeds of Tomorrow")
04:40, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Disallowing an integral party to every previous failure from preventing a real solution.")
04:49, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Just the same 3 people (Mtking, TreyGeek, Haseur) who've betrayed the process again and again trying to prevent resolution that's not controlled and failed via them.")
07:17, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "The clique of Mtking/Treygeek/Hasteur clearly _hate_ any attempt at a process not under their direct control. They'll do _anything_ unsavory possible to prevent.")

—Mt king ^(edits) 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has now self reverted his fourth revert, will withdraw this if Agent00f undertakes not to redo the edit at some later time. Mt king ^(edits) 07:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this rule exists and I've reverted last change. However, this prompted me to also look at the rulebook and see if there's egregious violations by Mtking. This is directly related to another AN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Agent00f. It's blatant forum-shopping. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP#FORUMSHOP As noted on other AN and edit notes direct this is simply collusion between 3 editors to single out, harass, and drive off (esp new) users who do not wish them to dominate the discussion. That's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BITE. There's a consistent history of their behavior over months if anyone needs evidence. Agent00f (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You failed to read the rest of WP:FORUMSHOP Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.; the issue at ANI is your soapboxing, the issue here is WP:3RR and you will see that on the ANI thread I posted a link here.

As for you claims of ignorance (of the 3RR rule) that does not hold given the notice placed on your talk page over 2 hrs before you made your fourth revert. Mt king ^(edits) 08:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Clear sign of WP:BITE again and not assuming good faith. Mtking's posse's posted so much trash to my talk page I don't even look at it anymore. The two AN attempts also clearly involve the exact same material deleted wholesale in blatant violation of WP:TALKO, but I'm not going to start an AN over it like Mtking and hope for another admin to cut me a break. In good faith instead of just pretending I won't put it back again until the other AN is closed. It's also notable that Mtking is already in violation of about 5 other wiki rules at the other AN board, but keeps up this kind of behavior.

Also, note that as a veteran wiki editor, you should be aware that 3RR as a brightline rule is more easily applied, so please post links going both ways next time, esp when you posted this later. Agent00f (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mtking is now trying to negotiate in bad faith by offering to withdraw this AN only if I accept his wholesale deletion. The only reason I've reverted this is to avoid a quick brightline block by a hasty admin while a block against Mtking is being consider at another AN.

This is simply more unethical behavior on Mtking's part and has been noted to the other AN. Agent00f (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Already blocked by someone else. --slakr^\ talk / 05:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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 this Lihaas (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 being reported: Colton Cosmic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

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

19:35, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Okay, I'm deleting this based on WP:BLP, see discussion.")
19:49, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undo, does not address WP:BLP violation")
21:01, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "undo, previous edit did WAY more than comment indicated, and deleted valid reference")
15:33, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "occupation: previous editor of this deleted reliably-sourced information (and reliable source), just restoring")

Diff of warning: here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my first post to talk-page, which is active

Note that this editor is claiming BLP, but there is a clear consensus on the talkpage that there's no BLP violation whatsoever here.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I believe I am in the right and that the last of those edits is not edit warring but a straight and independent restoration of referenced material that was deleted (and the reliable source was deleted) in favor of a tendentious and wholly unreferenced epithet ("vigilante"). It is accurate that other editors there have disagreed with me, premising their positions in part on inaccurate information (see "press conference"), as Nomoskedasticity did, but there has not been enough time or comments to have a "consensus." And any rate, should it be found that there's a violation, I assert a WP:BLP exemption, and am ready to explain and defend that, and I further note that editors at the article have gone so far as to link a private individual's personal Facebook page and purportedly his traffic offense record. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't been reported before, and I wasn't really familiar with how this noticeboard works, but it looks like each complaint calls for a resolution, and presumably the admin is not going to want to go back and forth on it, so I better get my side out now. As briefly as I can:

I don't think the *first* of those edits linked above is edit-warring. It was the eighth of the first eight edits, none contested at that time, I made to the article. I did not know it would be so contentious. If you go back far enough on the talk page then yeah, people are quarreling about it, but I did not know this. There was a recent discussion about whether to name the article by the superhero persona or by his real name but that's a little different than my position at the time that the real name should not be included at all, and as far as I know I have not run afoul of either of those editors in that recent discussion ("Why is this page listed as Phoenix Jones?").
Yeah, the edit *deleted* text, and arguably any time you delete *anything* you're "reverting" *somebody* but I viewed the edit as non-adversarial at the time and I duly explained myself on the talk page.
I'll own up to the fact that the second and third edits linked above are reverts.
Although now it's clear it has not gone in my favor, at the time I was making the WP:BLP case that we don't need to be disclosing the identifying information about "the man behind the mask." I made this case that BLP protects this information at several points, and I'm not going to re-recite them here. I still believe that but I accept I haven't persuaded anyone to agree with me. Of course this is clear now, it wasn't at the time of the above-linked edits. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That last edit is undoubtedly a revert. It appears to me that you're saying you believe you're entitled to violate 3RR as long as you think you're right. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you give somebody else a chance to consider your "report?" Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your bullet points above -- the first edit was undoubtedly a revert as well. What's annoying about all of this is that I warned you when you were at 3 and you persisted anyway; it results in a waste of time, when we would spend our time better working on articles. That said -- you seem to be getting a clue about how edit-warring is understood and I suspect you'll merely be warned. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stale — user stopped edit warring after being notified of the WP:3RR. --slakr^\ talk / 05:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

1st revert: [23]
2nd revert: [24]
3rd revert: [25]
4th revert: [26]
5th revert: [27]
6th revert: [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:

Edit warring to repeatedly insert libelous material into the article Johan Galtung, with the libelous, POV and UNDUE title "accusations of anti-semitism". The material has been determined to constitute a BLP violation at the Norwegian Wikipedia, removed by an administrator and the article protected there to prevent its readdition due to it being libel. Specifically, inserting a separate section with a title containing the word "anti-semitism" was deemed to be a BLP violation as it made the subject look anti-semitic. Nevertheless, the user continues his edit wars on other language editions, after he didn't get it his way at the Norwegian Wikipedia.

Someone inserting a separate section (grossly undue) titled "accusations of anti-semitism" in Barack Obama's (or any other public person's) biography (even if there were some sources) would be blocked instantly.

Also, it is It Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified, per Wikipedia:Libel and the policy on biographies of living persons.

As the talk page demonstrates, there is no consensus to insert this material in the article in this form and with such a title, and as a separate section, i.e. in the form determined to constitute a BLP violation at the Norwegian Wikipedia. Tertoger (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Tertoger Blocked – for a period of indefinite for returning to edit warring as soon as their block expired and lodging this bad faith report. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Time reported: 10:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: See evidence presented by AussieLegend below

13:24, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "") reverted to this.[31]
22:01, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490700120 by CourtneyBonnick (talk)Carlin died, so i think we should leave it the way it is.")
23:11, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490708422 by 70.61.72.50 (talk) That's not even a thomas movie. False info")
Contact was made with editor regarding his edits here, although other editors had been communicating with him previously.
03:05, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490731160 by Trivialist (talk)") was immediately followed by 03:07, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490731429 by Trivialist (talk)")
23:04, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "") This edit restored content previously removed in this edit making it a partial reversion.
23:22, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490873549 by CourtneyBonnick (talk)That's important info.")
00:01, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490877637 by CourtneyBonnick (talk)")
01:14, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490903265 by Trivialist (talk)")
Editor was given a 3RR warning at this point.
03:37, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "") immediately followed by 03:43, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "") - combined these edits reverted to this.[32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:45, 6 May 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page: 23:28, 4 May 2012

Comments:
I became aware of problems at Thomas & Friends, with unsourced content being persistently added and restored after removal when it was reported recently at WT:TV by User:Robsinden. The page history reveals an ongoing edit war between IPs and registered editors. This report concerns one of them, User:Bigshowandkane64, with whom Robsinden and others have had an obvious running battle over sourcing. After reviewing the page history I reverted some edits made by Bigshowandkane64 and explained why on his talk page.[33] This was deleted 3 minutes later,[34] and Bigshowandkane64 continued restoring the offending content over the next 24 hours, despite reversions by other editors. After Bigshowandkane64 had made at least 8 reverts in a little over 38 hours a warning was clearly warranted so one was given.[35] Six minutes later he removed it from his talk page,[36] and 3/4 of an hour after that made a series of edits, restoring previously removed content,[37] the first two of which constituted his 9th revert.[38] --AussieLegend (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week while this editor has been edit warring despite a 48 hour block for this in February, this diff from those listed above definitely wasn't edit warring! Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

1st revert: [40]
2nd revert: [41]
3rd revert: [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43] and [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:John Harington (writer)#South Park just referenced this page

Comments:
This is not a 3RR report, but a general (long term) edit warring report. User was recently blocked for these same edits on the same article, and their first edit after being unblocked was to continue to edit war without discussion, and all edits since being unblocked have been to continue this edit war (except for filing this edit warring report). They finally left a message on the talk page failing to address anything presented in the discussion, and then immediately continued to edit war. Saying "I don't see what's wrong with it" and then clicking 'undo' yet again is not a discussion, it's an attempt to continue to edit war without actually discussing anything. and the user has demonstrated they have no intention of ceasing to edit war. - Sudo Ghost 13:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

i have actually discussed this on my own talk page before, but just removed the discussion. it's a referenced pop culture section, but apparently it's vandalism? there are several pop culture sections for all sorts of tv shows. this isn't any different. Shanedoe (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was vandalism; I said it was long-term edit warring. What exists on some articles is not a framework to create content on other articles without regard to weight or relevance, and it is different at any rate; see the talk page discussion. You have made exactly two comments on either your talk page or the article page, both of them in essence saying "I don't see what the problem is", as opposed to actually addressing or discussing the issues being presented. - Sudo Ghost 02:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked --slakr^\ talk / 05:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

1st revert: [46]
2nd revert: [47]
3rd revert: [48]
4th revert: [49]
5th revert: [50]
6th revert: [51]

Comments: Obviously an IP sock of the blocked User:ChronicalUsual trying to keep one of the pages his other socks created from being speedy deleted. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual for the discussion we had about this disruptive editor, whose confirmed socks now number well above 60 not including the IP accounts he's used through an open proxy to disrupt this website.

1: The administrator has not linked me to this case even when you tried to add me. I am not ChronicalUsual no matter how much you try to believe it. 2: I have not done an edit warning since I just removed a template and did not touch the content of the article. 3: I had the right to remove the template, it is written black on white in the template. You are clearly the abusive user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.159.142 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stale - the article has been deleted, so the issue is moot. If this user is a reincarnation, that's a question for Sockpuppet investigations, not this forum. B (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

The user Ackees has recently returned from a 3-day block. The first thing he set about doing is reverting edits on articles that he was participating in edit wars in. Those include Benin City, African Slave Trade, and Benin Expedition of 1897. He continues to add personal attacks against me in his edit summaries. In his most recent edit on the Benin Expedition of 1897, he called me a "white supremacist", and in the Benin City article he accused me of being part of a "colonialist propaganda". In previous edits, this user has called me and others "neo-nazis", "racists", and other such offensive appellations. One example of when he called me a "neo-nazi" is also on the Benin City edit history page, in one of Ackees recent edit summaries. Below are the links I've included to the reverts this user has been perpetrating now that he is back from his 3-day block.

Reverts on the Benin Expedition of 1897 article: [52]
Reverts on the Benin City article: [53]
Reverts on the African Slave Trade article: [54]

Blocked the reporter, ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs). I'm not sure about how much responsibility Ackee bears for all this, but ElliotJoyce was also just coming back from a block for tendentious edit-warring, and I only looked at African slave trade and saw that ElliotJoyce removed valid cited material twice within the last day, for obvious POV reasons, and was also misusing the talkpage for some rather repulsive soapboxing [55]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

1st revert: [57] (JCAla removes disambiguation hatnote put in by Fut. Perf.)
2nd revert: [58] (JCAla reverts Fut. Perf.'s rewrite of the lead and placement of an NPOV tag on the article)
3rd revert: [59] (JCAla reverts Fut. Perf.'s addition of a "dubious" tag)
4th revert: [60] (JCAla reverts Fut. Perf.'s rewrite of a paragraph)
5th revert: [61] (JCAla adds back text that Fut. Perf. removed in this edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]. JCAla has been blocked several times for edit-warring, so he knows the rules.

I haven't been involved the article talk page, but this matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Ani#User:JCAla.2C_source_falsification_and_tendentious_editing.

Comments:
I've blocked for 72 hours. I can't remember if this is a violation of 3RR (does that require reversions of the same thing or not? I can't remember), but this is unambiguously edit warring on JCAla's part and complete innocence on FPAS's part, since all reversions by JCAla were of different edits by FPAS. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Page: Anthony Hopkins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Gmonasco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who is also 94.11.182.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · COIBot · count · block log · x-wiki · Edit filter search · WHOIS · RDNS · traceroute · ippages.com · robtex.com · tor · StopForumSpam · Google · AboutUs)

Talk page attempt: Here (also issue discussed in archives)
Warning

User is edit-warring over identity/nationality and just created an account to place 4th revert after receiving warning on IP talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked — it's apparent he created the account right after you warned him of the impending 3rr violation should he continue. --slakr^\ talk / 05:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

1st revert: [64]
2nd revert: [65]
3rd revert: [66]
4th revert: [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69] and [70] 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 [[71]]. 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)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

1st revert: [73]
2nd revert: [74]
3rd revert: [75]
4th revert: [76]
5th revert: [77] (note, outside 24hr period but in the same spirit as above).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79],[80]

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 [81] . 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. [82] 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)

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:[83], 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 [84]—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)

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

Comments:

Previous version reverted to: [85]

1st revert: [86]
2nd revert: [87]
3rd revert: [88]
4th revert: [89]
5th revert: [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

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

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.")
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.")
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.")
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.")
19:19, 7 May 2012

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)

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diasystem[93][94][95]
Diaphoneme[96][97][98]
- (My restorations[99][100][101])
Russian phonology[102] [103][104][105][106]
- (My restorations [107][108][109][110][111])

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
- [112] "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."
- [113] "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."
- [114] "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"
- [115] "AEsos has demonstrated lack of rudimentary familiarity with the general area this article falls into, linguistics"
- [116] "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
- [117] "Its author, who also wrote Diasystem alone between summer 2010 and January 2011, does not even realize the difference between structuralism and generative grammar"
- [118] "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."
- [119] "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)"
- [120] "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
- [121] "'AE' is pretending he's discussing theory. He has no understanding of the theory of any article he edits on languages or linguistics."
- [122] "for AEsos to raise this objection only reaffirms his ignorance of even beginning Russian"
- Also, see uncivil comments in edit summaries[123][124][125]

Removal of citation requests[126][127][128][129][130][131] (which I have continually had to restore[132][133][134][135][136]).

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[137]. However, edits just prior to this show him fixing the same page range error for another claim from the same source[138][139] and even a talk page contribution[140] explicitly shows that he has access to the source and knew the correct page range.

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

REPLY TO COMPLAINT BY ACCUSED. User aeusoes1 appears to be judge shopping. He already made this complaint, one week ago at 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[141][142]; (2) two days ago he posted extensive comments on the same article to my user talk page instead of the article talk page.[143], refer to the two comments dated 6 May.
Two days ago, he took to hooliganism. Namely, on Talk:Russian phonology, he posted the following sneering remark: "Hmm. Still no source, eh? I can wait. I figure it's probably finals time for you, so three weeks should be enough time to find a source. Good luck. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)"[144] 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[145] (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[146] (the long table)).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1st revert: [147] (10:51, 2 May)
2nd revert: [148]
3rd revert: [149]
4th revert: [150]
5th revert: [151]
6th revert: [152]
7th revert: [153] Today
8th revert: [154]Today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [156]

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)

Previous version reverted to: [157]

1st revert: [158]
2nd revert: [159]
3rd revert: [160]
4th revert: [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [163]

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)

The Blade of the Northern Lights 08 May, 2012

-
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=491393577&oldid=491393511
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

@@ Line 709: / Line 709: @@
    <!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
-   == [[User:49.145.70.58]] reported by [[User:Benlisquare]] (Result: 24 hours==
+   == [[User:49.145.70.58]] reported by [[User:Benlisquare]] (Result: 24 hours)==
    '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|West Philippine Sea}} <br />

Pages

insurance

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Latest revision as of 15:01, 8 May 2012

Contents

Free Chat Sex

Chat Sex Sign Up

Chat Sex Sign Up

Search

Buy 500k backlink

Blogger templates

Popular Posts

Blogger news

Hot news

Blog Archive