Line 419: | Line 419: | ||
'''''[[User talk:CityOfSilver|<font color="#EDDA74" face="Bradley Hand ITC">City</font>]][[Special:Contribs/CityOfSilver|<font color="Green" face="Bradley Hand ITC">O</font><font color="Red" face="Bradley Hand ITC">f</font>]][[Special:EmailUser/CityOfSilver|<font color="#708090" face="Bradley Hand ITC">Silver</font>]]''''' 18:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC) |
'''''[[User talk:CityOfSilver|<font color="#EDDA74" face="Bradley Hand ITC">City</font>]][[Special:Contribs/CityOfSilver|<font color="Green" face="Bradley Hand ITC">O</font><font color="Red" face="Bradley Hand ITC">f</font>]][[Special:EmailUser/CityOfSilver|<font color="#708090" face="Bradley Hand ITC">Silver</font>]]''''' 18:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Friginator]] reported by [[User:Wisdomtenacityfocus]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Friginator]] reported by [[User:Wisdomtenacityfocus]] (Result: no violation) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Greasy Love Songs}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Greasy Love Songs}} <br /> |
||
Line 458: | Line 458: | ||
:As can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive182#User:Wisdomtenacityfocus_reported_by_User:DVdm_.28Result:_.29 here], you have indeed been reported for edit warring. --[[User:Mystery Roach|Mystery Roach]] ([[User talk:Mystery Roach|talk]]) 20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
:As can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive182#User:Wisdomtenacityfocus_reported_by_User:DVdm_.28Result:_.29 here], you have indeed been reported for edit warring. --[[User:Mystery Roach|Mystery Roach]] ([[User talk:Mystery Roach|talk]]) 20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
*{{AN3|nv}} Obviously there's not a 3RR here, nor do I see a larger pattern of edit warring on this article that would need a block. Frankly, if you're looking for blocks for any sort of edit warring, I would probably include the reporter. Might be nice to start as discussion, or utilize [[WP:DR]] before continuing any more back and forth reverts. Random accusations of "vandalism" are not helping. [[User:Kuru|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#cd853f; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Kuru</span>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<span style="color:#f5deb3">''(talk)''</span>]] 00:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Casprings]] reported by [[User:The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Casprings]] reported by [[User:The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 00:10, 9 April 2012
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Bittergrey reported by User:WLU (Result: )
Page: Paraphilic infantilism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bittergrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
- 1st revert: 15:31, March 31, 2012
- 2nd revert: 17:50, April 1, 2012
- 3rd revert: 21:57, April 1, 2012
- 4th revert: 10:00, April 2, 2012
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:01, April 2, 2012
- (Note the absence of edits between 11:01, April 2 "warning" and AN/3RR filing. BitterGrey (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
- Perhaps your timestamp is different, mine shows the warning as appearing at 07:01 on April 2nd. WLU (t) (c)Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I re-checked, and the timestamp quite clearly gives 11:01, 2 April 2012BitterGrey (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- You can set your time and date offset in your preferences. My offest appears to be four hours earlier than yours. If you check the reverts above, I'm guessing they show the following:
- I re-checked, and the timestamp quite clearly gives 11:01, 2 April 2012BitterGrey (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps your timestamp is different, mine shows the warning as appearing at 07:01 on April 2nd. WLU (t) (c)Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- (Note the absence of edits between 11:01, April 2 "warning" and AN/3RR filing. BitterGrey (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
- 1st revert: 11:31, March 31, 2012
- 2nd revert: 13:50, April 1, 2012
- 3rd revert: 17:57, April 1, 2012
- 4th revert: 06:00, April 2, 2012
- And for you, the 3RR warning lists 11:01, April 2, 2012] while mine is 07:01. If you check my contributions, you clearly see the warning on your talk page appearing exactly one minute after my third revert. So there is no timestamp debate, we simply have different offsets. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- So WLU was at 3 reverts in 14 hours when placing the warning... Talk about WP:Kettle! Then he filed this complaint knowing that I hadn't violated 3RR, hoping only to ruin my clean record of never having even been reported here, to make my record more like his. Can I get this complaint stricken from the record? BitterGrey (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- And for you, the 3RR warning lists 11:01, April 2, 2012] while mine is 07:01. If you check my contributions, you clearly see the warning on your talk page appearing exactly one minute after my third revert. So there is no timestamp debate, we simply have different offsets. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Diff of most recent attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]
- (Link to whole discussion, which I started, including WLU's week of silence[3]. BitterGrey (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
Previous attempts are found in the following archive sections:
Comments:
It's not a clear three reverts in 24 hours, but I think it's pretty obvious there is a problem. For anyone interested in the content issue, a brief summary follows. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Bittergrey has claimed that the source Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) states that pharaphilic infantilism is pedophilia. The actual statement is from page 531 and says:
“ | The erotic fantasies of persons with erotic identity disorders pertain less to any sexual partners and more to their transformed images of themselves; some authors refer to these paraphilias as autoerotic...[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia. | ” |
A literal reading of the statement is that paraphilic infantilism is a form of pedophilia but within the theory of erotic target location errors, the intent of the actual statements are to clearly distinguish between the two. The theory of "erotic target location error" when discussing paraphilic infantilists is that paraphilic infantilists are aroused by the idea of themselves being children and does not to say paraphilic infantilists wish to rape children. Quite the opposite.
The statement on the old version of the page summarized this as follows:
An additional theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centered on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child.
(Unsigned comment by WLU[4])
Sorry for the awkward response: I've never been written up here before, unlike WLU[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]... WLU also seems to have received not just any interaction ban[14] from arbcom, but the archetype of interactions bans[15].
My Attempt at Discussion
My attempt at discussion started last week. WLU made edits to the article and to the rest of Wikipedia, but ignored the discussion until I edited. He has edit warred, because the material doesn't support his position. He has yet to counter or even address the points I raised. His post here includes only a summary, since three locations of the article are affected. To highlight previous discussions:
- Aerobicfox of RSN wrote "Per WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources I would like better sourcing for this claim '...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia' "[16]
- Fifelfoo of RSN wrote "Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS.[17]"
- Even WLU's past-supporter FiachraByrne didn't agree with WLU's reading of F&B: "They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children.[18]" That is, F&B wrote about pedophiles, not infantilists. This is why much of the text now being fought over was hidden from August to December.
- Please note that WLU's comments above focus solely on one source (CB&B) when the issue is with another source (F&B). F&B discuss pedophilia. It doesn't mention infantilism, and so should not be cited in the paraphilic infantilism article. CB&B is cited in the article either SEVEN or NINE times in the article, depending on which version is active. (Given that CB&B has only one page that mentions infantilism, this seems undue, but isn't the current issue. Outside of this article, CB&B is only cited ONCE in entire English Wikipedia: One of the authors self-cited at courtship_disorder[19].)BitterGrey (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
WLU's Year-Long Wikihounding of Me
The real problem is that WLU has been wikihounding me since a debate in Feb 2011. Here is a list of the other articles he and I have had conflicts at, with the dates: (For clarity, I've omitted noticeboards, etc.) As you can see, with only one exception, he came to articles that I was already involved with.
- List of paraphilias(my first edit 2009-05-05 / WLU's first edit 2009-07-13) - WLU edited before conflict, but still not first
- Wikipedia talk:Conflicts of interest (medicine) (my first edit 2011-02-19 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-21) - WLU rushed to support a friend's user space ownership rights when the article was not in user space. He ended up "nuking" the talk page. He has been hounding me ever since.
- Paraphilic infantilism(my first edit 2006-01-20 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-28)
- Adult diaper(2010-09-25 / 2011-03-01)
- Diaper fetishism(2006-07-10 / 2011-03-03)
- Infantilism(2007-12-13 / 2011-03-02)
- Talk:Homosexuality(2010-09-27 / 2012-02-05) - WLU reacted to my comment by doing the opposite ... at the less-defended paraphilia article
- Paraphilia(2009-06-25 / 2012-02-05)
- Talk:Andrea James (2012-03-02 / 2012-02-10) - another editor moved the entire discussion from ANI while I was typing
- Sexology(2009-07-06 / 2012-03-04)
WLU has been following me to articles and going out of his way to pick fights.
WLU's most recent attack, at sexology, is a good example because it is easy to follow. I made a comment to the talk page[20], and WLU reacted by doing the opposite[21]. A link that I thought should be kept, Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology, was removed, making the link I thought should be removed, Sexualmedicine.org, the only non-DMOZ EL. I opened a discussion at EL/N that WLU hijacked, closed[22][23], and hid[24]. After asserting that Sexualmedicine.org was "the international page"[25] and "a world-wide agency"[26], WLU checked the EL, and concluded that my original comment was correct[27]. The other external link, the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology was previously re-added by another editor[28] and used as a reliable source by WLU[29]. As usual, WLU wasted the time of good Wikipedians fighting for a bad position, that now not even he holds.
A more complicated attack started at homosexuality. As usual, I made a comment on a talk page, and WLU reacted by stating his determination to do the opposite[30]. An author had proposed a paper to two articles, with the primary discussion at homosexuality. WLU wrote "I'll read and integrate it". Please note that again, this was not about the paper, which WLU had not yet read. Homosexuality is a well-watched article, so there wouldn't be an opportunity to single me out there. WLU fought to add a new paragraph dedicated to that author at paraphilia[31] and cite his article in multiple locations[32][33] in the article. After the edit war, WLU claims to have re-read the article[34] and accepted one of the reservations I raised in my initial comment. Again WLU only succeeded in wasting the time of good Wikipedians.
I and two other editors got involved. KimvdLinde considered the source primary[35] but kept one citation to it to try to make peace. She quickly announced her retirement from Wikipedia. The other was Jokestress, also known as Andrea James. WLU reacted by deleting her from one article[36] and adding negative material to her BLP[37]. WLU hadn't edited Andrea James or Blanchard's transsexualism typology before.
Most of his efforts are still harder to follow. An absurd example of WLU's argument-for-arguments-sake is his fighting to cite 47 pages of the DSM[38][39], then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours)[40][41][42][43], (and hijacking a 3O[44]), then zero (0) pages[45],[46][47][48], and then finally one (1) page [49] at the same article. He claims to have read that source seven months into the conflict[50][51].
We can set aside the entire debate about whether or how the DSM discusses infantilism. Even if one of the positions WLU fought for is right, the other contradictory positions he fought for were wrong. Had WLU read the source before edit warring, we could have skipped months of fruitless arguing. Fighting for unchecked sources is common for WLU. In a better example, after two thousands words of pointless debate WLU read the text and admitted "Oops". A more humorous example is this edit[52], where WLU cited a Wikipedia printout as an RS without knowing it.
After removing the DSM for lack of specific demographic information on infantilism, WLU argued for replacing it with FB&B, even though it too lacked specific demographic information on infantilism. Initially he argued "they do make a statement explicitly about all paraphilias"[53]. Then I pointed out that CB&B list three exceptions on the very next page. WLU waffled to there being three and only three exceptions[54]. Again, arguing seems to be his main goal.
- There are not one, but two lengthy discussions indicating the DSM is largely irrelevant to paraphilic infantilism, here and here. But you are correct, when I make a mistake I do admit it, correct it, and do my best to avoid repeating it. I even apologize [55]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. That time, after arguing for9,000 words, you tried to shun me [56]. You never admitted to having been wrong there. You just kept arguing and reverting.BitterGrey (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- For someone who is apparently shunning you, I've spent an awful lot of time interacting with you. I never admitted I was wrong because I don't believe I was wrong - you were arguing to remove two sources for reasons I consider illegitimate, and still do. In fact, they are the exact same sources responsible for this very discussion, the same sources currently taking up 12,000 characters on the RSN and the same sources that spawned four sprawling noticeboard sections in December, 2011 (FTN, FTN2, FTN 3 and RSN, all linked above). I did make a point of ignoring your comments when you were repeating your illegitimate claim the sources should be removed, it's only when you started edit warring to remove them that I bothered to address them again. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. That time, after arguing for9,000 words, you tried to shun me [56]. You never admitted to having been wrong there. You just kept arguing and reverting.BitterGrey (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are not one, but two lengthy discussions indicating the DSM is largely irrelevant to paraphilic infantilism, here and here. But you are correct, when I make a mistake I do admit it, correct it, and do my best to avoid repeating it. I even apologize [55]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
His frequent waffling has even complicated this issue. Those reading WLU's version of the article before Dec 6th would see pretty much the opposite text cited to F&B than they would in WLU's current version. Before Dec 6th, WLU fought to have the article include the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(quote is from the last altered section)[57][58][59][60][61][62] (The F&B-related text in the pedophilia section was commented out until Dec 6th[63].) After Dec 6th, he waffled to "infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child." (that is, NOT a form of pedophilia). [64][65][66]. He also now blames the non-politically correct version on me. Here too, we can set aside the discussion of what FB&B actually say. WLU has fought for contradictory positions, so he is wrong either way.
Where will this stop? WLU believes it necessary to drive me off Wikipedia. Were any of my editing practices the issue, I would have the option of changing that practice. He doesn't see this as an option.
- "he'll either stop editing and his problems go away, or he'll end up blocked or banned."20 August 2011
- "I think wikipedia would be flat-out best served if he were site-banned."2 March 2012
Towards this goal, he's been maintaining not one but two attack pages against me, started in 23 March 2011 and 15 December 2011 .
Of course, given what he thinks of me, he ignores my comments and edits:
- "...I can just delete this without reading it" 25 February 2011
- "I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading."22 August 2011
- "Oops...I assumed a simple revert" 19 November 2011 -yes, WLU violated AGF even in a posting to wikiquette assistance.
The second example was written to another editor, whom WLU was encouraging to ignore me. A more humorous example of this was written to yet another editor, on 14:37, 4 March 2011. "he [BitterGrey] lacks experience and in my mind tends to start disputes rather than resolve them."[67]. This was actually between two skirmishes between myself and WLU. The "dispute" WLU was engaged in then was with a Bot[68][69][70][71]. (Had he WP:AGF'd and at least evaluated my edits, he at least would have seen that they weren't my edits, but Yobot's.)
WLU, with his long history of blocks and edit warring, has been chasing me around Wikipedia for a year. He reacts to oppose my comments and reverts my edits, while ignoring my points. He also encourages others to do so. He disruptively argues and edit wars at great length without checking sources. If shown wrong, he changes to yet another position and continues the argument or edit war, ensuring that no consensus can be reached. It seems that he and his friends have created or joined every conflict I've had on Wikipedia since Feb 2011. BitterGrey (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Question: Is this the right forum?
Given that not even WLU claims that a 3RR violation occurred[72], making this accusation yet another frivolous attack, should this be relocated to AN/I? His funny timestamps and his linking to the second week of a discussion I started (to hide the fact that he was silent for the first week) are in particularly poor form. At other times in his hounding of me, he's made four reverts in 28 hours ([73][74][75][76]), making this filing WP:kettle at best. This morning, he even made comments about my sexuality[77][78][79], which, given the sources he is fighting to cite, imply a criminal activity. These personal attacks must stop. BitterGrey (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is the edit war noticeboard, it's review is not restricted to 3RR violations. See the definitions of edit warring and 3RR at the top of the page. Please, by all means - bring up my conduct at AN or ANI if you think it's worth the time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll be more explicit: I'd like input from uninvolved editors, preferably admins. Since WLU has repeatedly stated an interest in driving me off Wikipedia[80][81], I can't accept his advice.BitterGrey (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Gosh, how many times must I say it. Paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles. I don't think paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles. I don't think Bittergrey is a pedophile. I've edited the paraphilic infantilism page to clarify that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles [82], [83], . I've made this statement several times in a variety of venues [84], [85], [86], [87]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Top of this posting, WLU quoting a source he's been arguing and warring to use since August 2011: "...infantilism [is] an autoerotic form of pedophilia."[88]. Prior to waffling on Dec 6th, he also fought to include that text in the live version of the article[89][90][91][92][93][94]. BitterGrey (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm at 3RR trying to keep WLU's comments about me off of RSN[95][96][97]. Can I get some help? BitterGrey (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, that's one of the many times I've explicitly said that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles, and that the sources you wish to remove, the reason this noticeboard posting exists, also say that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Do you really not understand that a form of something is still that something? All forms of cancer are cancers. Playdough is still playdough no matter what form it takes.BitterGrey (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that you think they are the same thing, I also think the sources are very clear that they are not. In this analogy, cancer is the opposite end of a continuum with apoptosis. Not to mention the two sources that are under dispute are used to verify that paraphilic infantilism is different from pedophilia, it doesn't say paraphilic infantilism is a form of pedophilia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Do you really not understand that a form of something is still that something? All forms of cancer are cancers. Playdough is still playdough no matter what form it takes.BitterGrey (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, that's one of the many times I've explicitly said that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles, and that the sources you wish to remove, the reason this noticeboard posting exists, also say that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm at 3RR trying to keep WLU's comments about me off of RSN[95][96][97]. Can I get some help? BitterGrey (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Top of this posting, WLU quoting a source he's been arguing and warring to use since August 2011: "...infantilism [is] an autoerotic form of pedophilia."[88]. Prior to waffling on Dec 6th, he also fought to include that text in the live version of the article[89][90][91][92][93][94]. BitterGrey (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Gosh, how many times must I say it. Paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles. I don't think paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles. I don't think Bittergrey is a pedophile. I've edited the paraphilic infantilism page to clarify that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles [82], [83], . I've made this statement several times in a variety of venues [84], [85], [86], [87]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I doubt that the admins here will be able to do much with this report. This seems to be a long-running struggle that is mainly between two parties (though Bittergrey has disputed with others in the past about Paraphilic infantilism, as shown by his talk archives). Reports at the edit-warring noticeboard don't receive thousands of words of evidence and we are not set up to have long threaded discussions. WP:Dispute resolution may offer some options you can consider. I do not see any RfCs at Talk:Paraphilic infantilism. For a dispute of this complexity, one editor might open an WP:RFC/U on the other. I am puzzled that WLU restored at RSN a personal characterization of Bittergrey that he seems to object to, since the latter marked it as 'RPA.' Still, we are aware that Bittergrey operates an external website on paraphilic infantilism since he announces that on his user page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yet another doomed attempt was started today, here. Once again the discussion is clogged with selective quotations, inappropriate summaries of past discussions and misrepresentation of the sources. I expect it to go nowhere for these very reasons.
- I restored that text because for one thing it removed a substantive point I was making (the sources state the two are different, the same way they say acrotomophilia and are apotemnophilia different) and for another thing, I can't see how "I don't think paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles" can be construed as a personal attack. And for a third reason, normally I dislike stating an argument can be discounted because of the source, but in this case the point may need to be made that there is an obvious reason to consider Bittergrey's objections to be based on personal rather than reasons of policy or guideline. I considered the matter resolved in December when Ludwigs2 said "@ BitterGrey: Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds". I as far as I'm concerned, that's the most accurate summary of the situation I've ever seen, and coming from someone with whom I have disagreed vigorously. The full archive is here, and that comment basically ended the discussion.
- The most surreal thing about this entire, pointless discussion is that Bittergrey is arguing against wording that isn't even part of the page. We both agree that paraphilic infantilists aren't pedophiles, I just want that explicit point to be kept in the text and verified with reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- You said at RSN that Bittergrey was a p.i. himself. That seems to be what he is resenting. Unless he has agreed on Wikipedia to be described in this way, you should remove it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the objection, then he should probably remove the link on his user page to the website he maintains where he discusses being a paraphilic infantilist. But sure, if that is the personal attack, then I'm happy to remove it if it'll reduce the acrimony on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- You said at RSN that Bittergrey was a p.i. himself. That seems to be what he is resenting. Unless he has agreed on Wikipedia to be described in this way, you should remove it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, thanks for replying. Do you think an RFC/U would be effective in ending WLU's ongoing harassment? Also, please be aware that a source WLU has fought to cite (in NINE places) includes the claim that "infantilism [is] an autoerotic form of paedophilia" (CB&B, pg 531). Given this, WLU's personal attack has the effect of accusing me of being a pedophile. I am not a pedophile, am deeply offended by his accusation, and think it clear that if there were any real support for WLU's position, he wouldn't need to resort to ad-hominem attacks. BitterGrey (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Despite a clear statement that Bittergrey's points are without merit at the reliable sources noticeboard (full discussion, specific diff), Bittergrey has ignored this input and reverted again, with the same list of spurious claims that have been addressed repeatedly [98], and is still claiming that the DSM defines infantilism despite two clear examples of unanimous consensus that it does not here and here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 04:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the consensus of RSN was better summarized as "you should take your personal fight over content elsewhere...you should move the argument to special subject portal (psychology, medicine)"[99] If WLU believed that anyone else would support his version, he could have simply let them revert instead of doing it himself.
- Despite a clear statement that Bittergrey's points are without merit at the reliable sources noticeboard (full discussion, specific diff), Bittergrey has ignored this input and reverted again, with the same list of spurious claims that have been addressed repeatedly [98], and is still claiming that the DSM defines infantilism despite two clear examples of unanimous consensus that it does not here and here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 04:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll be more explicit: I'd like input from uninvolved editors, preferably admins. Since WLU has repeatedly stated an interest in driving me off Wikipedia[80][81], I can't accept his advice.BitterGrey (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- WLU reacted with personal attacks on my sexuality[102][103][104] and honesty[105]. After having nothing more to offer than the same invitation for WP:OR over and over and over[106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114], he wrote "...I guess I'm done..."[115] and "..."I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in.[116]"
- My most recent edit was accompanied by a detailed list of the justification for all changes[117].
- WLU has now added new threats of an RFC or ANI posting, but he's been bluffing at an RFC/U posting since 23 March 2011 and an AN/I posting since 15 December 2011. Why would he go through all of this work and yet not file? Because he knows that any objective review of our conflict will conclude that he has been stalking me for a year. Before stalking me, he showed no particular interest in this article or any of the others that he's fought me at.BitterGrey (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- This time last year, I asked an admin for advice on an attack page that WLU was building against me. WLU added that request to his list of accusations[118] and ignored the admins suggestion to use the proper format[119]. WLU later started developing a second attack page, so this wouldn't look like a year-long wikihounding. BitterGrey (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I won't be contributing to this discussion further, I will complete the list of diffs started at User talk:WLU/Absolutely unnecessary page and bring it to the administrator's noticeboard in pursuit of a site ban. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- So that other list of diffs at User_talk:WLU/RFC was just a bluff? BitterGrey (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I won't be contributing to this discussion further, I will complete the list of diffs started at User talk:WLU/Absolutely unnecessary page and bring it to the administrator's noticeboard in pursuit of a site ban. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- This time last year, I asked an admin for advice on an attack page that WLU was building against me. WLU added that request to his list of accusations[118] and ignored the admins suggestion to use the proper format[119]. WLU later started developing a second attack page, so this wouldn't look like a year-long wikihounding. BitterGrey (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- WLU has now added new threats of an RFC or ANI posting, but he's been bluffing at an RFC/U posting since 23 March 2011 and an AN/I posting since 15 December 2011. Why would he go through all of this work and yet not file? Because he knows that any objective review of our conflict will conclude that he has been stalking me for a year. Before stalking me, he showed no particular interest in this article or any of the others that he's fought me at.BitterGrey (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This is now an ANI posting, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Correct place to issue a dare? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the ANI posting focuses on WLU's year-long pattern of Wikihounding, while the discussion here focused initially on the recent edit conflict. You should know this, WLU. Have you posted this misinformation anywhere else? BitterGrey (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
User:MiamiManny reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: 24 hour block)
Page: Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Template:MiamiManny
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]
Comments: Page is under 1RR, user was per-emptively warned prior to violation, violated anyway.
MiamiManny is back to edit warring again at the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article. Please see the article's talk page where I explained what he replaced was removed by consensus. His blatant disregard of that knowledge is evidenced by him reverting again. There is a 1RR restriction at this article. He has already been blocked once in the last day for edit warring knowingly at the same article. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Rollo V. Tomasi, you are a confirmed sockpuppet, and we both know you're a sock of a banned editor. Time to find a new name. Doc talk 23:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
User: 115.133.220.33 reported by User:BatteryIncluded (Result: Semi)
Page: Fobos-Grunt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
115.133.220.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.133.209.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.133.220.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.133.217.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.135.147.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.132.186.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.133.209.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.135.144.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.133.208.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.133.218.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.133.216.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.135.144.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [122]
In addition of the example reverts above, he inserts -ahead of existing references- that science teams have been "disbanded", and IF he cites a reference, it never supports his claim: [125], [126],[127], [128].
His latest campaign is to asert that the Fobos-Grunt space mission is cleared for a repeat attempt, (in opposition to the official press releases from Roscosmos which are thoroughly documented in that WP article) while his quoted reference clearly states that such plans (eg: Fobos-Grunt 2) have been suspended. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]
Comments:
BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Result: – Fobos-Grunt semiprotected two months. Long term warring by IPs from 115.133.* to insert unsourced claims and speculation since January. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Panickroom reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Indef)
Page: Cinema of Andhra Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Panickroom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [130]
- 1st revert: [131]
- 2nd revert: [132]
- 3rd revert: [133]
- 4th revert: [134]
- 5th revert: [135]
- 6th revert: [136]
- 7th revert: [137]
- 8th revert: [138]
- 9th revert: [139]
- 10th revert: [140]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning #2: [142]
Comments:
Panickroom is a suspected sockpuppet of blocked editor Padmalakshmisx - editor has harassed other editors who disagree with him (and was temporarily blocked for this), and insinuated anyone who disagrees with him is a vandal. Editor appears determined to WP:OWN the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I unblocked him in good faith after he agreed to maintain calm, and tried to navigate through the ESL problems he is obviously having, but sadly, he really doesn't seem to get the point. Other issues with civility also exist, but he seems to have calmed down now (I really have a lot of patience don't I) and will take action on resumption of bad behavior. Lynch7 20:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, this is enough, I've blocked the user for 1 week. He obviously hasn't learned anything from his last block and is only interested in attacking users and continuing the battleground mentality (see [143]). Lynch7 20:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Result: Now blocked indef as a confirmed sock by User:MuZemike, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Syamsu reported by User:Vsmith (Result: Indef)
Page: Free will (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Syamsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [144]
- 1st revert: [145]
- 2nd revert: [146]
- 3rd revert: [147] same content ip edit
- 4th revert: [148]
- 5th revert: [149]
- 6th revert [150]
- 7th revert [151]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
User just got off a previous edit warring block for same content, see User talk:Syamsu
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See article talk for extensive discussion Talk:Free_will#Revising_the_entire_mess_for_it_to_be_more_of_a_critical_understanding_of_free_will and following sections.
I request that the people who keep deleting the entry, Garamond, Vsmith, Pfhorrest et al are banned from wiki, for surpression of an opinion they don't agree with, eventhough it is notable among libertarian philosophers--Syamsu (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked — Indef. This is the user's third block for warring on this article in the past ten days. He seems to have no intention of following our policies. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced the user has had a change of heart. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick reported by User:NULL (Result: )
Page: Talk:Demographics of Greater China (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeffrey Fitzpatrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 07:22, 20 March 2012: Original edit
- 14:37, 20 March 2012: Revert 1
- 15:03, 22 March 2012: Revert 2
- 14:49, 23 March 2012: Revert 3
- 15:20, 23 March 2012: Warned by SchmuckyTheCat
- 22:58, 23 March 2012: Revert 4
- 23:40, 23 March 2012: Warned by NULL
- 06:59, 24 March 2012: Revert 5
- 15:22, 25 March 2012: Warned by EdJohnston
- 10:42, 29 March 2012: Revert 6
- 11:44, 29 March 2012: Revert 7
- 20:25, 29 March 2012: Warned by EdJohnston
- 14:48, 2 April 2012: Revert 8
- 16:22, 2 April 2012: Blocked by EdJohnston for 48 hours
- 18:47, 6 April 2012: Revert 9
Comments:
This has been an ongoing issue with this editor. The problem edit is the repeated addition of {{unsigned}} tags to sockpuppet/blocked editor tags placed by SchmuckyTheCat against the edits of a blocked sockpuppet in the discussion. Jeffrey was told repeatedly that the unsigned tags weren't necessary but persisted in restoring them. He then attempted to WP:GAME the system by adding small token edits such as adding or removing a space elsewhere in the page so that if he was reverted he could complain that it was vandalism due to removing his 'good edits'. In the edit history of the page, however, it can be seen that on my first revert of his material, I took care to separate the bad content from the good content, but he added it straight back in. Reverts 3, 4 and 5 above violate 3RR.
The user was directly warned four times not to do this, once by SchmuckyTheCat, once by myself and then twice by admin EdJohnston after a previous AN3 report was filed. After persisting, Jeffrey was blocked for 48 hours. After his block expired, he returned only two days later to make yet another revert of the material. Jeffrey refuses to acknowledge that his edits have been disruptive and doesn't seem inclined to change his behaviour even after a block. I alerted User:EdJohnston on his talk page but wasn't sure if I should file another report here, so here it is anyway.
– NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: User:NULL's summary above appears correct. Since I issued the last block (for 48 hours) it is best if a different admin looks into the case this time around. Jeffrey Fitzpatrick continues with his disruptive refactoring of the talk page even though nobody agrees that it's appropriate, and his changes are always undone by other editors. The previous 3RR case (where he was warned for the same thing) is now archived here. Still further back, Fitzpatrick was blocked for doing the same thing as the IP 202.189.98.131 (talk · contribs). The IP address is still under a range block per this action from April 2011, which I haven't researched any further. Conceivably this editor is a sock of Instantnood, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive. Others may look into that if they wish. Even without the sock connection, my proposal would be for a one-month block since this editor is far beyond the reach of persuasion and seems unwilling to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have explained many times that my edits were to restore my own comments that Schmucky and NULL had insisted to delete or to refactor for no reason. I agreed not to restore the Unsigned tags already (with one single exception, since I posted a question to Schmucky there). Null simply doesn't listen at all, and keeps lying around as part of his political agenda. I wouldn't restore those deleted/refactored comments on this talk page in two months' time provided that an uninvolved admin will look into its edit history and restore my comments. (Meanwhile, it is important to note that it's Schmucky and Null who disrupted the page by adding back the mislocated bot-generated notification again and again, removing the {{Anchor}} tag that an IP editor had added, and it's Schmucky who on 31st March 2012 refactored Jiang's comment back in 2004.[152]) Jeffrey (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- This user has
violated 3RR againbegun edit warring at Category:Gondola lifts in China, forcing a C1 tag on the page even though the category is under discussion at CFD. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Utility of a block?
The IP connection to previous socks is not news to me. Neither is the subject matter overlap between Jeffrey, blocked IPs, and some other recently created accounts (and another more long term account I look at). I thought about putting a joke on his talk page asking if he forgot which account he was using and why both hadn't voted early in the cable car CfD. He abandoned publishing his IP in his signature. I'm unsure a month long block is that effective. If it is a sock of Instantnood, then it's just another disposable account. Rather than forcing "Jeffrey" into other accounts and IPs (which just makes the disruption more difficult to track) via a long term block, it may be more useful to transparently and blatantly recognize the account as disruptive while allowing it to continue. A 1RR enforced by short blocks may actually provide less disruption to the project than the wholesale manipulation by random HK IP addresses we had this winter. A CU check, and ongoing peeks, may be warranted to enforce a one account rule. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- On the assumption that Jeffrey is Instantnood, that may be appropriate. However, if he's not, a longer block would be an appropriate response I think. We already know the IP range Jeffrey uses, it's still blocked for the next few days. It will be obvious if he returns on an IP after he's blocked, once the IP range block lapses. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Oh, come on)
Page: Balochistan conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altetendekrabbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- Clearer diff[155]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]
This user has been put under a 1RR restriction when editing against other editors who are under a 1RR restriction as can be seen here[158] by admin Salvio giuliano. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- utter nonsense. i did not revert you a 2. time. i added new content that gives the full background. all of your material is still there. how the did i revert you then? i am not under any restriction either. i was asked not to revert you more than once since you are under 1-rr restriction. [159] i did not revert you either.-- altetendekrabbe 12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Sorry but you did, it is obvious from the diff's that you changed the content I had written, that is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- i did not change your content. suggest you read the two versions.-- altetendekrabbe 12:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- You changed at least two words that I had written that I can see. That is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- er, right. however -> thus, balochistan -> kalat...these are precisions. say no more. this is becoming embarrassing. no wonder you have a long long history of blocks against you. you might now get another one.-- altetendekrabbe 13:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you are of the opinion that skirting around a 1R restriction is OK more power to you, I however do not this it is OK to do so. You changed content to get the article to your preferred view. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- i did not change content. period.-- altetendekrabbe 14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you are of the opinion that skirting around a 1R restriction is OK more power to you, I however do not this it is OK to do so. You changed content to get the article to your preferred view. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- er, right. however -> thus, balochistan -> kalat...these are precisions. say no more. this is becoming embarrassing. no wonder you have a long long history of blocks against you. you might now get another one.-- altetendekrabbe 13:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- You changed at least two words that I had written that I can see. That is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- i did not change your content. suggest you read the two versions.-- altetendekrabbe 12:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Sorry but you did, it is obvious from the diff's that you changed the content I had written, that is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I am here to report Darkness Shines, I will report here so that admin can see more detail for editwar [160] [161]. I have this in my watchlist because I edited there with other ID before, please tell him to stop blaming me. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no violation by me on that article, file a correct report if you think I am edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not blocked Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute at Uncharted reported by User:72.136.49.248 (Result: )
- Original title: Uncharted Not sure if I'd call it vandalism, but it's a definite edit war
Sorry if I'm not reporting this correctly; first time and I'm still trying to learn how to be a better editor! 72.136.49.248 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Uncharted is an article about a video game series. I am fixing up this report. Here are the page links for Uncharted, and here are two of the participants:
- Uncharted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- MonkeyKingBar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 99.224.54.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've notified MonkeyKingBar of this discussion, as well as User talk:99.224.54.167. In edit summaries, one editor has stated that MonkeyKingBar is a sock of User:GoldDragon. To check whether this claim might be correct, admins might look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not abusing socks, so the issue here is that I'm being trolled by an anon user. Pretty well none of 99.224.54.167's edits are constructive, all of them are simply reverts of my edits.MonkeyKingBar (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
User:77.70.15.245 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: )
Page: BTV (Bulgaria) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.70.15.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [162]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see warning left at user's talk page.
CityOfSilver 18:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Friginator reported by User:Wisdomtenacityfocus (Result: no violation)
Page: Greasy Love Songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Friginator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [168]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172]
Comments:
User is repeatedly changing Greasy Love Songs from a redirect to a stub despite the fact that it is a reissue of the album Cruising with Ruben & the Jets, and not a new album. User repeatedly ignores warnings about his behavior and threatened me for correcting his mistake. This does not fall under good faith at all. The ONLY reason this user is arguing against Greasy Love Songs being a reissue is because he disagrees with my opinions of how Frank Zappa's discography should be handled on Wikipedia (it is being handled POORLY when compared to, for example Dream Theater discography and Miles Davis discography). User has made similar edits at Frank Zappa discography and Template:Frank Zappa. Also, when user reverts, he changes the album's format from "compilation" to "studio", despite the fact that it is a reissue of a previously released material. "Compilation" is the only classification this release would come under if it were not, in fact, a reissue, much like Black Sabbath's Children of the Grave, which was simply Masters of Reality with live material added (Strike that, it was a Vol. 4 reissue, not Masters). Anyone notice that no Children of the Grave article is available? Should we have THAT added as an article? Or Cheap Thrills (CD version), since the Big Brother/Janis Joplin album has live tracks added to make it a compilation? Or the tenth anniversary edition of Slipknot's first album? Should THAT have its own article? Anyone see my point?
Also, user was informed about his behavior, and told me to "shut your hole" on his talk page. --WTF (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Here we go again. (For the record, the "kindly shut your hole" comment was in regards to this user accusing me of vandalism, of which there has been a lot of recently). But that's not the point. As for Wisdomtenacityfocus's complaints, the user had plenty of opportunities to bring the issue up on a talk page. I saw no discussion or consensus whatsoever. All I've seen is the article entitled Greasy Love Songs redirected to another article without any explanation other than "it's a reissue." According to Zappa's official discography on his website, they're two different albums and neither contains material present on the other. There needs to be a better reason for the reverts, not just one user's opinion going against established sources. Friginator (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note that an earlier ANEW case about user Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) was just archived without comment (see the entire text here), presumably because WTF had indeed stopped editing or commenting after the closure to his disadvantage — see entire text here. I have just opened an ANI on WTF's accusations of vandalism and edit warring here. - DVdm (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it's still an accusation even if it is true. That said, it isn't true, as DVdm has proven to you numerous times. --Mystery Roach (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, Friginator, telling someone to "shut" their "hole" is an attack no matter how you spin it. It's uncivil behavior. And the Zappa website discography is organized to promote people buying the reissue. It's clearly a reissue. It's the vinyl mix of the original album with bonus tracks. Re-read what I stated earlier. There is no need for a new article. --WTF (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, contrary to your claim in this edit, it is YOU who has been reported for edit warring, not me. And rightfully so, because you have now reverted THREE TIMES, in spite of all evidence that this is a reissue and does not need a new article, no more than, as previously mentioned, Children of the Grave, or the 1995 reissue of Ruben and the Jets.--WTF (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- As can be seen here, you have indeed been reported for edit warring. --Mystery Roach (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- No violation Obviously there's not a 3RR here, nor do I see a larger pattern of edit warring on this article that would need a block. Frankly, if you're looking for blocks for any sort of edit warring, I would probably include the reporter. Might be nice to start as discussion, or utilize WP:DR before continuing any more back and forth reverts. Random accusations of "vandalism" are not helping. Kuru (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Casprings reported by User:The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous (Result: )
Page: Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [173]
- 1st revert: [174]
- 2nd revert: [175]
- 3rd revert: [176]
- 4th revert: [177]
- 5th revert: [178]
- 6th revert: [179]
- 7th revert:[180]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [182]
Comments:
- The problems are being worked out on the talk page and the edits vary to try to get consensus. Washington Post article found to provide that. The reverts of my edits are often without consensus and happen by editors of this article. Casprings (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
User:184.35.96.144 reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: )
Page: Schlußakkord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.35.96.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Highstakes00 (Result: no violation)
Page: Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [188]
abuse: [192]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]
Comments: Hello his old block history say he will only make one revert in a day he is editwarring when I delete one tag he put on top when regent delete it he tag different. --Highstakes00 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- No violation These appear to all be completely different tags. Kuru (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Lorin Schonfeld reported by User:TRLIJC19 (Result: )
Page: List of Grey's Anatomy episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lorin Schonfeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comments: I have seen Lorin Schonfeld around since early this year. At first she was changing the formats of the infoboxes at the Grey's Anatomy character pages which I spoke to her about as did Frickative on her talk page which she didn't respond to. She did it again and I reverted and then she stopped. Then at the Grey's Anatomy season pages, she was adding paragraphs of undetailed, unsourced information which myself and another user reverted. I spoke to her about this and she again, didn't respond. More recently, yesterday, she added a new message to the talk page for List of Grey's Anatomy episodes explaining that she wanted to add seasonal information above each season table. I was pleased since she was finally starting discussion before her edits. I gave my opinion, which was yes, and then another user gave his opinion and said no, and she responded with this. I changed my opinion since the other user's statements seemed valid, changing my mind. I was expecting to wait for some other users to chime in. But I noticed, she had already added her desired edits in without a consensus. I reverted the edits and explained that I've given her sufficient warnings and that she would be reported.
TRLIJC19 (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Lucasmoura reported by User:Cyberpower678 (Result: no violation )
Page: Pokémon 4Ever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lucasmoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: here
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user has neither attempted any discussions on the talk page of the article, my talk page or his talk page and is blatently adding redundant categories that he created himself.
Comments:
As I do not wish to edit war, I have stopped reverting on that article and would appreciate assistance or advice from a fellow editor.—cyberpower Happy EasterOnline 18:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. 'reverted to' link is from 15 March and a different category. No WP:3RR violation yet, unless they revert again (they are, currently, on their third revert). The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ooops. I misread the history.—cyberpower Happy EasterOnline 21:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. 'reverted to' link is from 15 March and a different category. No WP:3RR violation yet, unless they revert again (they are, currently, on their third revert). The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Nero Radi reported by User:Jikaku (Result: page protected)
Page: Union Institute & University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nero Radi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comments:
Editor Nero Radi initially added contributions to this article that were unsourced, the product of original research (by their own admission) and rife with editorializing comments. These were removed with an explanation as to why - however Nero Radi simply insists on reverting any edits made back to his original content. Jikaku (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Thomas Paine1776 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thomas Paine1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 20:06, 8 April 2012 (edit summary: "restore sourced content")
- 20:51, 8 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
- 22:15, 8 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
- 22:17, 8 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
- Diff of warning: here
- Comment: this has been going for several days now. Several editors have pointed out to Thomas Paine1776 that the content he continually adds is inappropriate, yet he continues to re-add it. The worst part of all this is that this user has been here since 2006, and still doesn't seem to understand not edit war. Furthermore, his comments on the talk page suggest an ownership attitude.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 20:06, 20:51, 22:15, 22:17. Was explicitly waned at 22:09 and removed the warning from his talk page with an erroneous comment. Kuru (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)