Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

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

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

• 1st revert: 21:26, 1 April 2012 WLU[1]
• 2nd revert: 01:11, 2 April 2012 WLU[2]
• 3rd revert: 11:00, 2 April 2012 WLU[3]
• 4th revert: 22:59, 2 April 2012 203.118.187.167[4] (SPI #1 archived with the conclusion "Definitely were socks". It was later clarified to include "Probably actually not socks. All IPs highly disruptive, but editing habits inconsistent. I should have checked more thoroughly." My comments below were correct at the time they were written.)

In the light of NativeForeigner's comments here and here, would the closing admin please strike through the 4th revert from the 203. from the April 1st set, and given I wasn't socking and the second SPI is not yet closed, I believe the 4th revert from the April 20th set should probably be struck as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the edit warrior concerned with an AN3 that accurately lists eight reverts himself filed one against me with eight reverts obscurely listed, when at the time I only made four reverts in three days[5].

• 1st revert (or 5th?): 18:04, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[6]
• 2nd revert: 20:59, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[7]
• 3rd revert: 22:55, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[8]
• 4th revert: 01:48, 20 April 2012‎ 203.118.187.226[9](SPI #2, filed before the alteration of SPI #1, was closed without conclusion about the IP:"...were closing this...")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:
I know this is stale, but I wanted it on record that WLU, who reported me for making four reverts in 41 hours[12] himself made four reverts in 25 hours 33 minutes in the same conflict. He also used a sockpuppet to do so[13]. I didn't file this report before, since I was waiting for confirmation from SPI.

WLU wrote "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." Of course, were there any substance in his "thousands of words" he wouldn't have felt the need to resort to sockpuppetry and personal attacks. He hadn't shown any interest in this article (or several others he's fought me at) before his wikihounding campaign started over a year ago. I think it is best that he leave me and the several articles he hounded me to alone. BitterGrey (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: Another editor was kind enough to revert "203.118.187.167," so far the only penalty for WLU's use of sockpuppets in an edit war. Of course, when WLU hit 3RR again another IP showed up promptly to make the fourth. A second SPI was opened. I requested a 3O and it would appear that WLU doesn't want to risk the 3O seeing a version other than his own.BitterGrey (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Page is now protected [14]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• If any SPI clerk wishes to make something out of that case, good for them. This 3RR complaint has merit, but it works both ways: it takes two to tango and you two are the only ones doing this dance. You should both be blocked, maybe. A third (and fourth, and fifth) opinion would be very helpful, and possibly a topic ban for both of you specifically for this article, which has been a pain since at least 2006. It is obvious that the two of you cannot come to an agreement. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I requested a 3O yesterday. A topic ban on both of us would be unfair: WLU's only involvement in this page (and all but one of the others he's fought me at) was as part of his year-long wikihounding of me. Furthermore, since using puppets is nothing new for WLU(eg.[15]), and he already has three puppets in play[16] the ONLY effect of a topic ban would be to ensure control of the article by the puppetmaster. BitterGrey (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell that directs to that long discussion on the talk page, "Fruend and Blanchard's Paedophilia article doesn't belong here". I see the two of you, I see no 3--so it seems to me there's no 3O yet. What I see is a long and tedious dispute: that you think you're right is par for the course. I'm not even saying that you're wrong, mind you--it's just that everywhere I go--your talk page, the article talk page, this edit-war thread, the SPI, the SPI archive--I see the same things, links, accusations. It's depressing. And "three puppets in play"--that's rhetorical overkill. If it's him, it's a dynamic IP, so the number is meaningless. No, the only effect of a topic ban need not be WLU's control. There are ways to prevent that, short of going to their house and smashing their laptop to bits with a diaper. I don't wish to speak for other admins, but I think we're done here. Find someone to act on or render an opinion on the SPI, maybe. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

True, requesting a 3O and getting one are different things, but I think my request shows good faith. Also in good faith, I've made do with only one position per conflict. In contrast, WLU's position in this conflict changed last week (he'd "been reading the article wrong for a very long time.") and again in December. Oh, and you might find hammers or almost anything else to be more useful for smashing laptops, Drmies :) BitterGrey (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A hammer would work better, yes. And I'm not denying your effort in starting that 3O. The article needs help and attention from people who aren't you two, I'm afraid. Best, Drmies (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"people who aren't you two"? I'm hurt. If it weren't for me, the paraphilic infantilism article would be like the diaper fetishism article. (Well, worse actually, since the latter borrowed from the former back in 2007.) There is, however, an ongoing ownership issue that needs to be taken care of. BitterGrey (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the admin who looked into 203.118.187.167, .43, and .209 to look into .226 as well. BitterGrey (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Given NativeForeigner's comment here, the "definitely were socks" comment is now incorrect and all 203. edits are essentially irrelevant. Though there is edit warring, there is no 3RR violation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU attempting to close or modify my requests, as he's tried here[17][18], is typical. After he wikihounded me me to Sexology, he marked the resulting ELN discussion "resolved" not once(@500 words) but twice(@3K words) before accepting that I was right. BitterGrey (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My request seems reasonable since NativeForeigner has said in three places that his initial statement of "definitely a sock" is in fact wrong (here, here and here). It seems like common sense to make the section reflect NativeForeigner's actual, current conclusions and take out or strike through the 4th revert(s) rather than leave up an old and misleading summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review the difference between a "request" and an edit[19], as well as between 'probability' and "fact". NativeForeigner has now gone both ways on SPI #1, from "definitely" socks to "probably" not. Even before this, WLU wrote "NativeForeigner's comment is a single person's opinion that is not definitive". Let's see what becomes of SPI #2. BitterGrey (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see it as fundamentally dishonest not to note that the person who initially made the assessment has since substantially changed their mind to say the opposite of what is said above. Changing it to "probably not a sock" is fine with me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you raised the issue of honesty, WLU, I'll point out that you've claimed that WLU stands for both the initials of your alma matter "my userid is based on the university I attend", and also your own initials "My user name is actually my initials". Unless both claims are true, I would consider one or both statements deceptive. In contrast, what I wrote above was correct at the time I wrote it, based on the archived conclusion of an administrator serving as a sockpuppet investigator. BitterGrey (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Since no action was taken when the SPI was definite that the IPs were socks, no action is expected now that the SPIs are inconclusive. As Drmies wrote (even before SPI #1 was modified), "...I think we're done here." BitterGrey (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:86.28.143.134 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: 48h)

Page: Car classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.28.143.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 16:35, 22 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 17:41, 22 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 19:09, 22 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 488683260 by CZmarlin (talk)")

• Diff of warning: April 22, 2012

This action also seems to be a continuation of the identical edits to this article that were previously conducted by 81.101.26.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) : Revision as of 08:21, April 15, 2012.

—CZmarlin (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

4. Revision as of 03:01, April 23, 2012 (edit summary: "")

— CZmarlin (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - 48 hours. Edit warring and use of multiple IPs in an edit war (cf WP:SOCK). EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ProfJustice reported by User:Somedifferentstuff (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ProfJustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is when he first added the material to the article: [20]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

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

Comments:
This article has a 1RR warning with no time expiration. I gave the user a warning on his talk page to self revert. He didn't heed the warning which can be seen here [25]. This user had a previous issue with the same article less than a week ago as can be seen in this diff [26]. ProfJustice (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Aemathisphd reported by User:RolandR (Result: 48h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [27]

• 1st revert: [28]
• 2nd revert: [29]
• 3rd revert: [30]
• 4th revert: [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

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

Comments:

Although these reverts have been made by a registered account and IPs, these are clearly the same account; I have submitted an SPI. The article is actually covered by a one-revert rule, although the user dores not appear to have been formally notified of this. RolandR (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. Making the article link to a self-published source whose title resembles his own user name. Article's 1RR status is clearly bannered on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:MastCell, User:Arthur Rubin, and User:Saedon reported by User:Nononsenseplease (Result: 24h to submitter)

Page: Gary Null (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); Saedon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:These three (and they may be the same person, or at least in close communication) insist on deleting information I added regarding Gary Null; these were merely facts about some of Null's work not mentioned in the least in the page, and did not include any opinions as to its quality. First, BLP was argued; but what I added was but a mention of his work (no opinions added), ownership of a radio network, and awards (this does not violate BLP, particularly when the article had had nothing but negative criticism of Null and his work). Then, issues with RS were brought up. Granted I could only find a few trade publications with data as to Null's book sales and basic things like that; but how is this an RS when this by Quackwatch guru Stephen Barrett, this by ACT-UP, this by AIDSTruth, or this by Salon.com is allowed to stand as such?

Whatever else one can say about Gary Null, he has written over 100 books and made 39 documentaries. I told MastCell and Arthur Rubin myself that, even considering the POV problems with allowing negative and only negative input on the subject, I am not planning to add a series of positive ones - but these cannot be allowed to the exclusion of basic facts about the subject's work.

Thank you. Nononsenseplease (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

P/S: The reverts have stopped for now. Could you please not notify these people unless it happens again? I hate these conflicts tremendously.

Um, sounds to me like WP:CONSENSUS is against you ... doesn't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

← I'd like to request that the closing admin review the edits by the filing party, Nononsenseplease (talk · contribs). By my count, s/he is at 5RR already:

• 14:10, 23 April 2012
• 16:56, 23 April 2012
• 17:58, 23 April 2012
• 23:26, 23 April 2012
• 23:35, 23 April 2012

Rather than filing a separate request as I was about to do, I'd like to ask here for action on this 5RR violation. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - Submitter blocked 24 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

H. 217.83 reported by User:Williamsburgland (Result: both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Nifelheim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: H._217.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) And potential IP Sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.83.71.189

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

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments: Please note the language the user uses to communicate - it's unbelievably hostile and rude. In a nut shell, he's attempting to add paraphrased comments from and interview, purportedly one that happened in 2010, that there is no record of. He insists that a well noted and known music website is 'bullshit' while his impossible to verify source is the best to use. Please also note similarities between IP user and his username.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsburgland (talk • contribs)

This is a lie. I told Williamsburgland where the interview can be found (of course, the user ignores its notability and everything else I wrote), and they obviously aren’t civil either. See my talk page and Jeraphine Gryphon’s. For the similarities between my IP address and user name, see my German talk page. --217/83 00:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• This report is invalid, no one has done more than three reverts in the past 24 hours, and the reporting editor himself is one of the two users doing the revertings. This is a content dispute issue and can be resolved on the talk page (assuming either user will not revert again). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 00:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Okay, both users have violated 3RR. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Crap, I forgot about that one. Of course I have no objections against this reporting of yours (no sarcasm, I am actually serious here). --217/83 03:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • For the love of all that's holy, I've done everything possible to work with these two people. Please review the ENTIRE dispute, including my original report, before making a judgment. This latest one is in regards to H217 refusing to abide by the compromise Jeraphine, a user that sided entirely with him, suggested. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't see how he's refusing to abide by the compromise, the compromise is including statements from both sources even if contradictory. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • And I wonder how I am “refusing to abide by the compromise” by undoing Williamsburgland’s falsification of the quote and my other corrections. --217/83 03:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Because the compromise was that both would be included; you don't get to add your own spin to the statements the band was quoted making in Sweden Rock Magazine by saying infering that blabbermout is an unreliable source. Further, the way you had your statement worded blended apparent quotes from the band (we don't know exactly how it's worded there because you're the only one with the source material) are mixed freely with unquoted material that makes assumptions like "ABC is why DEF happened." You don't know why that was their last interview, unless they explicitly said so. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
          • Wrong. I am not making assumptions, my edit follows what is stated in the interview I refer to; there is no mix except in this new lie of yours. And as you don’t know the interview, don’t tell me what I know or not. --217/83 03:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ElliotJoyce reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 48h)

Page: African slave trade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

• 1st revert: [44]
• 2nd revert: [45]
• 3rd revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48], [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

I already self-reverted. The other user was not warned; only I was warned for the reverts.ElliotJoyce (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You were the only editor on the page who made three, and then four, reverts. And then you started to edit war on Atlantic slave trade. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at the page history and count the number of reverts. I hope you'll understand why one editor was warned about the 3RR rule and no others were. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your initial warning clearly states that consequences can follow from edit warring regardless of whether the 3 revert rule has been violated or not. It can be reasonably said that the other user was edit warring in like fashion as I, perhaps even worse since my reverts all had a detailed explanation for their motivation and reason. Now you write on my talk page focusing solely on the violation of the 3 revert rule, without any mention of the fact that edit warring itself without violation of the 3 revert rule can result in consequence, yet no warning appears on the talk page of the other user. I would love to hear your hair-splitting argument now about the differences between the 3 revert rule and edit warring in general, and why the end result of this involves no warning whatsoever on the other user's talk page. Please, enlighten me. ElliotJoyce (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And here ElliotJoyce announces his intentions to revert again when 24 hours are up. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. As I understand the 3 revert rule, it applies within a 24 hour period. Since your argument failed to convince that the statements of both Williams and Richardson are on equal ground, the balance weighs in favor of reverting to the state of the article before you began interfering. This applies equally well for your reverts on the Atlantic Slave Trade article. Thank you.ElliotJoyce (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the three-revert rule is not a license. It is in place to provide a hard-fast limit wherein an edit war may be brought to a quick ending, no discussion required. As WP:3RR notes, "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". The point of the rule is to prevent severe edit-warring, not to provide people with a certain guaranteed number of reverts that they can use with complete immunity. Even if you don't violate the three-revert rule, edit warring is still frowned on, and if you do carry through with your stated intentions, it is very likely that you would be blocked.

Also, I should note that except in obvious cases like libel or simple vandalism, if modifications to a page are challenged, it is generally up to the modifier to explain why the article should be changed, not the other way around. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that. I explained all of my modifications, yet they were still reverted. I will not revert Mr. Shabazz's edits directly outside the 24 hour window because I do not want to appear to be gaming the system. But, I will plan on reverting them in the near future because I believe I have established my justification for doing so, while Mr. Shabazz has not established his justification for reverting. I am posting here my argument from the talk page of the Atlantic Slave Trade article. Both that article and the African Slave Trade article have similar information, and it is a piece of this similar information that was in contention between myself, Mr. Shabazz, and one other user. I believe my argument is correct and that Mr. Shabazz is wrong. Once again, I will only revert Mr. Shabazz once sufficient time has passed where I would not appear to be taking advantage of the 3 revert rule's 24 hour provision. Here is my argument. Thank you.

Recent edit warring has occurred between myself and user Malik Shabazz regarding the wording of the section "Effects on Economy of Europe." The argument he is making is that both the statements of Eric Williams, who is said to have argued that profits from the slave trade financed Europe's industrialization, and David Richardson, who provides data that domestic investment in Britain's economy of slave trade profits was less than 1%, are equally valid and should be presented on equal ground. This user (Malik Shabazz) has done the same thing on the African Slave Trade page. One will observe, however, that the statements made by Eric Williams are unsourced, while the statements made by David Richardson, along with the statement pertaining to slave trade profits never exceeding 5% of Britain's economy, are sourced. Yet we see the Williams' statements completely untouched and unscathed and unquestioned by Mr. Shabazz, while the Richardson statements, as well as the Digital History link to the University of Houston (the source of the 5%) reworded and labeled as unreliable. Now, think about this for a second- what does it look like? What would cause someone to leave one set of statements (the Williams statements) unquestioned, despite no source being provided for them, but yet raise a brouhaha about wording and reliability about another set of statements (the Richardson and Digital History statements) that contradicts the first, keeping in mind that the second set is actually sourced? Probably one thing: bias. Mr Shabazz realizes that he cannot outright delete these remarks, even though they likely do not fit in with his worldview, so he does the next best thing: make them less forceful by making them appear as opinions instead of facts. That way, both Eric Williams' unsourced contention that the slave trade financed Europe's industrialization and the opposing sourced statements by Richardson and Digital History (University of Houston) that it did not both are equally valid. This is how history is rewritten and chipped away- slowly, through an edit here and an edit there. Please review the edit history of the article yourself and you'll notice exactly what Mr. Shabazz is trying to accomplish. I am barred from reverting his edits at the present because of the 3 revert rule, which I will respect. But at the expiration of 24 hours (perhaps a little longer since I do not want to appear to be gaming the system), I will correct Mr. Shabazz's edits to the more factually defensible position. Please remember: the Williams statements have no source, yet they are are allowed equal footing with sourced material that makes use of established, tangible data. Even if the Williams material were provided with a source, would it matter? No, because I've read Eric Williams' statements on the slave trade- they are hypotheses and generalizations that are unsupported by factual data. Could this be the reason why Mr. Shabazz has completely sidestepped the missing source for the Eric Williams' statements? ElliotJoyce (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, J.delanoy. if you look at the edit history on both the African Slave Trade page and the Atlantic Slave Trade page, I am actually supporting the original state of the paragraph in question, save for the inclusion of the word "nevertheless" or "however." For example, on the African Slave Trade page, I reverted a few edits by the user Ackees, who was changing the information provided by the Digital World source to say the opposite of what it actually says. It is only after this that user Tom harrison started the edit war over the word "nevertheless", and then user Malik Shabazz took advantage of this by changing the entire wording of the paragraph, undermining the sourced material and placing it on the level of the unsourced material by Eric Williams. Almost the exact same thing happened on the Atlantic Slave Trade page: here, instead of the word "nevertheless", I was arguing with user [[User:Tom harrison}Tom harrison]] over the word "however" in the same content as that which appeared on the African Slave Trade page when user Malik Shabazz slipped in and changed the wording of the paragraph to undermine the sourced material while not even touching the unsourced material, exactly the same thing he did to the African Slave Trade page. He did the exact same thing on both pages. At this point, I don't even care about the "nevertheless" or "however"- I just want the pages to read the way they did before Malik Shabazz came in and edited without justification or rationale. Don't you see what he's trying to do here? Just look at the recent edit history of the African Slave Trade or Atlantic Slave Trade articles to confirm all of this. Thank you. ElliotJoyce (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The user Malik Shabazz has now provided a source for the Eric Williams material. I have confirmed the source, although it does not state everything that is written in that part of the article, but at least there is a source and we are probably going to be able to compromise. Disregard my above paragraphs please.ElliotJoyce (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And with your reversion of 'critics' you are at 5RR. You don't seem to understand that it really doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, with few exceptions 3RR is a bright line (and those refer to BLP violations and obvious vandalism). Why shouldn't you be blocked now? Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Now at revert #6. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert the issue in question between myself and Malik Shabazz; rather, the bulk of my changes were additions that supplemented the information by Eric Williams. Furthermore, Mr. Shabazz, there is also the issue of the pages you cited in the Eric Williams source. I reread those exact pages and I did not find direct support for the language attributed to Mr. Williams therein in the article. This is why I beseeched you to show me where in the pages you cited (page 98-107) the information in the article about Eric Williams' statements can be found. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – Already blocked 48 hours by User:Excirial. I was just about to block per the report here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:El duderino reported by User:Kelly (Result: No action)

Page: Seamus (dog) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 16:52, 22 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 488667342 by Kelly (talk) no way, this has nothing to do with Seamus")
2. 19:08, 23 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* External links */ Undid 2 revisions by User:Arzel -- restoring 2 ext. links removed (again) without consensus")
3. 21:15, 23 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 488867868 by Kelly (talk) again, no consensus for this removal")
4. 03:21, 24 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 488888304 by Arzel (talk) it's not a violation. need consensus for your interpretation")

• Diff of warning: here

—Kelly ^hi! 03:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that User:Kelly did not notify me that she filed this report. Also, she and User:Arzel are removing content against consensus. But most importantly, there is no 3RR violation. This frivolous report is an obvious attempt to weaken someone whom she considers an ideological opponent at the article. El duderino ^(abides) 04:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have asked User:El duderino to agree to wait for consensus before adding his link again. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I will stop trying to add it in the current context (Wp:EL). For the record though I think there are more editors supporting it's inclusion, judging from edit history and talkpage discussion. It's clear that Kelly and Arzel are there to slowly break down the article -- see two related ANI threads for more info. For example, I offered a compromise of working it into the article text, as it is at the Romney 2012 campaign, but neither of them chose to even discuss that option. El duderino ^(abides) 21:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Closed with no action, keeping in mind El duderino's agreement to wait for consensus regarding the link. The editors can always open an WP:RFC to get more opinions on the value of the link. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ElliotJoyce reported by User:Ackees (Result: 48h)

Page: Henry Morton Stanley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Asiento (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: British African Caribbean Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

According to my watchlist, the user ElliotJoyce is systematically going through my edits on as many pages as possible, (going back months in some cases) undoing them, even if they have been longstanding on the page. It is a clear case of harassment. This is not about a particular subject, it is a targeted campaign against myself. They have already been warned today by other users for edit-warring.Ackees (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the information that the Mr. Ackees has changed on the articles in question, you will find that it is often in direct contrast to the source provided. For example, on the African Slave Page, one source in question (Digital History from the University of Houston) stated that profits from the slave trade comprised less than 5% of Britain's economy during industrialization, but Mr. Ackees changed this first to read "at least" 5% and after I reverted it, changed it back to read "approximately" 5%, both false per the source. I investigated his other edits and it appears he is going from article to article, infusing subtle anti-European bias, often in direct contradiction to the source material. Another example is the article Racism in the United Kingdom, where Mr. Ackees changed the wording to say almost the opposite of what it said previously, contradicting the source again. I have gone through his recent edits and have noticed that much of his history here on Wikipedia is simply infusing POV statements and wording in various articles. This is unacceptable and violates a number of policies on the site. I am not correcting Mr. Ackees to harass him; rather, I am correcting him because he is, in essence, vandalizing the pages in question in a very subtle manner that is only realized when one looks at the entire history of edits Mr. Ackees has done. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – Already blocked 48 hours per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:JTBX (Result: Protected)

Page: The Godfather (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is way too long for anormal complaint, so let me know if there is anywhere relevant I should go to post, or if you prefer as you are busy to let people like this get away freely.

I have now edited my complaint to a short version, I have added an addendum of a longer version if you are interested in the details:

I realised The Godfather needed to be improved for details and chronological flow was missing. Ring-Cinema had also been editing it for some time. My plot draft included more words, but even though later I trimmed plot to 700 to better reflect WP:PLOT, changes were reverted with absolutely no good reason.

Previous version reverted to: [50] Version before I officially began improving plot to better reflect film after watching it recently.

• 1st revert: [51] Complete revert of my work, I reverted it back here [52] and told him to discuss on talk page.
• 2nd revert: [53] reverts back immediately rather than going to talk page and tells me to bring draft to talk page and discuss. His double standards only begin here. I bring draft to talk page, he replaces it with article version. After wards I manage to make a copy on the talk page and edit improvements from there with another User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, making us 3 editors. As you can see from the editing history, he is clearly going for brevity rather than anything else, even sacrificing an improved plot. AT this point anyway, because as mentioned much later I cut it down to a lower word count than the current version and he still wouldn't accept.Note the talk page history [54], by 11:56, 19 April 2012‎.

• 3rd revert: [55] and proceeds to make his tiny changes,

none of these are improvements. After confronting him on the talk page, the fact that the plot was more improved, concise yet included all details with flow, I added it again in the article this time, using this description for my edit, as the plot and edit actually conformed to this description [56]

Well well well:

• 4th revert: [57] Again, rejected by whom? him of course.

It appears he is violating WP:OWN, WP:EW, WP:DE and TE, possibly WP:SPA (his name). If that does not seal the deal, notice how I have not placed a warning on his page. Because he has already received not only warnings, but a one week block for the same activity some time ago. Carefully read through his talk and archives here and here as well as his block log.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Links provided above and below.

Detailed version (Read if extra details necessary)

Initially I began editing the article plot for brevity, but after watching the film recently a week ago, I realised it needed to be improved for details and chronological flow was missing. Ring-Cinema had also been editing it for some time. I would advise to open links one at a time to avoid confusion. My plot draft included more words, but as you will see later, even though I trimmed plot to 700 to better reflect WP:PLOT, changes were reverted with absolutely no good reason.

• 1st revert: [58] Complete revert of my work, I reverted it back here [59] and told him to discuss on talk page.
• 2nd revert: [60] reverts back immediately rather than going to talk page and tells me to bring draft to talk page and discuss. His double standards only begin here. As you can see from the editing history, he is clearly going for brevity rather than anything else, even sacrificing an improved plot. AT this point anyway, because as mentioned much later I cut it down to a lower word count than the current version and he still wouldn't accept. Anyway, at the time I discuss at the talk page citing Inception and Mulholland Drive as having longer than 700 words due to editor consensus but improved plots as a result. Note the first paragraph of Inception, which introduces concepts in the film. Following this model I placed the draft on the talk page introducing characters in the first paragraph to get the confusion out of the way. I admit I do not leave edit summaries due to rush of editing. Note the talk page history [61], by 11:56, 19 April 2012‎.

At this time User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, another established editor of this article, joins and help me edit the draft, as well accepting the task I have placed forth. Him and I edit together, but see this [62] Ring replaces mine and Gareth's plot on the talk page with the exact copy of the article plot. Calling it "the best current draft". I confront him over this as you can see on the talk page several times [63].

To avoid conflict, I placed two drafts on the page, mine and Gareth’s collaboration, and the version he wishes. [64]. However, I later merged them incorporating the changes he wanted, and miraculously, making it 700 words rather than 750ish which it was. The plot now has the correct year (1945) when the story begins, and all characters etc. [65] [66]. I and Gareth discuss repeatedly on our talk pages, which you can see. User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones User talk:JTBX

Now look at this ridiculous nonsense. [67] He states "other editors" but which, the only editors editing the plot are me Gareth and him, and if taken into account how regularly then only me and Gareth. If a consensus means anything on Wikipedia, 2 vs 1 pretty much seals it, plus the fact I incorporated his changes. When the plot was above 750 words, he had at least one leg to stand on, but now he has no reason at all and this reply was unwarranted. [68], I had not only incorporated improvements, but made the plot 700 words.

[69], check it out, even though he originally wanted "brevity" he accuses me of leaving out information (specifically that Vito wanted better of Michael rather than join the Mafia) I deem superficial, even though (here's the kicker), that information was already in my plot, but better placed on a later paragraph, when it happens in the film. He obviously has not been reading my plot all this time, and has been caught with his pants down playing his usual semantics game. Either that or (jokes) English isn't his first language.

And the fact that he kept the article stating the plot begins in 1946, when it is an obvious fact the plot of Godfather begins in 1945 and Gareth backed me up on this [70].

Seeing a practical go ahead from Gareth, who stated that he agreed and liked our version better (again read all of this), [71] I added it to the article. But of course:

• 3rd revert: [72] and proceeds to make his tiny changes,

none of these are improvements. After confronting him on the talk page, the fact that the plot was more improved, concise yet included all details with flow, I added it again in the article this time as a test to see if he would revert it again, using this description for my edit, as the plot and edit actually conformed to that description [73]

Well well well:

• 4th revert: [74] Again, rejected by whom? him of course.

Gareth does not want to have a conflict and has edited the article going along with Ring since, but I have abstained until this is finalised. I wish for a temporary block because I simply cannot edit the plot without him reverting it.

Comments:
As a side note, If any of you have watched Godfather, please read the plot in the article, and the plot on the talk page. You make up your mind which is better and which has the larger word count. I sincerely do not know what he wants or wishes to prove with this, but is an obstacle to any improvement of a quality plot for the article. --JTBX (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

JTBX has made suggestions for the plot summary. I have agreed with some and not agreed with others. I incorporated many of his suggestions and proposed areas where we are in agreement and further changes would seem productive. Gareth and I have a good relationship with plenty of give and take and there is nothing false about our collaboration as he has suggested. On Gareth's talk page, he tells JTBX that he "thought you [JTBX] were going to wait until you had some response to your posting on the article's Talk page. Then I found my friend User:Ring Cinema was on the case. I am sure we three can work well together. Cheers, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)" JTBX has been invited to contribute on the talk page of the article and his concerns have been addressed. For example, he thought that the city of New York should be mentioned in the plot summary; I agreed and found a very smart place to include it. He thought last week that we should include information about the years of the action of the film but there was information from Gareth that JTBX's information was inaccurate; only today we have cleared that up. There are many details but I won't waste time with that tedium.

What is happening is that we are engaging in the give and take of trying to find ways to change the article for the better. As it happens, my recent changes are as often as not an effort to incorporate his suggestions into the plot summary. Sometimes he takes my suggestions, sometimes he doesn't. I think that is a normal way to collaborate. If he wants to discuss on the talk page, he will find that there will be views exchanged and he will be heard. That's how it should be and that's how it is with me. If he is upset that not all of his ideas were endorsed by others, I think he has an unreasonable expectation. As I mentioned to him already, I think he has good ideas and I am happy about his contributions. I'm not happy about this action, but nobody's perfect. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You can dress it up that way if you like, but written words and actions are totally different things. Do not fall for this nonsense, he writes well and so on to give this image, but his block log and interaction with others as can be seen by this page, is another thing. If I improved the plot, both by shortening the word count and by incorporating extra details, you have no right to revert without good reason (which as I stress, you have not, only that YOU don't accept it). The plot of my draft is 700 words, the plot in the article as a result of conservative reverts to keep that way on your part, again I stress for no reason, is 750 words and is a mess flow wise. Gareth can be thrown about between us and you must be cackling but I feel bad because he and I only want to improve it but you want ownership. I have been through many reverts for plot articles time and time again all provided with good reason from editors for me to accept, yours, frankly does not. It should be considered why I would take time to even bring up and write this complaint. A permanent block would be necessary, a temporary block would be fine though as you have experience of that. JTBX (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are complaining because you don't like my edits, even though I have accepted many of your suggestions. Each time I reverted you, I immediately returned to adopt as much of your language as I agreed with. Then I found other places to put in the material that I agreed with you should be incorporated. I think you should have mentioned that in your complaint. So that is how the give and take works. You proposed many changes, I accepted some. I proposed a change that I think you accepted, too. That's how it goes. I agreed with you that we should take up the matter of Michael's transformation. Instead, you just returned everything to your previous proposal. And I asked you again to work with the other editors. But if you think that means all your proposals will be accepted, that is not a reasonable expectation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(Laughter) Really? "You are complaining because you don't like my edits, even though I have accepted many of your suggestions." Let me just say, you cannot actually believe that. A total falsehood. It's the other way around, I incorporated your suggestions into the draft plot as a result of compromise and cut down the words, it is you who keeps reverting it and placing very very tiny changes. You in fact, did not add most of the changes I asked for, but thats the point, I shouldn't have to ask you. You do not own the article. And as faras changes ago you didn't introduce anything to the plot at all. You simply revert and (maybe) add in something I have suggested. But you don't own it, again I stress.

Just look at what he wrote above, here's the quote : "For example, he thought that the city of New York should be mentioned in the plot summary; I agreed and found a very smart place to include it." So I have to ask permission from him? He owns the article, my improvement must be reverted wholesale and put back in later by him?

"He thought last week that we should include information about the years of the action of the film but there was information from Gareth that JTBX's information was inaccurate; only today we have cleared that up." Correction, it took over two days to "clear up", it was hardly a clear up because as you are too scared to mention, I was right the first time and Gareth backed me up, when Gareth it states in the novel the year is 1945, you tried to weasel your way out of it (read Godfather talk page). Two editors (me and Gareth) with correct information shouldn't have to wait two days for you to "approve", but then of course, to revert once we add it.

You do not leave messages on the talk page regarding your edits, once we edit, you should coem to the talk page and discuss it, but the fact is me and Gareth agreed to that plot and added it, you don't but you simply revert.

"There are many details but I won't waste time with that tedium. " Exactly.

You are the only editor I have come across, and many others I presume have come across looking at your behaviour for over 3 years, to be this adamant and to flagrantly violate all the relevant policies. Again, you are warring and your reverts are not justified. You do this on purpose to annoy people for no reason. No reason. End of story. Block. JTBX (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are accusing me of bad faith; that's over the line. At the risk of repeating myself, when I reverted you I then went back and included as many of your suggestions as I agreed with. Then I invited you to discuss it, which is normal behavior. Yes, I then followed up with some small changes because, as I mentioned to you, it is better to make small changes and see if they are accepted. This is a good practice for Wikipedia. Your words suggest that you think you have carte blanche to change the article; on the contrary, other editors have a say about your edits. That is why you were asked to work with us by both me and Gareth, consistent with policy. Everyone is edited on Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(I should mention that your recounting of the 1945/46 dispute is inaccurate. I don't know why you deny it, but it was unclear which date was correct until today. Yes, you said 45, I pointed out to you that Gareth said 46 and today Gareth confirmed that you were right. So what is your problem there?) --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You reverted me multiple times, as I have proven here, even when I improved the article. I edited with consensus from Gareth, but we had to wait for you because we knew you wouldn't accept in light of your recent reverts. Bad faith is a light way of putting it, but its rich that you would say I was accusing you of it. It is only me, you and Gareth actively editing the plot. The small changes you placed are void, because

• 1. They consist of slight trimmings of a 750 plot, even though my plot was 700 words which you keep reverting.
• 2. The details you did add were put forth by me and Gareth after literally arguing over it with you and after you revert my edits, so in affect what we have is you reverting my edits, then taking the ideas that do sit with you and adding it to the plot, though not accomplishing anything because the plot I have put forth adds missing details, chronologically flows and is 700 words. What more could you ask for. But you don't ask for anything, just keep reverting solely by yourself. Gareth is a neutral party who does not want you to be blocked because he's just too nice. But that doesn't matter, fairness and upholding Wikipedia policy matters. You are being unfair, and an obstacle to improving the article for yourr own ego. But you've heard this a thousand times before, because of numerous blocks and confrontations with adminstrators dating back 2009. Some people never learn.

"I should mention that your recounting of the 1945/46 dispute is inaccurate. I don't know why you deny it, but it was unclear which date was correct until today. Yes, you said 45, I pointed out to you that Gareth said 46 and today Gareth confirmed that you were right. So what is your problem there?" It was clear the date was 1945 from the beginning, from factual internet searches, the novel plot and the introduction to the article itself (impossible to ignore unless you are a troll such as yourself). Gareth watched the VHS he has and proved me correct then days later backed it up with the novel. But you still didnt accept (see talk page) until now. Through persistence. Nice try but if anyone is reading this with open eyes they can see through your falsifications. Again I do not have time to waste with this clear troll who has been pushed into a corner with two templates here calling for his block. End his ridiculous charade so that real editors can get to work instead of wasting our precious time. JTBX (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a good example of the problem. The novel is not a source for the plot summary of the movie, but you don't know that. To know the year the film starts, the film must be consulted, in case they changed it from the novel. Gareth did that today or yesterday. So now we know. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So when Gareth consults the film/novel its some how acceptable (because you want to have good relations with him to use him), but when I, for over a week, have been stressing the same thing with many other improvements (that Gareth has helped me with because clearly you do not know what consensus means as you have demonstrated so elementarily here haha), it is not. Again, nice try. Keep digging your own grave. This won't end the way you would like. JTBX (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

break

• Comment: Please see WP:TL;DR "distill your thoughts into bite size pieces." And anyway I'm not sure this is the right venue, as EdJ said elsewhere. Full disclosure: I've had similar argument with User:Ring Cinema at another film article (No Country for Old Men) and I reported him to 3RRNB above (he clearly violated 3RR but it was deemed "Stale"[75]), so I generally agree with JBTX -- but J, I think you're spinning your wheels here trying to reason with him, and possibly hurting your case. If you want others to weigh in, don't continue the dispute here. If his current reverting is actionable, someone will step in. If not, other WP:DR steps are still open as I suggested on my talkpage. El duderino ^(abides) 04:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Page protected - Three days. I have resisted the temptation to block JTBX for personal attacks at this noticeboard. Both parties are well advised to ask the opinion of User:Gareth Griffith-Jones on any further changes they want to make, since he seems neutral and is willing to help. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Aworopaypbs reported by User:MarkBurberry32 (Result: )

Page: Phillips Brooks School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aworopaypbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

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

Comments:

This isn't actually 3RR, it's an edit war, we're removing copyvio from the article concerned, this user is intent on putting it back.

MarkBurberry32|talk 23:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if the warnings had an effect. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Stoopsklan reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [78]

• 1st revert: [79]
• 2nd revert: [80]
• 3rd revert: [81]
• 4th revert: [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Christopher Walken#Natalie Wood

Comments:
Continued edit warring despite requests to discuss the material being inserted. - SudoGhost 23:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I did head warning and was clearly not edit warring. As you can see in said article it's been appropriately resolved. I do apologize to SudoGhost for the inconvenience and assure you it will never happen again! Stoopsklan (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been resolved in any way, you inserted the same material with the same undue reference multiple times, without any discussion. This is the very definition of edit warring. - SudoGhost 00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The page has been protected, and there is a discussion at the article's talk page, so I don't think anything is required here, but instead of removing the report outright I'll leave that to the judgement of an administrator. - SudoGhost 04:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Page protected - For three days, by another admin. Use this time to try to reach consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:ProfJustice (Result: )

Page: Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [84]

°Remember, you need only *2* reverts to violate WP:1RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule.°

• 1st revert: [85]
• 2nd revert: [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

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

Comments:
This article has a 1RR warning with no time expiration. I gave the user a warning on his talk page to self revert. He didn't heed the warning which can be seen here [88].

!This user had previous issues with the revert rules as seen, this year alone, here[89] and here [90] and here [91] and here [92] and here [93] and here [94] and here [95], etc...

Comments: