Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Jlgowls reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: blocked for an indefinite duration)

Page: Richard Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 06:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 01:50, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")
2. 03:54, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")
3. 19:58, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")
4. 22:39, 3 May 2012 (edit summary: "/* Plagiarism controversy */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Update -- here is another one, same edit. It's obvious it will continue, unless... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite. This is an edit warring-only account, and what they're removing is cited to a reliable source which clearly supports what's in the article. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mirror89 reported by User:Judgeking (Result: )

Page: Noelia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mirror89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Comments:

Judgeking (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Materialscientist (talk · contribs) may have also violated the 3RR here. I'll leave it for another admin though. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The editors of that page tend to revert without explaining anything, or leaving a vague explanation (like "it was agreed on the talk page" whereas it was not). After a few reverts with Mirror89, I've managed to get into a conversation with that editor on the article talk page, understood his/her claims on birth date, diplomatically changed it, and we seemed to agree on that (birth date). Then there were some other unexplained reverts forth and back, and frankly I've lost interest in fixing that article (which suffers from a usual problem of hypes sourced to gossip sites) .. Materialscientist (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Tertoger reported by User:Clivel 0 (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [6]

• 1st revert: 1 May 2012 [7]
• 2nd revert: 1 May 2012 [8]
• 3rd revert: 2 May [9]
• 4th revert: 3 May [10]
• 5th revert: 3 May [11]
• 6th revert: 3 May [12]
• 7th revert: 3 May [13]
• 8th revert: 4 May [14]
• 9th revert: 4 May [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. While that material is negative about Mr Galtung, it is cited to reliable sources (I checked the Haaretz article) and there's consensus on the talk page to retain it in some form, so WP:BLP is not an excuse for this behaviour. Block duration set at a relatively short length given the extent of the edit warring as this editor has not been blocked previously and is probably editing in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:X Nilloc X reported by User:Nick-D (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

• 1st revert: [19] (10:51, 2 May)
• 2nd revert: [20] (03:16, 3 May)
• 3rd revert: [21] (14:12, 4 May)
• 4th revert: [22] (15:40, 4 May)
• 5th revert: [23] (02:32, 5 May)
• 6th revert: [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25] (3 May) and [26] (4 May)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox, notifications of the discussion also posted at WT:MILHIST and WP:RSN#Discussion about Taliban/Insurgent casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) infobox.

Comments:
This is a report of sustained edit warring against the majority position rather than a 3RR violation (though the editor seems well on the way to this). On 29 April I removed a casualty figure for total Taliban deaths in this war which was cited only to a Wikipedia article (which doesn't actually provide this figure) and provided a reference to a reliable source which states that there are in fact no reliable estimates for Taliban deaths. When doing so I also started a discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox where this position has received support from most of the editors who have commented. X Nilloc X (talk · contribs) is participating in that discussion, but keeps reverting the unreferenced figure back into the article despite being asked to stop this. I and two other editors have been reverting his or her changes. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I should note that I'm up to three reverts in 24 hours in this article myself (two reverts of X Nilloc X and one of Stumink (talk · contribs), who has been twice invited to join the talk page discussion but has edit warred instead). As noted earlier, two other editors have also reverted X Nilloc X within the last 48 hours. I will not be making any further reversions of the article this weekend. Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

X Nilloc X has reverted me again since I posted this report and notified them of it (added above as the 5th revert), and has also started a spurious discussion at WP:DRN. Nick-D (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Agent00f reported by Mtking (Result: )

Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

1. 04:30, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "The Seeds of Tomorrow")
2. 04:40, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Disallowing an integral party to every previous failure from preventing a real solution.")
3. 04:49, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Just the same 3 people (Mtking, TreyGeek, Haseur) who've betrayed the process again and again trying to prevent resolution that's not controlled and failed via them.")
4. 07:17, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "The clique of Mtking/Treygeek/Hasteur clearly _hate_ any attempt at a process not under their direct control. They'll do _anything_ unsavory possible to prevent.")

• Diff of warning: here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Sherlock4000 reported by User:Lihaas (Result: )

Page: YPF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sherlock4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27] ( but theres been so much warring its hard)

• 1st revert: [28]
• 2nd revert: [29]
• 3rd revert: [30]
• 4th revert: [31]
• 5th revert: [32]
• 6th revert: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34][35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:YPF#Neutrality_problems_with_Economist_editorials]

Comments:
The said user has ignored and deleted warning with NPA instead of discussion. Talk pages that are ongoign still resulted in his reverts. And since he was the ONLY one wish said view against multiple other editors the page gets locked so as to adhere to the whm of one without consensus discussion. As an ongoign event it also needs more edit to update as per thisLihaas (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please. This issue has already been discussed in this noticeboard and elsewhere, and the other two users (who repeatedly reverted my edits, with wholesale reverts that sometimes included even grammatical fixes and minor addenda over other sections of the article) already got their way: the page was locked with the defamatory - and debunked - bit about "hunting down" and "threats and violence" still in place.

This was a rumor spread by the Spanish Embassy in Buenos Aires and published as gospel in (some of) the media echo chamber. It was refuted, however, by Repsol's own spokesman at YPF (Repsol owned YPF from 1999 until April 16th last), who was there and thus has given the only first-person account of events (and the only one not given on an anonymous basis).

I brought this up in the last 3RR report, and mentioned it to Ed Johnston, but it's worth repeating:

The source reads (I'm translating): Operation YPF found no resistance in any of the executives, Argentine or Spanish. Nor in Sergio Resumil, then-Director of Communications (spokesman). They complied with instructions given to them by Baratta (Roberto Baratta, state representative in the YPF board of directors prior to the takeover) who (quoting Resumil) "was formal in his demeanor. There was no physical struggle, no pushing, or violence of any kind. The 16 dismissed executives left in their respective company cars, chauffeured to their residences."

Resumil spoke to a major conservative publication in Spain (making them one of the least likely in the world to write anything in defense of the renationalization of YPF). Whether the story was repeated in the Financial Times, Economist, AlJazeera, or anywhere else, it is an anonymous rumor directly contradicting a quoted first-hand account (by somebody obviously opposed to the takeover, as he was among those who was laid off). While I don't believe in posting anonymous rumors even followed with proof to the contrary (it's a little like asking someone: "don't think of an elephant"), we could, as EdJohnston suggested, precede the sentence with According to a Spanish government memo obtained by the Financial Times, with the Repsol spokeman's rebuttal in the following sentence.

While the page is locked, of course, numerous significant news updates have taken place, including the renationalization's approval by both houses of Congress, the president's signing of the bill into law, her appointment of a new director (an engineer who rescued a failing Schlumberger subsidiary), and significant increases in production at YPF itself.

All, surely, more relevant to the article than this debunked event Bobrayner, Yopie, and Lihass are so fond of.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bobrayner_and_User:Yopie_reported_by_User:Sherlock4000_.28Result:_page_protected.29 Is clearly misleading, it should be BOOMERANG as mentioned when filing a complaint because there was no war between the edits he mentioned that would contravene 3RR. said user is the only one with the probem and multiple reverts in 24 hours.

Mind you im uninvolved in the dispute and, for the record, its not about content its about the warring/3RR (which the above response doesnt seem to indicate a realisation thereof. The reply should be on the talk page to resolve the dispute instead of the 3RR that quite clearly took place. Per WRONGVERSION, the page is not running away. Right or wrong hthe precedence allowing blatant 3RR opens a can of worms.)

This user apparently still doesnt realie his actionin which he continues further with NP[A "Bobrayner, Yopie, and Lihass are so fond of". Is an attack...and i was never involved in any of this edits (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Then it would be the three of us, wouldn't it? You weren't involved in the dispute per sé, Lihass, I'll grant you that. But you have shown interest in the article, and since you're only attempting to have my account blocked, and not these others', we can hardly describe you as a disinterested party. And you do describe yourself in your own user page as someone of political opinions (openly supporting Justices Scalia and Thomas requires some really strong opinions, no doubt).

In any case, Bobrayner and Yopie enjoy reading the rumor in question on the YPF page, and (remember) I have agreed to oblige them - provided that the Repsol spokesman's first-hand account is included in the paragraph.

Thanks again, Sherlock4000 (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Colton Cosmic reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: )

Page: Phoenix Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

1. 19:35, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Okay, I'm deleting this based on WP:BLP, see discussion.")
2. 19:49, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undo, does not address WP:BLP violation")
3. 21:01, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "undo, previous edit did WAY more than comment indicated, and deleted valid reference")
4. 15:33, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "occupation: previous editor of this deleted reliably-sourced information (and reliable source), just restoring")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:99.237.236.218 reported by User:L.tak (Result: both blocked)

Page:  
User being reported: 99.237.236.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

• 1st revert: [37] (note: 3 May)
• 2nd revert: [38] 5 may 6.36h
• 3rd revert: [39] 5 may 2003h
• 4th revert: [40] 5 may 2132
• 5th revert: [41] 5 may 2218

It is a classical discussion: is Palestine a sovereign state. The IP states it's not.

• The examples are from List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_2010s, and exactly the same happened at List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_2000s and List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_1980s
• The user is familiar with the israel-palestine discretionary sanctions; and I warned about getting close to edit warring on List of world map changes‎, where he has not stepped over the 3RR line formally
• As my focus was List of world map changes‎ (where 3 individual reverted), I didn't investigate these Lists of sovereign states-articles and thus did not warn/discuss this with user:Spesh531, who was the only counterpart in these actions.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43] (in 3RR warning; also a small exchange on my talk page)

Comments:

L.tak (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked The IP editor has form with this kind of stuff, so I've blocked them for two weeks. Spesh531 has also been edit warring across multiple articles for the last few days on what's a sensitive topic instead of seeking admin intervention, so I've blocked them for 24 hours. Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Sudar123 reported by User:SriSuren (5 reverts without a single source and ignoring the references given and refuses to discuss the issue)(Result: )

Page: Vijayabahu I of Polonnaruwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sudar123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: 02:09, 30 April 2012‎ [45]
• 2nd revert: 08:22, 30 April 2012‎ [46]
• 3rd revert: 14:42, 30 April 2012‎ [47]
• 4th revert: 18:51, 30 April 2012‎ [48]

4 reverts within c. 17 hours

• 5th revert: 20:01, 5 May 2012‎ [49] (After specifically asking to discuss in the talkpages and me waiting almost 5 days for his reply in one of the talk pages).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Chola Invasion and your edits in the article king Vijayabahu I - I didn't place any of those standard warning signs, but told him specifically, that I am writing that post in his userpage, since it is required that he must be warned before complaining about his reverting.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50] The discussion was started first in his talk page. He replied with one short comment on 30 April 2012, 18:36 (UTC). The discussion in the talk page of the article was started after his 4th edit. He reverted again, after I posted a couple of more posts in his userpage explaining to him what is wrong with his reverting and refering to the discussion which was started in the article page. On 3 May 2012 at 05:40 (UTC) I gave him 48 hours to reply, since he went completely silent. He never commented in any of the talk pages, but reverted again. He does not want to discuss at all, nor does he have any references. Please read the comment below.

Comments:

User:Sudar123 keeps reverting edits without stating any valid reason and I do not know where to take this issue, since it is more than just reverting, as he is not clear on what he means and he is not giving any references. He is also provocative in his edit summaries. He just keeps reverting without giving any references or for that matter anything else to defend his views in the discussions. Please also note the words and the terms he is demanding references for, namely "occupation" and "invason/invaders" and check the references I have given, or do your own Google book search and see whether there are any scholarly references which says anything else about this event, than that it was an invasion and occupation.

When asked for explanations he goes completely silent, and then comes back and reverts. How am I to handle this, without breaking any rules myself?

I have given the user an explanation in his talk page and ample references with over 200 results for the exact occurance of the term in question "Chola Occupation" from Google books, which was the first term he wanted references for. He reverted even after I gave the references, but he realized that he couldn't ask for more references for his first demand, so he shifted his attention to another word, namely "invasion" and reverted my edit, this time around and stating in his edit summary that "one source is contradicting in the referred page itself by the terms, "Conquest" and "Invader"! (please note where he is saying that there is a contradiction and think how anyone is going to defend that there is a contradiction in that..... Also, if he bothered to read some of the references then he would have also found ample references to the words "invader" and "invasion" too.). He did't even bother to state which source he is refering to, or what this socalled contradiction is. When this is pointed out in the discussion in his talk page, he goes completely silent. I waited almost another 2 days for his reply, but since he didn't reply, I gave him a more thorough explaination, and asked him to state his views, with references, within 48 hours. But even then he did not reply in his talk page or the talk page in the article. Therefore I reinstated my edit, after the 48 hours had passed, that is almost 5 days after his last revert and him completely ignoring the call to state his views and references. But when I reverted his edit, he was back within hours and without any explanation in the talk pages, reverted again stating in his edit summary "Can you please explain on which Wikipedia Policy, you have set the 48 hours ultimatum?"

Can he keep the article on hold and a dispute going on indefinitely like this? Sudar123 is not backing any of what he is saying with references and he is trying to deliberately extend and expand the problem, into other articles related to this particular topic as well, namely the Chola occupation of Sri Lanka, while keeping this dispute alive indefinitely. I mean that, if 48 hours is not enough he can either state that he needs more time, or just state his views in short and that if he has time to revert edits, he must have time to defend his reverts and points too.

As the edit summaries in the article will show, user Sudar123 took up this issue where User:Tamilan101 left, after pestering and reverting edits continuously, and demanding references for the occurance of the word "island"!! and reverting even after references were given. This kind of "editing" and demands for references for obvious things is really unnecessary and then even after references are given, they continuously revert, either by picking another word, or trying to question the references. This is exhausting and it is hard to get any useful editing done.

I need advice as to how to settle this particular issue, as I really do not know how to handle this or if I revert now, whether I will be breaking any rules. As for the content Sudar123 is disputing, there's absolutely no scholarly dispute, that the event was an invasion and occupation. I do not want a quick block of Sudar123 as I do not think it will not solve the problem, since he will do the same thing again, if not in this article, then in other articles. I just want someone to explain that he has to explain why he is reverting and give references to reliable sources, and that if he doesn't have reliable sources for his claims, that he can't revert or write what he would like to hear about the topic. He is not giving any references since he has no sources to back up what he is telling. SriSuren (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

When I do a search on Google Books, I too get more than 200 hundred results that Chola rule' in Sri Lanka[51], [52], [53], [54]...etc.

Chola were there in the island more than 84 years (993—1077) and given importance to Hinduism and not Buddhism. If they had given importance to Buddhism, their rule might have been celebrated by most of the scholars as "Golden Rule" in contemporary Sri Lanka.

Even in South India once Buddhism was flourished in the Pandya, Chera, Chola and other areas. There were many Tamil Literature on Buddhism in South India and were destroyed on various religious grounds than the rulers personal wish or it is not particularly attributed to Pandyas or to Cheras or to Cholas that they are against Buddhism.

According to the Mahavamsa – a historical poem written in the Pali language, of the kings of Sri Lanka – King Vijaya (543 – 505 BCE) married a Pandyan Princess. Along with Vijaya, all the men in his crew got married to Madurai girls and arrived Srilanka with a great celebration.[55]

If that is so, then the Sinhalese claim that they are descendants of King Vijaya implies that they are the descendants of South India matrilineally.

You haven't mention in the Chola occupation of Sri Lanka (993–1077) article the collaboration of Sri Lankan Kings at that time with Pandya Kings to oust the Chola power in various territories.

Just shouting "South Indian Invasion" and "Chola Occupation" by most of the Scholars who identify themselves with King Vijaya are, shouting at their very Own ancestors from South India and hiding the geo-politics at that time among Pandya, Chola and the island's Kings.Sudar123 (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So you decided to state your views finally... Anyway what exactly is the relevance of all the diverse origin theories for the Sinhalese and all that other stuff? What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that the Chola rule was a legitimate rule and not an occupation, because some south Indians migrated to the island and got assimilated into the Sinhalese population, or this semi-mythical prince Vijaya married a Pandyan/Pandu princess? This kind of thin irrelevant arguments do not make your case, but break it. Even if that story is true that was almost 1600 years prior to the Chola invasion and the Cholas were a different kingdom than Pandyans!!!! Also do you think that the Sinhalese would have accepted Chola rule, if the Sinhalese were Hindus? All the other kingdoms the Cholas invaded in India were Hindu kingdoms. Did they accept Chola rule? Also, the Cholas didn't destroy the Buddhist temples and monastries because they were against Buddhism, they did it because these things belonged to the country they had invaded. So, please not try to distort facts and take things out of context. Just read what your search results say:

Eg: He (Rajaraja Chola) captured the island of Sri Lanka ....

...intermittent armed resistance to Chola rule continued there throughout the Chola period.

Therefore it is very likely that this monastery too did not escape the ravages of Chola rule.

I can't use more time to copy and paste links - just read yourself.

Please note that an occupation is also a type of rule, as stated in the discussion page of the article, but do not try to camouflage this brutal invasion and occupation, as a legitimate rule; it wasn't a legitimate rule, and that fact must be clearly stated in King Vijyabahu's article, since it was he who liberated Sri Lanka from the Cholas.

And about the other stuff u mention about King Vijaya marrying a Pandu/Pandyan princess etc. - they are totally and completely irrelevant. Whoever he married is not relevant to this discussion, and there are no Sinhalese who claim descent from king Vijaya and the Pandu/Pandyan princess, since that marriage did not produce any children. And Pandyans were the allies of Sinhalese and enemies of the Cholas for long periods. Cholas were always hostile. Also the Cholas didn't only invade and occupy Sri Lanka, they invaded most of the kingdoms in India and also countries in the far east. So what you are trying to present here is totally wrong.

Just a comparision so that editors who might follow this discussion and do not know the details about this history can understand some of it - the Princes and princesses of England married Princesses/Princes from France, but that doesn't mean that France can invade and occupy England and start destroying everything in England, and later turn back and say that it was a legitimate rule. Also if some French people settled in England and got assimilated into the English population, that doesn't give France the right to rule England nor does it make the English people into French people.--SriSuren (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Clivel 0 reported by User:Tertoger (Result: WP:BOOMERANG)

Page: Johan Galtung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Clivel 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

• 1st revert: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]
• 4th revert: [60]
• 5th revert: [61]
• 6th revert: [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

User:Bigshowandkane64 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: blocked for one week )

Page: Thomas & Friends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: See evidence presented by AussieLegend below

1. 13:24, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "") reverted to this.[65]
2. 22:01, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490700120 by CourtneyBonnick (talk)Carlin died, so i think we should leave it the way it is.")
3. 23:11, 4 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490708422 by 70.61.72.50 (talk) That's not even a thomas movie. False info")
   Contact was made with editor regarding his edits here, although other editors had been communicating with him previously.
4. 03:05, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490731160 by Trivialist (talk)") was immediately followed by 03:07, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490731429 by Trivialist (talk)")
5. 23:04, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "") This edit restored content previously removed in this edit making it a partial reversion.
6. 23:22, 5 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490873549 by CourtneyBonnick (talk)That's important info.")
7. 00:01, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490877637 by CourtneyBonnick (talk)")
8. 01:14, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 490903265 by Trivialist (talk)")
   Editor was given a 3RR warning at this point.
9. 03:37, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "") immediately followed by 03:43, 6 May 2012 (edit summary: "") - combined these edits reverted to this.[66]

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

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

Comments:
I became aware of problems at Thomas & Friends, with unsourced content being persistently added and restored after removal when it was reported recently at WT:TV by User:Robsinden. The page history reveals an ongoing edit war between IPs and registered editors. This report concerns one of them, User:Bigshowandkane64, with whom Robsinden and others have had an obvious running battle over sourcing. After reviewing the page history I reverted some edits made by Bigshowandkane64 and explained why on his talk page.[67] This was deleted 3 minutes later,[68] and Bigshowandkane64 continued restoring the offending content over the next 24 hours, despite reversions by other editors. After Bigshowandkane64 had made at least 8 reverts in a little over 38 hours a warning was clearly warranted so one was given.[69] Six minutes later he removed it from his talk page,[70] and 3/4 of an hour after that made a series of edits, restoring previously removed content,[71] the first two of which constituted his 9th revert.[72] --AussieLegend (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Shanedoe reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: )

Page: John Harington (writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shanedoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

• 1st revert: [74]
• 2nd revert: [75]
• 3rd revert: [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77] and [78]

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

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

User:149.154.159.142 reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: )

Page: Islamists in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 149.154.159.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [79]

• 1st revert: [80]
• 2nd revert: [81]
• 3rd revert: [82]
• 4th revert: [83]
• 5th revert: [84]
• 6th revert: [85]

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

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

User:Ackees reported by User:ElliotJoyce (Result: reporter blocked)

Page: Benin Expedition of 1897 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ackees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

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

• Reverts on the Benin Expedition of 1897 article: [86]
• Reverts on the Benin City article: [87]
• Reverts on the African Slave Trade article: [88]

Blocked the reporter, ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs). I'm not sure about how much responsibility Ackee bears for all this, but ElliotJoyce was also just coming back from a block for tendentious edit-warring, and I only looked at African slave trade and saw that ElliotJoyce removed valid cited material twice within the last day, for obvious POV reasons, and was also misusing the talkpage for some rather repulsive soapboxing [89]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Ahmad Shah Massoud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JCAla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

• 1st revert: [91] (JCAla removes disambiguation hatnote put in by Fut. Perf.)
• 2nd revert: [92] (JCAla reverts Fut. Perf.'s rewrite of the lead and placement of an NPOV tag on the article)
• 3rd revert: [93] (JCAla reverts Fut. Perf.'s addition of a "dubious" tag)
• 4th revert: [94] (JCAla reverts Fut. Perf.'s rewrite of a paragraph)
• 5th revert: [95] (JCAla adds back text that Fut. Perf. removed in this edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]. JCAla has been blocked several times for edit-warring, so he knows the rules.

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

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