Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive191

User:175.113.153.131 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: )

Page: British English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:175.113.153.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]
• 6th revert: [7]

There has now been a further revert by new User:Kimwonjin3 to reinstate the same disputed map.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] and [10]

Comments:
This is a dispute over the inclusion of an (apparently) blog-sourced, possibly self-drawn, and misleading / inaccurate map in the article. The IP has not responded except to say that the map is "better than nothing". Most of the support for the view that the map should not be shown in the article is in other editors' edit summaries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:92.7.2.145 reported by User:Clarificationgiven (Result: 31h )

  Page: Muammar Gaddafi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.7.2.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 92.7.24.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13]
• 4th revert: [14]
• 5th revert: [15]
• 6th revert: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muammar_Gaddafi#Wigs> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:
This editor is trying to slander certain pages as per his/her personal thoughts, without giving any backup or sources, just keeps editing pages back to personal likeness, hardly provides explanation to edit as well, few more pages are slandered by the same person, like this one, he has also slandered the talk page with same type of content with no backup or any meaning.

Looking forward to this report's result. Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Omar-Toons reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: 72h)

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Omar-Toons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last stable version: [18]

• 1st revert: [19] - reverts me on size of Morocco
• 2nd revert: [20] - reverts IP on issue of oldest university
• 3rd revert: [21] - reverts me on issue of oldest university
• 4th revert: [22] - reverts me on issue of oldest university
• 5th revert: [23] - reverts my addition of sources on issue of oldest university

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Omar-Toons has been made fully aware months ago that his edits with regard to the issue of the oldest university do not meet the consensus of the community, see this discussion (only one of several) here.

Comments:
The user has been first reverting me on the actual size of Morocco, then and an IP and me three times on the notion of Al-Karaouine having been a madrasa at the time of its founding. He finally removed sources I added, ignoring past discussions which established the majority view that madrasas cannot be considered universities at all and, particularly, that no edits to such an extent should be made without seeking mediation or similar constructive measures. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fairly clear. 5 reverts, 3rd block for edit-warring; Blocked for 72h. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Yopienso reported by User:Quarkgluonsoup (Result: Page Protected for 3 days)

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

[25]

Previous version reverted to: [26]

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]
• 5th revert: [31]
• 6th revert: [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:

He is engaging in edit warring, even reverting a tag that the section in dispute is in dispute. His reversions involve the deletion of a large number of RS's.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see the article talk page here and from here down, my edit history, and Quarkgluonsoup's edit history, including this bit. Yopienso (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 3 days – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

69.253.167.49 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.253.167.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (prior: 65.202.157.163, 50.11.215.2)

Previous version reverted to: [35] (several prior reverts under other IPs)

• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• [41]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive prior discussion on talk page, Talk:Bulgaria#Sovereignty dates in the Infobox

Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Comment I came here to report this as well, but it looks like Future beat me to it. The IP has reverted yet again after warnings and has been notified of this report.
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49][50]

I have not warned him as further edits have been made since his last revert so he cannot self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: - User has been blocked 3 times before for edit warring.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: - User was previously blocked for for edit warring at the same article.Ankh.Morpork 19:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: With recent blocks for EW and similar behavior (without violating 3rr) on other articles, Apart from a decision on current case I suggest the closing admin to also consider a 1RR restriction so that in future the user can stress on talkpage discussions for constructive editing rather than reverts--DBigXray 20:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

1RR actually seems fit for you, given that you have a visible history of turning up at different pages in this topic area just to revert the same users (no introduction needed) all the time. Mar4d (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The "third revert" given above was not a revert, I had to undo it (see the edit immediately after it) because another user made edits in-between that were not meant to be removed. The "fourth revert" is actually the third revert. I've not crossed 3RR. An admin should look into it and if there are any concerns, I can address them. Mar4d (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You reverted, then did a "fix" then Br'er Rabbit edited the article, were is your self revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I had missed one, so you are on 4RR regardless. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The "fix" was a self-revert, see the diff. As for the new one you added at the top, are you joking? It's not even on the same day, check the date. Neither is that edit part of the reverts. I've made my edits well within the bounds of 3RR Mar4d (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It was at 11:14, 22 July 2012. My math is terrible but that looks like it was within the 24 hour time frame. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note – I'm having trouble seeing which edit the 2nd revert listed above reverted. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • So am I. And the reporter has reverted at least 3 times in the last 24 hours as well. (18:00 yesterday, 10:22 & 10:36 today UTC). I'd be tempted to close this with warnings all round. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • See the request below against filer. I'm extremely tempted to lock the page. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I would agree with that. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Aha, thanks for spotting that one. That's because the second revert was not a revert either, it was simply a modification of a previously unedited sentence. Didn't revert anyone there. This actually brings this questionable 3RR report down to 2RR. Mar4d (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• The second revert removed content I had added yesterday I am on my mobile so cannot do diffs. Please do not lock the page, I am currently trying to get it up to fa status. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'll also add that the "first revert" is a normal edit and has nothing to do with the report filer or the succeeding set of edits. I simply undid a user (with visible COI) who made a drive-by removal of legitimate tags and further gave no clarification for his removal even on the talk page, where the dispute is ongoing. I've not crossed 3RR. This report is nothing but an attempt to score brownie points while an article and this user's objectionable edits are currently being disputed by multiple editors, to which the user has not adequately responded. The article should be locked down. Mar4d (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

How is removing an entire sentence I had added a few hours beforehand not a revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing a sentence for the first time is not a revert. Also, it was not an "entire sentence." Mar4d (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: - per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, there are now standard discretionary sanctions that may be placed on any of these articles or editors. I have recused from this area, but I strongly suggest that the closing admin consider giving either a last warning to any specific editor of possible sanctions or actually impose them (we have been going around the merry-go-round on this for the last 2 years). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 12:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:The235003 reported by User:Sabrebd (Result: declined )

Page: List of deaths in rock and roll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The235003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

Part of activity by one user that includes a complex series of changes and then reverts. I have just included the clearest case of breaking the 3RR. Requests to take the matter to the talkpage in edit requests and on the talkpage have produced absolutely no response SabreBD (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this was posted, User:The235003 has left this message on my talk page, apologising for his actions, and has also made a number of constructive and uncontentious edits to the article. It may be that all that is needed in this case is to cut some slack to a new and potentially constructive user, and limit the action in this case to a stern warning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going with Declined in light of the fact the user has admitted his error. Future edit warring of course can be reported and should result in a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:O'Dea reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Already Warned)

Page: 2012 Aurora shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: O'Dea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous versions reverted to: [58] [59] [60]

• 1st revert: [61]
• 2nd revert: [62]
• 3rd revert: [63]
• 4th revert: [64]
• 5th revert: [65]
• 6th revert: [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: After 3rd revert: [67], again: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Respectfully, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• This edit warring report against me is jumping the gun as I have already withdrawn from the editing of that item within the article pending resolution on the article Talk Page. This report by User:JoeSperrazza ignores that fact. Also: 1. I did not know I had reverted more than three times. 2. My original edit was reverted by different editors when I thought it was just one stubborn one who refused to heed my citation of Wikipedia policy, and I have desisted from that edit war since it was pointed out to me that it was more than one editor. I am awaiting Talk Page resolution and had already voluntarily withdrawn from the edit war before this premature report, as my contribution history shows. Questions? — O'Dea (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Note that the editor responded to notes on edit warring prior to his fourth revert. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a reply to Martinevans123, asking him to discuss the matter on the Talk Page instead of mine. — O'Dea (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct, but look at the context of the discussion. It was on the topic of your edit warring. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I must agree, as that's why I filed this report. The user was politely notified that xe was at WP:3RR prior to making a 4th revert. As there was no WP:BLP issue in play, but rather a content formatting dispute, no 3RR exceptions apply. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

But Martinevans123 did not point out that I had reverted four times, nor that some of the reversions were by editors other than you, Ryan. I thought they were all your reversions. I made the original edit and that was reverted more than three times by you and others combined. Since I thought they were all your edits, I reasoned that you had violated 3RRR, a simple and logical mistake. Once I understood I had violated 3RRR, I quit editing that item. Check my history: I have desisted from editing that item since 23:01 yet JoeSperrazza went ahead and reported me at 00:21 as though I were still at it. Furthermore, Martinevans123 also said "Maybe Ryan should have ben warned before he got there." — O'Dea (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:3RR, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours". As noted, no exception is made for how many reverted you, let alone that say you decided to stop reverting (note that you did not say so on your or the article's talk page).
• Also, per WP:NOTTHEM:

1. "Do not complain about other people" - I filed this report in good faith, as you crossed the bright line with 4 reverts, and made no statements (prior to your response here) that you were now going to await consensus.
2. "Do not excuse what you did with what others did" - you reverted 4 times. That you thought you were reverting "just one stubborn one" vice multiple editors does not excuse your actions. Additionally, you were notified, politely, that you were at 3RR on your talk page, and directed the user to post concerns to the article talk page instead.
3. Assume good faith - see item 1.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• How about protecting the article? There has been a lot of edit warring and vandalism on it today. Electric Catfish 00:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Many eyes are on that article, and it seems to be under control. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The last time I reverted that date item was at 23:01 and my edit summary addressed David Levy, stating, "You have violated 3R without getting consensus on this. Leave it alone until the matter is resolved." Subsequently, Ryan Vesey left a message on my talk page at 23:14 saying that some of the reversions of my edits were performed by editors other than him. At that point I stopped reverting because I understood the situation differently. My edits were reverted by Levy and Vesey, the names are so similar I did not notice the difference and thought they were the same person. I have not edit warred since I understood my mistake, pointed out on my talk page. This report of edit warring is redundant because it has stopped since I realised what was happening. JoeSperrazza filed his complaint here 75 minutes after the rapid fire edit war had clearly stopped, and that is why I accuse him of jumping the gun. I repeat, I did not realise I had revered four times. I stopped when I did. Clear, now? — O'Dea (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Upon learning of this report, I initially intended to comment that O'Dea stopped edit warring, so a block would be punitive (and therefore inappropriate). Then I noticed that O'Dea has resumed edit warring at the article, this time over an image whose copyright is disputed. And he/she is still mislabeling these reversions "minor".
  I also find some of O'Dea's comments troubling. He/she seems focused on perceived technicalities of the three-revert rule, noting above that he/she lost count of the reversions and didn't realize that three had been reached. This seems to reflect a belief that three reversions is an entitlement, with edit warring considered perfectly acceptable until the line is crossed.
  O'Dea also notes that he/she mistakenly thought that a single user was reverting his/her edits, seemingly citing this as justification for reverting back.
  Most troubling is O'Dea's apparent unwillingness to make any effort to understand the underlying concerns on the part of the users he/she reverted (as well as others who commented on the article's talk page). I get the impression that O'Dea intends to simply wait 24 hours and reinstate the disputed changes.
  Of course, that doesn't jibe with O'Dea's new edit war at the same article, which I'm unable to explain. —David Levy 02:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This alleged new "edit war" is not a war. It is disgraceful misrepresentation to maintain that one edit is an "edit war". This latest edit complained of is the restoration to the article of a picture that was removed from the article. This picture is presently under discussion and no copyright violation has been demonstrated; on the contrary, there is a clear statement sourced at the State of Colorado website that the image is in the public domain which I cited explicitly in my edit summary, and I included the URL for that public domain statement in my edit summary. Therefore, my edit is completely uncontroversial. Furthermore, my edit is nothing at all related to the 3RR complaint here. It is irrelevant. Refer to the discussion about this image.

As for minor edits, my editor is set to minor by default. I edit quickly and forget to switch sometimes. It is certainly not the sinister intent to deceive represented here by Mr. Levy who knows nothing of my actual intentions but is willing to allow his fears to condition his statements about my alleged future intention to resume an edit war in 24 hours.

Levy: you are going beyond proper boundaries and making me angry. You have no right to make claims upon my future actions. I myself do not even know my future actions. Your complaints can only legitimately come from my contribution history. You are provoking me. Back off. I had already quit the edit war even before this complaint by was made by JoeSperrazza. Why not wait and see what happens in 24 hours instead of projecting your anxieties? You are constructing ideas about my behaviour based on your anxieties that bear no relation to the kind of editor I am. Be reasonable, dammit. I am losing patience with you. I request you to withdraw your lies about my future editing intentions as a matter of good manners, to show good faith, and to allay the anger you have provoked with your nasty accusation. — O'Dea (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This alleged new "edit war" is not a war. It is disgraceful misrepresentation to maintain that one edit is an "edit war".

An edit war, by definition, comprises more than one edit. In this instance, the above-discussed revert followed the image's removal and the earlier edits in which you added an external link to the image, it was removed, and you again linked to the image. So actually, you're now up to six reverts. (I've updated the list.)

This latest edit complained of is the restoration to the article of a picture that was removed from the article.

In other words, it's a revert.

This picture is presently under discussion and no copyright violation has been demonstrated; on the contrary, there is a clear statement sourced at the State of Colorado website that the image is in the public domain which I cited explicitly in my edit summary, and I included the URL for that public domain statement in my edit summary.

So your justification for continuing to revert is "I'm right."

Therefore, my edit is completely uncontroversial.

Because you regard the other editor's incorrectness as obvious? That makes it "uncontroversial"?

Furthermore, my edit is nothing at all related to the 3RR complaint here. It is irrelevant.

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."

As for minor edits, my editor is set to minor by default. I edit quickly and forget to switch sometimes. It is certainly not the sinister intent to deceive represented here by Mr. Levy

I made no such allegation. In fact, as I was typing the message, I changed the wording from "abusing the 'minor edit' checkbox" to "mislabeling these reversions 'minor'", specifically to avoid such a connotation. I also removed a mention that it prevents the edits from appearing on some users' watchlists (because I didn't want to imply that this was your intent).

You have no right to make claims upon my future actions.

I described my "impression", which arose from your comments here and elsewhere. You plainly stated above that you stopped reverting because you realized that you'd exceeded three reverts and weren't edit warring with a single user. You've made no meaningful attempt to resolve the underlying content dispute.

You have no right to make claims upon my future actions. I myself do not even know my future actions.

Nor do I. I can only go by what you've done so far. If you adjust your approach, my expectations will change accordingly.

I had already quit the edit war even before this complaint by was made by JoeSperrazza.

Indeed. That's why I originally intended argue against a block. Then I realized that you reverted again after this complaint was made. And you don't even regret doing that. You're defending it. —David Levy 06:37/06:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protection is out of the question: News item; constructive IP edits and such. Blocking, at this stage, isn't helping, either. And I will AGF on the fact that he probably thought restoring an (erroneously removed on wrong premise) image was acceptable. Then, I see nothing to do, but say that O'Dea should be Warned. So this will serve as a stern final warning: additional reverts will probably result in blocks applied by other reviewing administrator.
• On the other note: O'Dea: You probably should not make your edits default to be minor, either. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The original 3RR complaint concerned the validity of a date format in the article in question. Now there is a new complaint about reversions of edits to an image. These are two entirely separate issues in the article. I have not realized previously that 3RR could arise from edits to two separate parts of an article. I assumed in good faith that the 3RR rule made sense, and that the edits about the date format would not be summed with the edits concerning the photograph. Up to now, I understood that I had four reverts to the date format question, and one or two on the inclusion of the mugshot. It never occurred to me that they would all be added together to make six instead of four (violation) and two (non-violation), because they are unrelated matters.

Now that I understand that the 3RR rule "involves the same or different material each time", it throws a whole new light on the meaning of 3RR for me and, to be honest, I thing it's a bullshit fucking rule. It is really deeply stupid horseshit to treat edits to two different parts of an article under the same 3RR count. It's easily the most stupid rule I have come across in Wikipedia. It's so insanely restrictive of editing liberty. 3RR should be confined to three reversions of one thing in an article. Go ahead and block me; I need a break from this dispiriting fucking farce anyway.

Wikipedia is governed by a vast collection of rules, explained at length in the Help section, but I suggest most editors probably scan a very small percentage of these rules quickly on a need-to-know basis. I have scanned the 3RR help page before, but like most Wikipedia help pages, it constitutes a lengthy article in itself, and I whipped through it looking for a rough idea of what it was about. No-one has time to pore over all of Wikipedia rules carefully like a lawyer. I come here to contribute, not to lose myself for hours in a labyrinth of tedious bureaucracy. I am still stunned to find out how restrictive 3RR is and it's the most insane piece of frustrating fuckery I have met in this often exasperating project. Many of the rules contradict one another absurdly and sometimes enormous debates and time- and energy-sapping wrangles of staggering duration arise between editors that utterly frustrate and destroy the pleasure of contributing to this encyclopaedia.

Sperrazza, you stated above at 00:57, 24 July 2012 that I "decided to stop reverting (note that you did not say so on your or the article's talk page)." It is not Wikipedia practice that editors announce their editing intentions on article talk pages, or on their own. Editors edit. I stopped reverting in that date format argument and that was enough. That was, de facto, shown publicly in the article contribution history. Your expectation of "announcements" is bizarre and misplaced.

Finally, Levy, I am owed a retraction and an apology from you for your accusation that I planned to return to resume edit warring following a 24-hour break. I explained to you already how angry that made me. You cannot make future charges for crimes uncommitted. It is a clear distortion of natural justice and a breach of Wikipedia's rule to assume good faith.

On top of that, you have most recently accused me: "You've made no meaningful attempt to resolve the underlying content dispute." That is a straight lie, Levy. I made a quite a number of decent contributions to four discussions on the matters concerned: Talk:2012 Aurora shooting#External Image and at Talk:2012 Aurora shooting#Date of Obama picture and at Talk:James Eagan Holmes#Mugshot, and at File:James Holmes booking photo.jpg. — O'Dea (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not realized previously that 3RR could arise from edits to two separate parts of an article.

I was unaware of your misunderstanding. I assumed that you'd read the rule, given the fact that you cited it in your edit summary (due to a mistaken belief that multiple users were one and the same) when performing your fourth revert.

I assumed in good faith that the 3RR rule made sense, and that the edits about the date format would not be summed with the edits concerning the photograph.

You've misunderstood the three-revert rule's purpose. It isn't about any material in particular. It's about edit warring in general.

It isn't an entitlement to three reverts per article per day. Depending on the circumstances, edit warring not resulting in a 3RR violation might still lead to a block or other sanctions. The three-revert rule is a bright line, beyond which mitigating factors carry less weight.

I have scanned the 3RR help page before, but like most Wikipedia help pages, it constitutes a lengthy article in itself, and I whipped through it looking for a rough idea of what it was about.

The entire three-revert rule section, including the "3RR exemptions" subsection, comprises fewer than 600 words. The basic rule, including the portion that I quoted above ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.") appears in a blue box.

Finally, Levy, I am owed a retraction and an apology from you for your accusation that I planned to return to resume edit warring following a 24-hour break.

I clarified above that it wasn't an accusation; it was my "impression", based upon your statements here and elsewhere (in which you dismissed others' underlying concerns and indicated that you stopped reverting purely because of the rule). I also apologized for offending you and expressed my hope that we can collaborate amicably.

On top of that, you have most recently accused me: "You've made no meaningful attempt to resolve the underlying content dispute." That is a straight lie, Levy. I made a quite a number of decent contributions to four discussions on the matters concerned

I was referring specifically to the date format dispute, in which you refused to address others' citations of guideline text contradicting your position, instead focusing on their motives (as you perceived them) and demanding that they respect your personal preferences. —David Levy 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Levy: I did not "refuse to address others' citations of guideline text". I responded explicitly with my reply. After finding out that I had breached the 3RR rule, I withdrew from editing that part of the article and became so preoccupied by the time-consuming business here on this page that I didn't bother going back to that discussion: I had wearied of the fucking thing and I have let it go by default. There was no refusal and I did engage with it until I was accused of edit warring. I see you are still active in the accusation business. You have made a string of wrong accusations against me here without withdrawing them and apologizing for them here. I am heartily sick of you and how you misrepresent me. You have singlehandedly driven me to take a Wikibreak. Congratulations. — O'Dea (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not "refuse to address others' citations of guideline text". I responded explicitly with my reply.

You didn't address the citations of WP:STRONGNAT (which indicates that articles about U.S. topics should contain the MDY date format) and WP:DATERET (which indicates that consistent date formatting should be used throughout an article). Instead, you attacked Ryan's approach as "manipulative and self-serving", argued that "WPDATE allows a variety of style usages" (ignoring the aforementioned rules about when particular styles should be used), and requested that others "not attempt to impose [their] style choice on [you]".

After finding out that I had breached the 3RR rule, I withdrew from editing that part of the article

Indeed. As you've stated repeatedly, you stopped reverting because of the three-revert rule.

and became so preoccupied by the time-consuming business here on this page that I didn't bother going back to that discussion

I'm not referring to the aftermath. I'm referring to your responses (and lack thereof) when the edit war was ongoing. I even cited WP:STRONGNAT and WP:DATERET when performing my one revert of your edit. You evidently ignored the entire summary, including the part about the misplaced full stop (which you again restored). —David Levy 21:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Can we close this discussion? I don't feel that any action is necessary at this point. On a side note, and O'Dea can respond on my talk page, how are your edits marked minor by default? I believe that was turned off a year or so ago. In any case, I would urge you to remove whatever causes that. A majority of edits should not be marked as minor and it is better to leave an edit unmarked than it is to mark a non-minor edit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Historylover4 reported by Flayer (talk) (Result: both users blocked/31 hours )

Page: EL/M-2075 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Historylover4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 13:24, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "link")
2. 04:39, 23 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503588344 by Flayer (talk) A valid source from a known journalist")
3. 09:44, 23 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503727796 by Flayer (talk) Completely valid source discussing the topic")
4. 10:46, 24 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503755861 by Flayer (talk) Eric Margolis is not sps again check Toronto Star, CNN, and Huffington Post")
5. 12:00, 24 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503932638 by Flayer (talk) Known source and should be included")
6. 12:15, 24 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503936291 by Flayer (talk) Margolis is a valid source")
7. 12:19, 24 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503936451 by Flayer (talk) Valid source from someone with a clear professional resume")

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours Rjd0060 (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Historylover4 reported by Flayer (talk) (Result: both users blocked/31 hours )

Page: Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Historylover4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 13:26, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ link")
2. 13:27, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Israel */")
3. 04:40, 23 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503588427 by Flayer (talk) Source is valid, Margolis is known and valid")
4. 09:45, 23 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503727892 by Flayer (talk) Completely valid source no reason it should not be included")
5. 09:47, 23 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Israel */")
6. 10:43, 24 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503755556 by Flayer (talk) Margolis is not a "self published source" see Toronto Star, CNN, and Huffington Post to start")
7. 11:59, 24 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503932751 by Flayer (talk) He is a known source and should be included")
8. 12:16, 24 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503936404 by Flayer (talk) Eric Margolis is a completely valid source")
9. 12:20, 24 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503936619 by Flayer (talk) Valid source from a professional with a solid resume")

—Flayer (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours Rjd0060 (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:86.131.167.23 also editing as User:81.129.112.196 reported by User:Ebikeguy (Result: Protected)

Page: Wheel hub motor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.131.167.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also editing as 81.129.112.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff of IP's last revert

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of warning to 81.129.112.196

Diff of warning to 86.131.167.23

Diff of warning from admin (Tide rolls)

Extensive attempts to reason with IP editor have been made by multiple editors at his talk page.

Comments:

Please see these edits to Dennis Bratland's talk page for confirmation from IP editor that he/she is editing from both of these IP addresses.

I understand that more than 24 hours passed between revert 3 and 4, but this IP editor clearly states that he/she will continue to add this improperly-cited, non-encyclopedic language, despite being warned by multiple editors and a sysop to stop. IP editor also continues personal attacks despite multiple warnings. See wikilink to Dennis Bratland's talk page, posted in previous paragraph. It is time to block both these IP addresses please. Thanks for your help. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Both IPs have been warned properly but have continued to edit war. Electric Catfish 15:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

More personal attacks by IP editor. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note Page protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

216.81.94.75 reported by User:The Algonquin7 (Result: protected)

Page: Chick-fil-A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
216.81.94.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: before edit war, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [diff]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]
• 5th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[[User_talk:216.81.81.82#Please_Stop_Edit_warring|link]]]

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

Comments:

I only edited a day after to keep the conversation and dicussion moving as wikipedia suggests while the user has RV at least 5 times in a single day Algonquin7 (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Actually if you look those were not edits but Reverts, three revert rule exception, and told to take it to TALK. Others told you the same as well. Will a Admin please look at the Chickfila TALK page to see Algonquin7 is the one trying to interject his POV and not working in Good Faith. Thanks 216.81.94.75 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Each time a differant editor put in the same material and you reverted it everytime for 5 times in a row in a single day those other editors were probaby just trying to keep the conversation moving if you disagreed with it you should have had differant editors take it out you do not own the article or control the debate also I'm not trying to interject any POV stop trying to deflect of the charges you were edit warring were both obiviously going to think the other is interjecting are POV that's the nature of our disagreement Algonquin7 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algonquin7 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 24 hours – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Warned)

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

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

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72]
• 4th revert: [73]
• 5th revert: [74]
• 6th revert: [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see article talkpage)

Despite evidence supplied on the talkpage, Ring Cinema keeps reverting the information in the article from scissors to letter opener. This user has a history of edit waring and has been blocked in the past (see the block log). This user edits a couple of times a day, then disappears for another day, before coming back and reverting anything on his articles. Lugnuts (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Warned by Penwhale (talk · contribs).. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lugnuts is engaged in OR and I have supplied the evidence to document that fact. If Lugnuts and GothicFilm don't want to follow the available sources, they should be blocked from editing the page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your claim is infact OR which you can't backup, unlike the edit waring that I can. So please, no personal attacks. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/White-Ribbon,-The.html is the link to the script. On p. 65, we find this (emphasis added):

                                                           65

Rudolph looks at her. He doesn't think she's telling the truth.

58. RECTORY. THE PASTOR'S STUDY. INT/DAY Marie comes in. She's wearing a nightshirt, her hair is damp and sticks to her head. She looks sick and feverish. She closes the door quietly, then goes to her father's desk and opens a few drawers. She ends up finding the letter-opener. It has a hilt and looks like a small sword. She takes the letter-opener, goes to the birdcage, puts the letter-opener down beside it and grabs the tiny canary. As the bird chirps, she glances round at the door, as if to make sure that nobody is coming.

       NARRATOR: A few days after Marie's fainting-fit
       that frightened us all, and that was followed by
       her feverish and debilitated state...

She takes the bird into her left hand so that its little head is turned upwards, and picks up the letter-opener with her right hand...

So, as we can see, it is not scissors, it is a letter opener, as I said. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Reminder: What's on the script isn't necessary what's shot. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And a further reminder that this website is complete OR - full of user submitted content, and in this case, translated from German into English. Lugnuts (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no other outside source on the subject, so normally that's the one to follow. Of course, period props may not reflect modern uses. In any event, it's incorrect to accuse me of warring when I'm engaged in the same content dispute as the other editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If we don't have reliable source, then due to our reliable source policy, things become extremely iffy. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User:67.171.195.24 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Pressure washer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.171.195.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: [77] as of 16:56, July 23, 2012

• 2nd revert: [78] as of 16:23, July 23, 2012

• 3rd revert: [79] as of 15:58, July 23, 2012

• 4th revert: [80] as of 10:49, July 23, 2012

These are identical edits to the over linking of common terms as performed by this contributor on July 15, 16, 17, and 18.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81] as of 19:24, July 23, 2012

There have been also several other editors who have reverted the additions of these common terms. They have explained their removal in the comments sections of their edits. Thank you. CZmarlin (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I gave the IP a level4 warning (for MOS problems). That was before I saw the EW report and associated edit-history, so please don't treat my warning as prejudice against blocking. DMacks (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: It seems the 31-hour block was not long enough because this contributor is performing the identical edits again! Please see:

• Revert: [82] as of 00:19, July 26, 2012

• Reblocked for one week.—Kww(talk) 05:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe reported by User:The Bushranger (Result: 31 hours )

Page: Sikorsky S-76 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TeeTylerToe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

July 23

Previous version reverted to: [83]

• 1st revert: [84]
• 2nd revert:[85]
• 3rd revert:[86]
• 4th revert:[87]

July 24

Previous version reverted to: [88]

• 1st revert: [89]
• 2nd revert: [90]
• 3rd revert: [91]
• 4th revert: [92]
• 5th revert: [93]
• 6th revert: [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95], [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here; Discussion has also been undertaken here and here.

Comments: This tendentious editor has been beating the dead horse with regards to this article for running on two weeks now. They started at the Avition WikiProject page arguing that the Sikorsky S-70 (aka UH-60 Blackhawk) and Sikorsky S-76 are closely related helicopters; when that was refuted they turned to demanding that text emphasising the similarity of the two helicopters' mechanical drivetrains be included (while insisting that this is not an attempt to indicate that the aircraft are related through alternative means following their intial attempt to claim that failed). When their edits were reverted, they went to DRN, as linked above, and found no agreement for their position. Following that, they began edit-warring on the page yesterday, and have continued, even more extensively, today, with six reverts just in the last 17 hours. Given this editor's refusal to listen to WP:CONSENSUS, refusal to drop the stick, and desire to dramatically edit-war, I belive a (perhaps lengthy) block is urgently needed. (I'd do it myself but am concerned regarding WP:INVOLVED). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the matter are these two sentences. "In order to achieve the design goals, the S-76 employed technologies developed for the UH-60 BLACK HAWK helicopter. Among the features are: titanium and composite main rotor blades, a bearingless composite tail rotor, bifilar vibration absorbers, and a simplified main rotor transmission." The operative parts of the quote being: "[Among the features] developed for the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter [are] a simplified main rotor transmission".

By my reading there aren't a lot of ways interpreting that. After much acrimonious discussion on the s-76 talk page YSSYguy added the sentence: "Sikorsky's design work on the UH-60 Black Hawk was utilised when developing the S-76, which employed the same design- and construction techniques; and aerodynamic features; for its main and tail rotor systems as the UH-60.". I added the two words "and transmission" after "tail rotor systems".

A few reverts later, Kyteto fnlayson separated and changed the mention of the S-70/S-76's transmission. In the talk page there had been arguments that, like a car with a wet plate clutch, the transmission for a 10,000lbs helicopter might be a lower torque version of the transmission for helicopter that weighs twice as much, 20,000lbs. It's fine to say something like "probably a lower torque version of the S-70 transmission". Instead, Kyteto's edit claims that the transmission of the S-76 is a "simpler" version of the transmission of the S-70. I believe this statement is false, and the references bear me out. Additionally, I know of no reference that supports this statement.

My reasonable actions, wherein I have, in good faith, participated in talk page debate over the subject in question has been met with accusations, and threats. Tactics of force, and fear. I don't know why editors take such extreme measures, and I don't see how such a simple subject can be so misconstrued.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Being right", even if you were, which the WP:CONSENSUS is you are not, never excuses edit warring. WP:3RR is a bright-line rule. Adding personal attacks to the mix doesn't help either... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What would happen if someone declared a war, but nobody else came? Nothing. I am edit warring just as much as anyone else on that article. The difference between how I am conducting that war and how you are conducting that war is that I am debating the change in the talk page and am open to whatever the prevailing argument is. If you, for instance, were to link to the home page of the science magazine which featured a pear reviewed article about how the transmission of the S-76 is a "simpler" version of the transmission of the S-70, I would have no complaints. But the counter-arguments being made to my proposed edit are either comical, factually incorrect, unsupported by references, or illogical. The way you are conducting the war is through threats, trying to bully your way to the conclusion you want because apparently the idea that two mechanically similar helicopters could possibly related apparently brings out the ghengis khan in you. Also, I did not randomly accuse Guy Macon of being condescending. I thanked him for being condescending because he suggested that if I wanted to have an opinion, I should get a reddit account, start my own subreddit and, as he envisioned, crawl into my own fantasy realm of self-delusion. I believe my response was the height of politeness.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

":A few reverts later, Kyteto separated and changed the mention of the S-70/S-76's transmission." That is not what the edit log shows: I performed a straight, clean reverting of TTT's revert back to the WP:Consensus interpretation of the source that is agreed by most editors. You are attributing aggressive changes to the article to me that have NOT taken place, consider that the Contributor's record shows me making a total of one edit to the article in its entire history, and that was to exactly restore it to an earlier version; I refute my alledged responsibility for the development of the phrasing that has you worked up on, as it is what was originally there prior to your edit-warring, and is not of my design - the edit log clearly bares this out. A second perspective on the edit log shows that NO change was made to the article by my reversion edit, not even a single character placement, from the earlier version. Your allegation that I created any seperation or change in the wording is unsupported by the record of what actually happened according to the log. Kyteto (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. It was fnlayson. Whoever the author, it was factually incorrect and unreferenced.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, the text was cited by the reference with the paragraph right below the S-76A Cutaway Drawing. Later transmission text in that source may contradict that wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• (Edit Conflict) For the record, my Reddit suggestion was an attempt to be helpful, not condescending. There are times when someone realy really wants a particular "message" to be on Wikipedia but finds that everyone else here says no. In such cases Reddit really is a good alternative. You have complete control of who and what goes into your subreddit, and if your message is compelling, you can gather together a nice community that believes that the Sikorsky S-70 and Sikorsky S-76 are closely related helicopters. Or you can keep pushing here and get blocked for longer and longer periods, ending with an indefinite ban. I really do believe that Reddit is a better choice for someone who believes strongly in something but faces an overwhelming consensus against it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you create your own subreddit of people that don't understand what the word condescending means so you and your friends can live in your own fantasy world.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Sitush reported by User:103.3.47.34 (Result: reporter blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [97]

• 1st revert: [98]
• 2nd revert: [99]
• 3rd revert: [100]
• 4th revert: [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Comments:
Comment by uninvolved Fowler&fowler: I'm afraid it is the IP, 103.3.47.34 (talk · contribs), who started the edit warring, who has violated 3RR, who, judging from his contributions, has done nothing on Wikipedia other than edit-warring on this page, and who likely is a sock of someone with a gripe against Sitush. Sitush seems to be improving the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sitush: No violation 3 reverts in 24 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• IP: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 4 reverts in 24 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

several editors at LGBT parenting reported by User:Zad68 (Result: Protected for 10 days)

Page: LGBT parenting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: several editors
Editors notified of WP:EWN discussion: 91.146.243.37, Dominus Vobisdu, 124.43.87.100, Valm99, Rivertorch

• Version before recent round of edit warring started: link
• Roscelese's version, also preferred by Dominus Vobisdu, Rivertorch, 124.43.87.100: link

• Rosacelese not involved in this series of reverts

• 91.146.243.37's version, also preferred by Valm99 (diff from previous): diff

• In reverting to it, Valm99's edit summary was "stable version, please discuss first on talk page", however that version didn't last more than 3 hours in the article before being reverted

Note: I'm not involved in this series of reverts and am not expressing an opinion about which one is "better."

1. Rosacelese 18:49, 18 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Children’s outcomes */ Much better to organize qualitatively. Marriage Law Project not a reliable source, its explicit purpose being to oppose same-sex marriage")
2. 91.146.243.37 15:27, 19 July 2012 (edit summary: "doubled informations")
3. Dominus Vobisdu 16:43, 19 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503132351 by 91.146.243.37 (talk)")
4. 91.146.243.37 18:55, 19 July 2012 (edit summary: "Chronologically, removed doubled informations about studies, NPOV, if Marriage Law Project is not a reliable source, studies funded by gay organizations and openly gay scholars too")
5. Dominus Vobisdu 18:59, 19 July 2012 (edit summary: "POV changes. Discuss on talk page and get consensus.")
6. 91.146.243.37 19:00, 19 July 2012 (edit summary: "Past views on the family")
7. 91.146.243.37 19:06, 19 July 2012 (edit summary: "POV changes. Discuss on talk page and get consensus")
8. Rivertorch 22:14, 19 July 2012 (edit summary: "rv per WP:NPOV. discuss first.")
9. Valm99 17:08, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "stable version, please discuss first on talk page")
10. Dominus Vobisdu 19:01, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "Rv/ POV changes. Discuss and get consensus on talk page.")
11. 91.146.243.37 14:12, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "return to NPOV version, discuss and get consensus on talk page")
12. 124.43.87.100 15:35, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504116026 by 91.146.243.37 (talk)")
13. 91.146.243.37 17:04, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "return to NPOV version, discuss and get consensus on talk page")
14. Dominus Vobisdu 17:06, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504137687 by 91.146.243.37 (talk)")
15. 91.146.243.37 17:08, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504137918 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 91.146.243.37 warned here: User_talk:91.146.243.37
• The Talk pages of Rivertorch and Dominus_Vobisdu show they are experienced editors who know about the 3RR
• Valm99 was warned about 3RR for edit-warring 8 months ago on this same article. No recent warning but only 1 revert here.
• 124.43.87.100 not warned but only 1 revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As the edit summaries show, editors are asking each other to discuss on Talk, but nobody is doing it and all that's happening is reverting. Zad68 17:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
I think the outcome I'm looking for here isn't a block but rather a few days of FPP to require the editors to actually discuss the changes on Talk. Zad68 17:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 10 days – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User:ENLogic reported by User:Purplewowies (Result: 24 Hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: 18:33, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "This wikipedia page contains inaccurate information with inaccurate sources in an attempt to redefine the word.")
• 2nd revert: 18:44, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "This wikipedia page contains inaccurate information with inaccurate sources in an attempt to redefine the word.")
• 3rd revert: 18:56, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "This wikipedia page contains inaccurate information with inaccurate sources in an attempt to redefine the word.")
• 4th revert: 19:28, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504155568 by Purplewowies (talk) It is not your place to redefine English words.")
• 5th revert: 20:02, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "This wikipedia page contains inaccurate information with inaccurate sources in an attempt to redefine the word.")
• 6th revert: 20:21, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "This wikipedia page contains inaccurate information with inaccurate sources in an attempt to redefine the word.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104] Given four minutes before user violated 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but I and other users have asked the user to bring up their concerns on the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting, and the user did not do it and continued to revert.

Comments:

User:Jim1138 asking user to discuss on talk page: [105]
Me asking user to discuss on talk page: [106]
User:Benzband asking user to discuss: [107]

- Purplewowies (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to add: The IP 75.25.175.118 may be the same user. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And this IP 75.85.176.10 as well, who made the exact same edit with the exact same edit summary. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User:ENLogic blocked for this; IP 75.85.176.10 is the same user. Please block the IP. hajatvrc @ 20:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Y Blocked by Fuhghettaboutit. benzband (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours (Blocked by Fuhghettaboutit). Electric Catfish 21:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User:IIIraute reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: blocked 31 hours)

Page: Michael Küchmeister von Sternberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IIIraute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [108]

• 1st revert: [109] (note misleading edit summary - it's not a "ref" but a link to German Wikipedia)
• 2nd revert: [110]
• 3rd revert: [111]
• 4th revert: [112]

Additional continued reverting and edit warring on a related AFTER this report was made, and AFTER IIIraute was warned by User:Magog the Ogre [113].

An aggravating factor here is that these reverts represent stalking by IIIraute. He has never edited this article before, but simply came to it after we got into a dispute at Malbork Castle. Very obviously, after that dispute, he checked my contribution history and showed up to the Michael von Sternberg article to engage in some "retaliatory" reverts.

More generally IIIraute's "contributions" to Wikipedia essentially consist of reverting people, often mindlessly, without bothering to read the actual content of their edits. One example is here [114]. If you click on his/her contribution history [115] it's pretty plain that most of his edits have the edit summary "Undid revision xxxx by yyyy". Now, a few of those are legitimate reverts of actual vandalisms but most of them are just simply reverting folks per... I dunno, joy of reverting others or itching to get into disputes.

Previous 3RR reports on the user [116]. That's worth reading just to get a sense how frustrating it can be to try and reason with this user (note the attempts to re-argue the edit warring dispute rather than back off from reverting, as well as the multiple warnings from several users/administrators).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User fully aware of 3RR as he has been subject of these reports before.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

Notice of this report (removed by IIIraute, note the edit summary): [118]

Comments:

I better leave this recurring smear campaign without further comment [119] & especially → [120] ←. Marek, better do count your own reverts and don't take yourself so important.--IIIraute (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the more general problem - IIIraute tends to reply to anything, including attempts at discussion, with complete irrelevancies.VolunteerMarek 06:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

further statement: the fourth revert is none → see Danzig-Vote → [121]: Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.

Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.

Marek is very aware of this rule, received multiple warnings and has been reverted repeatedly for vandalism regarding this vote.--IIIraute (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the (eight year old, outdated) Gdansk-Danzig vote. IIIraute always tries to invoke this vote as an excuse for breaking 3RR and edit warring even in cases where it doesn't apply. He seems to believe that he's found a loophole in 3RR which allows him to revert others with impunity, and that as a result the 3RR policy doesn't apply to him. He hasn't, he can't, and it does.VolunteerMarek 06:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

it is a very clear majority vote established by the WP community - and it does apply, period → Talk:Gdansk/Vote. You are obviously unhappy with the majority result of more than 100 editors involved - so why don't you organize a new vote. --IIIraute (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User VolunteerMarek did revert the same context four times, right after my first edit, following me to a page he had never worked on before. He has clearly violated the 3RR rule on Malbork Castle → [122], [123], [124], [125].--IIIraute (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The diffs provided above by IIIraute clearly show Volunteer Marek violating 3RR. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 18:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Miacek , will you please. stop. fucking. following. me. around. Your battleground attitude here is just amazing. This is nothing but bad faithed, petty, immature "retaliation" comment. And no, they don't show anything of the kind.VolunteerMarek 18:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

IIIraute, please read WP:REVERT. Making an edit to an article does not necessarily constitute reverting. For starters the first edit there is not a revert of anybody, certainly not of IIIraute. I did revert him two or three times, mostly because I simply could not comprehend the rationale he gave in his edit summary ("rmv vandalism" for edits which were clearly not vandalism, and "restore original version" as if that made any kind of sense on an evolving project like Wikipedia). And it's very frustrating to spend some time on an article just to have somebody come along and undo it all in seconds with a nonsensical edit summary. I've left off reverting him further at this point though trying to discuss the issues with him on the talk page is not exactly proving productive. On the other hand, IIIraute has continued reverting on the article [126], which I believe would make it 5 reverts in 24 hrs, with the last one made after this report was filed.VolunteerMarek 18:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, this is NOT a revert of IIIraute, it's just a non-revert edit that happened to be made right after IIIraute made an unrelated edit.

Actually looking at it again, that edit by IIIraute [127] was also a revert and since it was made towards the end of the day on the 24th, that makes it 6 reverts in 24 hours. Correction - it would make it another 3RR violation on another article during the same period, rather than 6 reverts on a single article.VolunteerMarek 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You did follow me to an article you had never worked on before, and then you undid the edit I had just done four times → [128], [129], [130], [131]. Period. --IIIraute (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. You are quite simply, lying. I did undo an edit you did 2 or 3 times then dropped it and tried talking to you on the talk page - but that isn't working either.VolunteerMarek 18:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, as evident from the diffs, changed 4 times the title into Malbork Castle. This qualifies as breaking the 3 revert rule. Clear and simple.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 18:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Miacek, you've been around long enough, including on 3RR, to know a difference between a regular edit (which is what the first diff is) and a revert. So why are you sitting there shamelessly misrepresenting the situation? In fact, what are you even doing here, on a report which does not concern you in any way what so ever? I recently pointed out that you were tag-team edit warring on Dhimmitude (which you were), so you show up here now to get some "pay back". That is such a blatant and obnoxious violation of WP:AGF and more importantly WP:BATTLEGROUND that you really do deserve a serious blockin'.VolunteerMarek 18:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's you who has been hounding me since ages [132]. You came there to 'point out' supposed tag-teaming just to antagonize me.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe I came to that article because five days earlier I got a note on my talk page [133] and then kept an eye on altetendekrabbe. VolunteerMarek 19:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess now you are revealing your real face, Marek → [134].--IIIraute (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The guy has revealed such 'manners' [135], [136], [137] since the time I first met him. He was recently blocked for 48 hours for gross incivility.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 18:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Marek does WP:HOUND me, he also accused me of being a SP → [138] ←. That's how he tries to get rid of other editors to push his POV campaign.--IIIraute (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, I do not think removing a reference which is to the German Wikipedia is really such a crime[139] Reverting[140] it back in however is in violation of WP:RS Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The family von Küchmeister has no English WP article, so I wanted to restore and keep the link to the German WP that Marek had removed.

The 4th revert had nothing to do with it [141]. It just happened to be in the same article and does not count as a revert → see Danzig-Vote → [142]: Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR).

Marek however, as evident from the diffs, changed 4 times the title into Malbork Castle → [143], [144], [145], [146]. This qualifies as breaking the 3 revert rule. Clear and simple. --IIIraute (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

One more time (I've suggested before that IIIraute look at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but apparently he... didn't hear that) - the first diff there is not a revert, but rather a simple normal edit to an article. *Every* edit to a Wikipedia article involves a change. That's the whole point of the freakin' project, isn't it? Why do I have to keep stating the obvious? VolunteerMarek 22:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is IIIraute's edit right before mine. As is blindingly obvious the two edits have nothing to do with each other. IIIraute is trying to pretend that just because I made an edit after he did, it was a "revert". It wasn't. Completely unrelated edits. It's just plain dishonest to pretend otherwise.VolunteerMarek 22:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No Marek, why don't we stay with the truth. I did two edits, right next after each other → this was my main edit → [147]; at the second edit, the one you are showing, I only added a semicolon, and as evident from the diffs, you changed the title 4 times back into Malbork Castle → [148], [149], [150], [151].--IIIraute (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it seems to me you both violated 3RR, or got pretty close to it, and your continued bickering is not going to make it any easier on you once an admin reviews this. I strongly suggest you both back down, and promise to go 1RR on that article for the next few weeks, or you may find yourself with an entry in a block log. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

More and more

Oh for fuck's sake the same user is now edit warring over other articles:

1st revert: [152] 2nd revert: [153] 3rd revert: [154] 4th revert: [155]

to reiterate, this is an SPA which has not contributed *anything* to the encyclopedia. All it does is start edit wars on articles and a topic area which have long been stable. All he does is revert revert revert, edit war and then edit war some more. And when you try to talk to the guy all you get is a whole bunch of nonsense and personal attacks. This latest spate of edit warring makes it 3 3RR violations, on three different articles in the past three days. Well, if you want to be generous, in the past two days, depending on what time zone you're in. But if ever the whole blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive quip held any meaning this is it. You got a revert-only account. Check. It's pushing a particular POV. Check. It does this across multiple articles, skipping from one to another. Check. While skipping it makes sure to go exactly up against the 3RR bright line (which means it knows damn well what it's doing) but not violate it (though he got ahead of himself on on one of the articles). Check.

I've seen this happen numerous times. It's eerie. It's a throw away account, which has contributed nothing to Wikipedia, but which is designed to cause trouble and see how many people it can take down with it. Because there's no way that this person doesn't expect to be banned. Their edits are just too disruptive for that.

It is a testament to the dysfunctionality of Wikipedia that we are putting up with bullshit. Again and again and again.

At the very least, put IIIraute on a 1RR restriction. The mindless reverts of even innocuous edits warrant as much. He reverts people without even bothering to read their edits - he reverts common sense gnomish edits and on occasion edits which are "friendly" to his POV. Then he gets confused and reverts himself or just reverts the latest edit on a particular article and says "restore original version". It's an impossible account to deal with.

And yeah, per WP:DUCK, it's one of the banned user of the topic area, as anyone with a even modicum of familiarity with it can readily recognize, even if the magic CHECKUSER dust said "inconclusive".

VolunteerMarek 06:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, I am clearly not →→ [156] ←←. The reverts are exempt from the 3RR rule.

That's what the rules were established for. If you have a problem with them - as you obviously have - bring up a new vote. There is always one side that will be disappointed by the outcome, that's ok, otherwise one wouldn't need a vote - however you should accept the vote of the majority. So please comply with the rules that were established by the WP community.

Danzig-Vote → [157] : "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany." The decision was for Danzig during the period of 1308 to 1945. The nationality issue of Copernicus is well documented in the article [158].

Period between 1308 to 1945 - Danzig-Vote: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above."[159] and "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)."[160]

→Enforcement: "Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism".--IIIraute (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, don't make this look like a big deal - it's always the same two editors: you and Skoranka trying to push your polish POV. She has been notified and warned several times but continues her deliberate vandalism. So have you. The other user (Minimac) did let me know that he/she did not know about the rule → [161].

Marek does WP:HOUND me, and again he accuses me of being a SP, like he already did before → [162] ←. That's how he tries to get rid of other editors to push his POV campaign and to divert from his violation of the 3RR rule, changing the title 4 times back into Malbork Castle → [163], [164], [165], [166]. Why don't you open a new SPI if it makes you happy.

So let me put emphasis on this, Marek: I did not once break the 3RR rule - so don't try to talk an Admin into that I did, I will prove that I did not - no Admin will disrespect a majority vote that has has been established by more than 100 editors of the WP community. I really have enough of this - and so should you! --IIIraute (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• I took this to ANI because I feel there's a bigger underlying issue. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Some thoughts on the NC reverts: I'd highly recommend that the editors involved there (IIIraute and Skoranka) try talking on talk. Otherwise, a few days of protection may be necessary. Enforcing Gdanzig vote is exempt from 3RR, but the same rule also says "Please use descriptive edit summaries.". VM, regarding your comment about throw-away accounts; let me remind you of my analysis here, the gist of which is that those accounts can win by achieving double blocks - provoking estabilished editors into meeting them at the low denominator (reverts), and ruining their block log. Then they create a new account to continue the war, why the previously established editor has his or her reputation ruined. I strongly suggest you stop being concerned with IIIraute so much; let the community handle this. I think your idea of 1RR Illraute is sound, but at the same time I strongly suggest that you yourself voluntarily declare that you'll not revert him/her more than once. Again, I plead with you: let the community handle this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for violation at Nicolaus Copernicus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Also, just a clarification, yes, that page stipulated that 3RR could be violated. However, editors on that page do not have the authority to override WP:3RR (the talk page was an agreement among editors, whereas 3RR is a policy), and even if they did, the edit warring was disruptive and unaccepable regardless. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Krizpo reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: already blocked from duplicate request at ANI )

Page: Religion in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krizpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [167]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: his talk page, as well as most of Talk:Religion in Africa#Religions in Africa.

Comments:

Krizpo has had various problems with WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE for quite some time; trying to portray various Asian religions as being a major part of life in Europe and Africa. He's been at a dozen last warnings for some time now, has had multiple editors repeatedly explain reliable sourcing, citing only what a source says, and other good behaviors; to no avail (he even continues to cite sites he was specifically told not to, such as Wikipedia). He has been asked by different editors to not re-add the material without justifying it, and his only response was "Dude, you are messing up the page. It actually looked good after my edit." He then went on and restored the material without discussing it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that Krizpo has again reverted to his preferred version in this edit, and has further added even more WP:OR material and material supported by unreliable sources. I myself am at 3 reverts and so cannot revert any farther, but this needs to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked dangerouspanda 17:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Farhadpersia reported by User:Williamsburgland (Result: page protected)

Page: The Dark Knight Rises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farhadpersia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dark_Knight_Rises&oldid=504295434

• 1st revert: [174]
• 2nd revert: [175]
• 3rd revert: [176]
• 4th revert: [177]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFarhadpersia&diff=504296338&oldid=504296015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Bane.27s_face

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have attempted to diffuse situations with this use in the past. Another editor tried to discuss with him and he stated he would be ignoring them and reverted again.

Comments:

This is the users 2nd bout of edit warring in 24 hours, was warned last time. His initial bold was reverted first by another editor, then by me twice, both times asking him to follow BRD and discuss. See above for a break down of that discussion.--Williamsburgland (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked Farhadpersia, then noticed that Williamsburgland was also at least at 5R. 24 hours both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • On second thought, changed to full page protection. That was one chaotic mess of a page history there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: No action)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: all different edits

• 1st revert: 17:00, 22 July
• 2nd revert: 09:20, 23 July
• 3rd revert: 09:22 23 July
• 4th revert: 09:36, 23 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been warned multiple times about edit warring/3RR before

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: At the article talkpage currently there are 3 sections and 1 closed RFC where the issues related to above reversions are being discussed.

Comments:
User was under 1RR till yesterday (for the last 6 months) and editwarred with multiple editors on this article, just after the 1RR restriction was lifted. --SMS ^Talk 21:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Numbers two and three are two subsequent edits, so it's not technically a 3RR violation. That doesn't change the fact that it's edit-warring though, and from somebody who came off a 1RR limitation just a few days ago, and on an article that was very recently protected because of the same kinds of reverts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Two of those diffs are consecutive edits and are only 1R. I did one revert yesterday, two today. This was not edit warring as it involved entirely different content. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter if the reverts are of different material. (WP:3RR - "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material."). Given that you've just come off a 1RR restriction, this was not a good idea at all. I'd welcome other admin input here. Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's actually pretty rich for D.S. to try the "it was different content each time" excuse, given the fact that just a few sections further up this page, he himself reported yet another user for edit warring on the exact same page, and happily listed reverts of multiple different edits there too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, I meant I was not ambiguously edit warring, the first revert is part and parcel of the normal editing process, I clarified the information in the infobox over the next few edits. Flash given your issues with me I would appreciate you staying out of this. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite. I'd be tempted to go back to wherever the 1RR limit was imposed and ask whether it should be re-imposed, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, I explained every revert on the talk page. I expanded the article and added more academic sources to try and settle some of the issues, frankly I did all an editor is meant to do. I shall impose a 1r restriction for a month on myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's probably a very good idea. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A self-imposed 1RR would be a good idea. It looks like the incident is over for now and, as 3RR was not actually breached, I think it would be wise to move on from this. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Darkness Shines reverted here again after this against the RFC closure removing the content which was included per RFC with attribution [178]. Further responded with an uncivil reply in response to my attempt and suggestion to resolve. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

do not try and pull a fast one, I waited two days for you to respond on talk. The closing admin of the rfc said it had to be discussed as to how the crap you are edit warring into the article should be presented, it is you editing against consensus here, not I Darkness Shines (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to leave it upto an administrator to finish up this report but now that you want to continue wikilawyering the consensus, I'll like to see this to the end and get this report closed and actioned. I added this content on March 19, 2012, Darkness Shines started an RFC as he opposed this addition on the same date where he specifically asked in the RFC summary whether or not this section was to be included in the article (as of that version which he opposed in context to my addition). This RFC was closed as keep with attribution. DS has now repeatedly editwarred and removed saying that the content is covered in the article while it is clearly not - the names of towns are not present anywhere - (and even if it was, the RFC closure was for this version as I presented the diff on the content he objected to). His reverts are not only editwar but also in clear violation of consensus with further attempts to wikilawyer around and confuse the onlookers/admins about the consensus. Also his clarification with the closer does not contain any agreement with the removal [179], the closer only tells him to discuss further the details he wants and does not tell him to do it by first reverting the content out (which still has the consensus). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"I imagine the exact details can be worked out through further discussion on the talkpage" Is what the closing admin said. There is no consensus for the junk you are edit warring in, and multiple editors have said it has no place in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've not had internet access for two days, so am coming at this a bit late. I don't know what happened two days ago (and I have no interest in spending ages looking into it), but I can see that there is no edit warring at the moment, and a discussion taking place on the talk page. No administrator action is necessary, and I can't see that an open 3RR report hanging over it can be helpful. I am going to close and archive this, and will request that no one adds to this discussion thread; if there is an actual 3RR violation, feel free to open a new thread. Hopefully, though, that will not be necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Montalban reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: No action)

Page: Saints Sergius and Bacchus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Montalban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [180]

• 1st revert: [181]
• 2nd revert: [182]
• 3rd revert: [183]
• 4th revert: [184]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [185]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been much discussion on the talk page, beginning here, cf [186][187][188][189][190]

Comments:

Firstly, Why is it that the arbitrary removal of material over several days not also an infringement of editing wars? I added in material critical of Boswell and this was arbitrarily removed without first asking me for more or other details in the talk page.

I have entered into talk with Cúchullain to work out what it is he objects to. Unfortunately his objections keeps changing.

I noted this on the talk page... I wrote

You (Cúchullain) said The article makes no claims that Boswell's ideas or accurate

The article says "Part of this confusion stems from the book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell. This book, published in 1994, asserted that certain Greek Orthodox medieval rituals were really ecclesiastical blessings of homosexual unions. Boswell especially singled out the Greek Orthodox Rite known as adelphopoiesis or "brother-making," as one such example.... The fiction created by Boswell is useful for sexually active homosexuals, both within the Orthodox Church and without

It clearly says his idea is false.

He didn't deal with this at all. He went on to another objection... this time attacking the source. Note that this article dealt directly with the Boswell's use of a word adelphopoiesis that is in the Wiki article.

At one point it was because the quote I used was not neutral. Then Cúchullain notes he accepts the qualifications of the author of the quote. But now says I'm cherry-picking it. I've tried to be civil and asked him about this and why he thinks that this is so.

For my reading of the wiki article the evidence in the article is currently biased. It notes an historian with a fringe theory. Specifically it notes his interpretation of the word adelphopoiesis. I quoted Mark Jordan's work that criticises the use of this word. Yes, I accept that there are a number of references to other writers, however one doesn't know why they object. And the weakness of this is illustrated by Cúchullain himself who has said he can find a number of references supporting Boswell.

For the reader of the article, not knowing what the arguments are, but seeing only Boswell's theory, they are not properly informed.

Thus the quote is directly bearing on the piece of evidence put forward in the article by Boswell.

I'm told now that this quote is 'cherry-picking'. I cited the page on Google books - anyone can read it for themselves. Jordan spends the rest of that page and into the next criticising Boswell's interpretation.

If he could set out clearly why he objects, and stick with that objection I think it would be great. Montalban (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record I agree with Lionelt's idea and that all the frigne theory of Boswell should be placed in an article on Boswell. Montalban (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Montalban, this is hardly the place to rehash the content dispute. Perhaps we can start afresh: if you undo your last revert and commit to hammering out the issues on the talk page, we can let the 3RR matter drop and resume discussion on how best to improve the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

I think what I said is pertinent as I am accused here of not answering objections - when those objections are in fact the issue; not knowing what the current objection is.

However, if you'd read the "Talk" page you might be aware of the fact I didn't know that it wasn't reverted by you again.

I don't happen to notice all these things.

I noted that I would be happy to leave out my addition and discuss it. And as that was my position then and as it seems that my addition is still there I will remove it pending discussion Montalban (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting, Montalban. That removes the 3RR violation; I think we can close this now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: No action, since Montalban reverted his last change. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay Montalban (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Cloture1 reported by User:Musicfreak7676 (Result: Page protected)

Page: List of The Bold and the Beautiful cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cloture1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [191]
• 2nd revert: [192]
• 3rd revert: [193]
• 4th revert: [194]
• 5th revert: [195]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196]

Comments:
Said user is implying that an actress is not on the series. However, I opened up discussion and asked them to join me in said discussion, however, they refuse to involve themselves and continue to revert. I did three reverts, with my third and only last revert being to revert back to how it was before the discussion was opened. I have not reverted since, not violating the three-revert rule. Said user is not open to discussing anything and only wishing to prove their point. My third revert was only to bring back to original version until a consensus was created and put together; I did not make such intending to violate the rule if I did. I've always been under the assumption that if you go over three you violate. However, they do not wish to go into a discussion. I even tried explaining the 3RR rule and they chose to ignore such. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 01:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - this is a tough one. You both clearly violated 3RR (no, you don't get to revert "back to the way it was" and not have it count as a revert). You were making an attempt to discuss more than the other user, and yet the other user appears to have been confused by the process. Also, false warnings of vandalism are a bad idea. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:99.226.214.165 reported by User:HandsomeFella (Result: blocked )

IP user 99.226.214.165 keeps reverting the women's Olympics football tournament articles and artifacts (templates) back to using inferior sources – women.soccerway.com instead of the more official london2012.com and fifa.com. In addition, the result is worse visually in the template (no "References" heading).

Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game A1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game A2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game B1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game B2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game C1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game C2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since the attendance info differs slightly between women.soccerway.com and fifa.com, he consequently keeps reverting the main page back to the number that is supported by womensoccerway.com:

Page: Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 99.226.214.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've tried to talk him out of it, but to no avail. He doesn't even respond. A block would be welcome.

Previous version reverted to: [197]

• 1st revert: [198] 25 July
• 2nd revert: [199] 25 July
• 3rd revert: [200] 25 July
• 4th revert: [201] 26 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Given the nature of these pages, with templates acting as "components", it's hard to find a single natural place for the discussion. In my view, the discussion that has been taking place on the IP's talkpage, albeit one-way so far, would be sufficient.]

Comments: I have limited myself to providing diffs for the first article, Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game A1. It could be that the user has not violated the 3RR rule for the other pages, but it's still disruptive.

HandsomeFella (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User is notified. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked. I was tempted to block the reporter as well, but the IP was refusing to discuss, the reporter wasn't. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jjmihai reported by User:Mortifervm (Result:No action )

Page: FC Steaua București in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jjmihai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [203]

• 1st revert: [204], 05:16, 30 June 2012
• 2nd revert: [205], 19:28, 26 July 2012
• 3rd revert: [206], 07:35, 27 July 2012
• 4th revert: [207], 11:26, 27 July 2012
• 5th revert: [208], 12:45, 27 July 2012
• 6th revert: [209], 13:37, 27 July 2012
• 7th revert: [210], 13:38, 27 July 2012
• 8th revert: [211], 13:42, 27 July 2012

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212]

Comments: 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 the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. In addition, I think this user make modifications with another IP (for example, see FC Steaua București in Europe: Revision history. Mortifervm (talk)

This is a malformed report. First, the above aren't diffs - they are links to revisions. Second, you did not notify the editor as you are required to do. You did the same thing at ANI ([213]). Third, you did not warn the editor of edit-warring. Finally, as far as I can tell, you are all fighting with each other, and you are talking in Romanian (I assume) on each other's Talk pages, which is not helpful (WP:SPEAKENGLISH). I can't even tell what the dispute is about, but I suspect it's about the use of dashes.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. For procedural reasons and because involved editors have quieted down. Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Xcore7 reported by User:112.203.40.176 (Result: warned)

Page: Mac OS X Leopard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xcore7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [214]

• 1st revert: [215]
• 2nd revert: [216]
• 3rd revert: [217]
• 4th revert: [218]
• 5th revert: [219]
• 6th revert: [220]
• 7th revert: [221]
• 8th revert: [222]
• 9th revert: [223]
• 10th revert: [224]
• 11th revert: [225]

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

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

Comments:

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mac_OS_X_Lion&action=history, and another IP ediitng as 112.203.43.238.

I was just adding a reference to OS X support policy in the Mac website, when I came back there have been multiple reverts by the two, please look into it --112.203.40.176 (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Warned Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Wanderer602 reported by User:YMB29 (Result:Warning )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wanderer602 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [226]

Nothing but reverts the last two days:

• 1st revert: [227] 00:14, 26 July 2012
• 2nd revert: [228] 05:43, 26 July 2012
• 3rd revert: [229] 15:40, 26 July 2012
• 4th revert: [230] 01:29, 27 July 2012
• 5th revert: [231] 06:27, 27 July 2012
• 6th revert: [232] 10:45, 27 July 2012 (removed the sourced result)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [234]

Comments:
The user behaves as if he owns the page. He reverts everything he does not like, even if the edits are directly supported by reliable sources. -YMB29 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not owning the article. User YMB29 edited the section which was still being argued on the talk page without any consensus so far. Actually from the comments from other editors YMB29's views were not generally supported. Claimed 'sourced result' was exactly what was still being discussed on the talk page. Numbers for the losses section have been discussed previously in great detail (see article talk page archive 1), reverting back into values already shown by editors as well as by several authors (Manninen, Glantz) not to be representative was nothing but vandalism. They do not represent the whole of the Soviet losses of the offensive as was previously noted. Removal of 'Finnish estimate' text was because it was not accurate, see reference notes: Manninen (1994), The numbers available in Krivosheyev's books are only up to the capture of Viipuri at the Karelian Isthmus thus missing the heavy fighting between June 21-July 15 at Karelian Isthmus. Manninen had collected those numbers from Leningrad Front daily casualty reports from archives of Soviet Ministry of Defence. The values were actually Soviet but instead user YMB29 attempted to represent them as Finnish. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No effort to resolve the dispute or to reach consensus was made by YMB29 in the talk page, despite of several editors supporting the opposing view user has so far insisted on his version of the result. So far there has been no constructive behavior from the users part only attempts to debunk opposing view and enforce his own. As can be seen from the talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The users who gave a third opinion also agreed that it was a Soviet victory, but they suggested that the aftermath section could be linked to instead of using a general "Soviet victory." I did not put "Soviet victory." I added "Strategic Soviet victory," which is directly supported by sources.

A discussion cannot be said to be going on if you don't answer. You disputed a general victory, not strategic victory, so I don't know why you kept reverting it.

The casualties were estimated by a Finnish historian based on Soviet archives, so they still come from a Finnish source. I attempted to make this clear to avoid confusion by Russian editors, but you reverted even that. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, the users explicitly stated that they preferred to have no result at all. It is stated so in the talk page, you can not avoid that by inserting conditionals to your result. You inserted a biased question and then demand an answer to it, that is not constructive behavior. I reverted the 'strategic victory' since the article is not only about the offensive at strategic level, if it were then it would be ok, however that is not the sole level on which the article and therefore also the result box observers the offensive - so it as a sole result is not representative of the offensive as a whole. Which is exactly why separate aftermath section was recommended by several other editors so that the matter can be properly discussed. So far you have not taken such initiatives only falsely (just like in the past) claimed that i had lied. As for the note, I stated that had you inserted notice that values were based on Soviet archives compiled by a Finn then i would have had no qualms with it, instead your edit appears to discredit the values as being Finnish estimates instead of being based on Soviet archives. Also this is not the place to have this discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, so don't discuss the details here.

Again, others agreed with a general victory, even though they also suggested something else. I did not add a general "Soviet victory." You did not object to strategic victory in the discussion.

The point is that you can't just be making reverts all the time. -YMB29 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Others said they preferred something else than stating anything in the results box. That is what they said. Trying to twist it does not further your case. I have understood that reverts are allowed if there is a case for them. None of the reverts i did were because the edits in question would have been opposed to mine or that i woulkd have particularly strongly felt for them. Only that the previous edits had been done to sections that had earlier been discussed in considerable length (the losses) or ones that were still being under discussion (the results) or to text which did not clarify the issue at hand (the note). With other editors in all of the cases actually not bothering to discuss or even say anything beforehand of the issues in the talk page where they had all been already discussed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't make excuses; you had no reason to just revert entire edits like you did.

Others suggested a compromise for the result instead of just victory (which they agreed with also). Once again, I did not add just plain victory which you disputed, but strategic victory which you did not dispute. -YMB29 (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Which of those were excuses? All were perfectly valid reasons why i chose to revert. None of the edits that i reverted had been discussed and agreed upon to in the talk page and were done to known 'hot spots' of the article. Only perhaps questionable revert was the one done to your statement of Manninen's results, i could have just appended more information to it however i thought it would be better to first agree in the talk page what exactly should there read before i write anything there.

Yes, even i initially suggested a compromise as the result however you rejected all such suggestions. And while i do not dispute the strategic victory that is not what the article is about and therefore it is not representative to be the sole expression of the result of the offensive. It is merely part of it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bringing your content dispute over here is fascinating, but Wanderer, what makes you think you're entitled to edit-war because you disagree with the content of the article or believe the changes aren't a reflection of consensus? Neither of those reasons exempts your reverts. You've been blocked before for edit-warring (although it's been a while). Do you seek a third block?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said that i would have been entitled to edit-war only that in the cases listed above matters were discussed and agreed upon in the respective talk page. So do i understand correctly that you are suggesting that editors should ignore what is agreed upon in the talk page and then refuse to take part in dialog? Some of the changes were made to the article before they were agreed upon in the ongoing discussion on the talk page, you can see that from the logs or from the talk page itself if you want to. I have been led to understand that nothing should be done to the contested section while discussion regards to it still continues until it has been agreed upon in the talk page, I'm sorry if this has not been in accordance with wikipedia procedures. However i had understood that was to be so just to prevent edit-warring but you are apparently stating that it is perfectly fine to edit section that is still under ongoing dispute. If what has been agreed upon in the talk pages has no value then i suppose, yes i would seek for a third block since it would only prove that wikipedia does not follow its own rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also as for that matter the claimed '6th revert' on the list is actually only what the consensus on the talk page had been. Again, feel free to check it if you like but consensus which was rejected by YMB29 was to use separate aftermath section. Perhaps a technicality but it was not a revert unless edits done in accordance with what most of the participants in the dispute resolution had agreed upon count as such. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus... The result I added was not rejected by anyone, even by you. You stopped discussing it, so it looked like you had no objections. -YMB29 (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer, your interpretation and application of policy is wrong, and to some extent your refusal to listen is more troubling than the 3RR violation. I'm not going to take any action on this and will leave to another admin to decide what is appropriate. I strongly suggest, however, that you leave the article alone for a while and restrict your comments to the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So the third opinions offered by Jaan and Nick-D who both favored the use of separate aftermath section simply do not exist? I had previously repeatedly stated that using only single aspect (ie. strategic) to represent the whole of the offensive is simply not representative. And you knowingly ignored all the others representing only single cherry picked POV of the matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please then explain what exactly was wrong there? So far only impression i have had from your comments is that anything agreed on talk page can be ignored. This and other comments from you are especially peculiar when the consensus in the talk page was supporting the view i had (ie. no result, use of separate aftermath section). - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My last comment. Read WP:3RR. There is no exemption for "I'm only implementing the consensus on the Talk page so I can revert as many times as I like". Consensus is often a matter of interpretation. If you believe the consensus is in your favor and yet it is being thwarted, then use WP:DR. Edit-warring is not an appropriate response. And don't tell me it's been tried before (I saw your comment on the Talk page). That isn't an acceptable answer, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes i read 3RR rule, which i do not have broken, certainly skirted, but not broken. Also now that there actually is an admin present another serious question, given the anonymous IP edits to the article, what is the method or basis used to determine vandalism from serious edits in such cases? As last i checked the 'opponent' in the edit-war was apparently a sock-puppet. Also for that matter as stated above the last edit noted as a revert was not a revert, you can check that too, it was edit done what had been stated previously on talk page to the exact dispute in question - in other words it was neither revert nor was it repeating occurrence (unless i missed something) nor did it return the article to the existing state. Oh and while at it can you or other admin please take a look at Continuation War article, as i would prefer not to revert anything at this time. Thank you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am a sock-puppet?

You removed a sourced result for which you had no objections to on the talk page, so it is a revert. -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not you. The other editor, Pyotr Isaev - at least according to User talk:Pyotr Isaev. As said before you had not stated that you would insert it to the article and it really surprised me since it went against opinions of everyone else involved including me as well as the third party opinions that you had requested. Following the third party opinion after a dispute would not be revert however. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop accusing me of going against consensus? You did not bother to reply, so it looked like you did not have any objections to my new suggestion. -YMB29 (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was to use separate aftermath section. You ignored it - I would be lying if i said you didn't. You had no suggestions at the time, only a question. It is not the same. You didn't even suggest that there would have been an agreement or ask if there would be any objections. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:201.7.130.25 reported by [[User:{{subst:Belchfire}}]] (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 201.7.130.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

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

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

Comments:Drive-by IP user, not much point engaging on Talk page when he probably never looks. DISREGARD, user already blocked. Belchfire 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked Blocked by Alexf. Electric Catfish 20:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:SumerianPrince reported by User:Abhishek191288 (Result: 31 hours)

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

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

Link of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235]

Comments:

May not be a violation of 3RR in 24 hrs, but it is a slow motion edit war. User has been in an edit war in the same article before. — Abhishek  ^Talk 13:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Tourbillon reported by User:Ceco31 (Result: stale)

Page: Bulgaria
User being reported: User:Tourbillon

Previous version : [236]

• 1st revert: [237]
• 2nd revert: [238]
• 3rd revert: [239]
• 4th revert: [240]
• 5th revert: [241]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [242]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [243] - I suggest that this is the attempt, but as I was not participator in the edit-war I am not sure

Comments: I was sure I missed to report Tourbillon for breaking three revert rule somewhere back in time and checked the history of Bulgaria article for the near past, I find myself wrong and found maximum 3 reverts by Tourbillon in the edit-wars between me and him, but I came to May and I saw that he made 5 reverts in a 24 hour period in edit-war between him and different person/s, I am noting that this edit-war was not between me and him but between him and three others - 109.242.16.227, 69.253.167.49, 65.95.212.202 - and that these IPs are not mine, because I am falsely accused that I have sock-puppets. That's the only one for which I report the user- three revert rule. He has also bad behavour, but I do not want to describe it, you can start with his statements in the talk page of Bulgaria, usually he do not humiliate himself to answer the others' statements wheter they are long or short while intrudes insolently his opinion in the page without proving why and without missing a revert as the onlyone owner. --Ceco31 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: The filing user has been suspected of sockpuppetry by me and at least three other users. At least one of his suspected IP socks was involved in block evasions. [244] He has been continuously edit-warring against me, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Chipmunkdavis, User:WilliamThweatt, and at least one other user (User:Jingiby) has reverted his edits. Currently he and the suspected puppet are the only ones partaking into a lengthy content dispute, in which the user/his meat/sockpuppets are actively refusing to WP:HEAR the other side. Other POV-pushing can be found in the contributions history of the user. I believe this proposal is yet another classical example of WP:POINT. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: I am only noticing to the administrators that all this is defamation against me, I have no socks nor three other users say that. I will not engage with lies anymore.--Ceco31 (talk)

• Stale. The diffs supplied above are two months stale. Accusations of sockppetry can be resolved at SPI. Kuru (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Minar-e-pakistan reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Withdrawn)

User has managed to find the talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Page: Rape in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Minar-e-pakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [245] 1st revert: [246] Removes reliably sourced content 2nd revert: [247] 3rd revert: [248] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [249] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [250] I have asked the user to self revert as the edits he is making are not supported by the sources, he continues to restore them. [251] this is pure WP:OR as is this[252] which I can only describe as a hideous attitude. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note Withdrawn by requester. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User115.188.247.153 reported by User:Callanecc (Result: Stale)

Page: India and weapons of mass destruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 115.188.247.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (see comments section)

1. 21:28, 19 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 05:55, 21 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 01:45, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 07:55, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 12:23, 23 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
6. 19:32, 23 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 19:31, 24 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
8. 11:52, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
9. 22:40, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
10. 21:01, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
11. 01:06, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
12. 02:26, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
13. 03:02, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Comments:

Regarding the previous version reverted to - this is a long term issue so I'm not 100% sure where the best version to return to would be. This report is on the IP user, but it may also be worth looking at the actions of Anir1uph (talk · contribs). Note: there has also been a talk|history|links|watch|logs)|submission on WP:RPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Stale, although I gather RFPP may be better anyway... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Declined - See reason)

Page: Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kazemita1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [253]

• 1st revert: [254]
• 2nd revert: [255]
• 3rd revert: [256]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [257]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [258] and [259]

Comments:
Editor is editing pretty clearly against consensus. Took it to WP:AN for unknown reasons and now seems to think that (s)he has some sort of administrative carte blanche to add material. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think that a 24 hour block would be in order. Electric Catfish 23:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

On my defense, there was no attempt in resolving the dispute from the plaintiff's side. There was no mention of a specific part of my edit except for the removal of the summary of the viewpoints of the criticizers here. Which I addressed immediately and gradually during my last 3 edits; yet the plaintiff is counting that as an edit war. Moreover, on the talk page I kept requesting them to mention which specific part they disagree, but heard no response other than bulk reverts of disputed and non-disputed material by different users. I also, argue that wrong sentences, such as "Dawkins' criticizers are all Christian thinkers" does not require consensus to correct when we have atheist like Michael Ruse in the article on his opposite side.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Besides the fact that my edits are all different and are moving towards the middle-ground, don't we need 4 edits for 3RR?

I issued the warning a full half hour before your third rv. Had you read the warning you would have seen this "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of "behavior", I am continuing my effort in resolving the issues in the talk page. You are also invited to attend.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You still do not seem to understand that you violated 3RR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Declined I don't see Dbrodbeck actually having contributed much in the discussion; no technical violation, and talk page discussion is happening, so there's no reason to block. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User:GabeMc reported by User:99.251.125.65 (Result: Declined with note)

Page:Pink Floyd Pink Floyd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
GabeMc: GabeMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [260]
• 2nd revert: [261]
• 3rd revert: [262]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [263]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [264]

Comments:This the/The argument has been under dispute for many years. This editor has launched a mediation for this edit and while the medcom board is deciding continues to make the same changes at various musical group articles. He was warned and stopped on several Beatles articles in the previous week for the same edit.

99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I have stayed away from Beatles articles this weekend to avoid this constant drama and harassment. Now, you have followed me to Pink Floyd and a boomerang is forthcoming. Can an admin please put an end to this time waster. This account was made for the sole purpose to fight for this issue while attacking me and posting creepy messages on my talk page, they have accused me of having an "agreement" with them, and are trying some type of psychological warfare/stalking/harassment. They are perhaps even the master of the Beatlesgirl socks, I don't know, just please, someone end this nonsense! I'm not gonna bother posting diffs unless needed or asked, just take a browse through, you'll see what I mean. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

you mention 'not gonna bother posting diffs unless needed or asked,' I would like to ask for diffs. Penyulap ☏ 11:21, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, this is also a fake report because I never reverted them once at Pink Floyd, or anywhere to my knowledge. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  Slay the troll. Now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Evan2008, Your ad hominem comment attempt at disruption of WP processes are not welcome and are disruptive. Please do not try to distract from the issues presented constantly. You may soon become a target for administrators for this behaviour, in future. Thank you. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined You don't have to revert them for 3RR; the capitalization issue however should be discussed. Please Note that the argument over at t/The Beatles probably should govern all related capitalization issues. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• This one needs very careful attention people. Considering that they are editing the MoS itself to refer to the Beatles, it's pretty plain 'should govern' isn't going to work very well. Penyulap ☏ 11:13, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify, I havn't reverted anyone at Pink Floyd for any reason in recent memory. Also, as far as "the/The" is concerned, from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music: the current MoS prescribes a lower-case definite article in band names used in running prose, so why would I need to discuss this at each article page I edit? Do we really need to re-establish consensus to follow the MoS, or should those who disagree with the MoS go to the MoS talk page and make their compaints there, versus edit-warring with people who are following the MoS at article pages? Why has the onnus been put on those who do not intentionally break with the MoS versus those who do ignore the MoS? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You did edit war, GabeMc, and you appear to fully intend to contibue this in the future. By changing "The" to "the" and when I changed it back you repeated the editwar offence mixed in with other edits with a generic and deceptive edit history comment. Please see WP:BRD. Later you repeated the same edit for another band title disguised in with more small edits. This is the complaint. Your arrogant and decpetive attitude is not collaborative with the other WP editors and your own mediation request, curently in session, on this very issue. Your "I didn't know that", childlike, approach is getting tiresome to many observing you. This appears to be used in your style on a regular basis as you have on Beatles articles, in the past. You were previously warned about this on those article talk pages and you acknowledged there. Clicking on the "undo"link never works for your edits as you follow almost every one up with a typo correction or other edit of the edit section so that "reverts" are not possible with a simple "undo" click and the mixed in edits could have been valid. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest that absent a local consensus to the contrary, the current wikipedia MoS is the de facto local consensus at each article until replaced with a contrary consensus. As there is currently no local consensus at Pink Floyd to defy our MoS and cap the definite article mid-sentence, I am failing to see where I could have possibly done anything wrong. A disputed "consensus" at the Beatles does not carry over into ALL music related articles, does it? Also, the IP 99 followed me from the Beatles to Pink Floyd, which constitues (or is close to) wikistalking IMO. There is no consensus at Pink Floyd that I am breaking by following teh wikipedia MoS, so really, this is a complete non-issue. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Declined)

Page: Chick-fil-A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Still-24-45-42-125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [265]

• 1st revert: [266]
• 2nd revert: [267]
• 3rd revert: [268]
• 4th revert: n/a -- this report is for persistent WP:EW

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [269], warning for edit warring at Focus on the Family 2 days ago
2. [270], warning for ew at Poli positions of Mitt Romney
3. [271], warning for EW at Chick-Fil-A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [272]

Comments:

This user is edit warring across multiple political/controversial articles, against multiple editors, and without consensus.

While this is a new user, they demonstrate familiarity with our policies and I'd recommend waiving WP:BITE due to the rampant disruption. A review of their contribs suggests that they are a WP:single-purpose account. While there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, a SPA who edit wars is particularly troublesome. To their credit this user does use the talk pages and WP:DRN, but IMO that does not excuse the edit warring across multiple pages against multiple editors. I would resist allowing the user to use their talk page participation as an excude to revert "per discussion." The edit summaries they leave when reverting make no claim of exemption under WP:3RRNO. As we move closer to the US Elections, we can't have these types of users wreaking havoc with our political articles. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For context, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ViriiK&diff=next&oldid=504532076, in which Lionelt outlines his plan to get me blocked. If you want to help him game the system by using you like a tool, please block me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I updated the links for notices of edit warring to show my responses, in which I pointed out that the warnings were false. Feel free to ask them to show actual edit warring as opposed to their false reports of edit-warring. While you're at it, ask why this[273] was mislabeled as a minor edit. Good day. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no plan to get Still blocked. Noone is forcing him to repeatedly hit the "revert" button. The warnings were not false. They were placed in good faith and based on disruptive behavior. He chose to 1RR, 2RR, 3RR. Noone made him do it. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your own words, which I linked to, contradict your claim. Nothing you say now can unsay what you already admitted to. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A comment: I'm not part of this dispute (I've just been watching Still and trying to offer helpful advice), but if you want to consider whether Still is a SPA, you may also want to also look at his contribs under his IP before he signed up. It's true that most of his edits since signing up have been on political articles, but he started out broadly and for a while had an emphasis on philosophy articles (which is where I first met him). It seems to be a shared IP, but I'm pretty sure most of those edits were his based on our interactions, and perhaps he could clarify that. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair question, so I'll be glad to answer it. Yes, the edits from my IP for the last few weeks before I created the account all look like mine. Frankly, I'd prefer to go back to improving philosophy articles, but I keep running into serious WP:NPOV violations on political pages, which I've had to escalate to dispute resolution. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So, will you stop edit warring? Both of you? Pro-family and anti-gay can be dissembled to mean whatever you like... why don't you just take out the terms entirely? Chick-fil-A isn't anti-gay, they just don't believe their company needs to support gay marriage. Pro-family tends to mean pro-traditional-family. And anti-gay can be construed however you like. Some people might call Chick-fil-A anti-gay. Some people might not. Point is... don't edit war. If you think some other wording is wrong, don't keep warring over the content. Get a consensus and then put that in. Like I said, this might have been easily resolved by just taking that wording out entirely. Instead of saying Focus on the Family is pro-family or anti-gay, why not just say something like "Focus on the Family, which is opposed to gay marriage and encourages a traditional family, blah blah blah." OK, no more edit warring, yes? -- Avanu (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Woa cowboy. "Both" of you? I wasn't edit warring. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I have no interest in edit-warring. I have brought multiple articles to Dispute Resolution in order to resolve these issues. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's great that you went to DRN. However that is not a license to edit war. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have redacted the ad hominem comment above --DBigXray 07:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Note for the record that it was not an ad hominem. See discussion here. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Arc's right. It wasn't an ad hominem, it was a counter-example of begging the question. The point is that, in order to stop, you must first start. That should be obvious. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on. If NBA commissioner David Stern can use the same question on National Radio and not having it labeled as ad hominem... In any case, Declined because apparently everyone enjoys being trigger happy about reverts. Seek DRN/RFC/etc, as if restrictions were performed as is I'd imagine it'd be on both sides. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:122.179.147.58 (Result: Reporter blocked as a sock)

Page: Libyan civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2011 military intervention in Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [274]
• 2nd revert: [275]
• 3rd revert: [276]
• 4th revert: [277]
• 5th revert: [278]
• 6th revert: [279]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [280]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [281]

Comments:

This editor is vandalizing some of the reliably sourced content, removing the discussed information of some established pages and trying to twist the article words as per there own opinion without giving any backup or sources, this person keeps watching for a time when other editors are offline, so that this editor can revert the edits and start putting up own versions, once this person got to know that the editor who was trying to avoid his/her vandalism towards pages has been blocked[282] this editor went to these pages as well as other pages by making up same reverts:-

• 1st revert: [283]
• 2nd revert: [284]

Went to vandalize the similar pages[285], I can say none of these edits were ever discussed by this user anywhere, he/she even deleted the talks which were made by the other user, it can be seen that only those content have been removed which involves informative discussion or reply to a question/response[286], [287], [288], [289], [290], same thing was done in the page Syrian Civil War with actually more amount of vandalism,[291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299], and then this editor removed the warning which was made hardly a day ago on his/her own talk page.[300]

Looking forward for some action regarding this editor, and comeback of all the removed content of these pages. 122.179.147.58 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• If he's vandalizing, the appropriate venue is AIV. Electric Catfish 21:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've asked Sopher99 to respond here. The actual article where he is in danger of breaking 3RR is Battle of Aleppo (2012). I do not see any vandalism. It is troublesome to see a 3RR report submitted by an IP with no other edits. This risks violating WP:ILLEGIT, which is part of the socking policy. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually you are right about Battle of Aleppo (2012), see the latest vandalisms:-

• 1st revert: [301]
• 2nd revert: [302]
• 3rd revert: [303]
• 4th revert: [304]

Warning was given too[305], but soon removed by this same user as well[306]. So i think that this user is going to continue edit warring. 122.179.147.58 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is all VERY hilarious. You guys please look at this history of those pages. You will see that the edits of which i have reverted were the edits of user:Clarificationgiven a PROVEN SOCK ACCOUNT of user JusticeJayant. The IP that reported me is the IP of the user:justicejayant/Clarificationgiven. The rules are that sock accounts, particularly ones made for vandalism, have their edits reverted. Likewise I done so. Sopher99 (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Now this is SUPER hilarious, well, you are editing every page as per your likeness and bothering a lots of communities over here, you are removing the sourced contents much before the user got banned, and now your excuse is that 'user was sock' when it's actually about the content, which was written much before, who gave you permission to remove all talks?? Show a rule where it says. 122.179.147.58 (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I gave reasons to you (clarificationgiven/justicejayant) but you chose to ignore them. Then when you were determined to be a sock account, I reverted your revisions to my edits for the additional reason of you being a sock account intended for vandalism/POV pushing. Talk edits by sockpuppets also get removed. Sopher99 (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any correct reason, but only your personal likeness towards the content which you want to exist, and which you want to remove, no matter what a horrible amount of vandalism you are performing, since you have never bring on talks you have indeed broke the rules, talk edits by socks doesn't get removed, all you are doing is removing everybody's talk who is in some favor of the subject which you don't like, and even more when you are removing the talks on only those pages with which you are very obsessive. 122.179.147.58 (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Those were the articles most noteworthy of your presence, and yes talk edits by socks do get removed, especially ones that you used to try to distort the consensus, such as the talk edits which I just deleted. Sopher99 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your point is incorrect, because the article involves the presence of a user, doesn't make you to remove anything that you don't like, for describing your hate, as it's more about contributed, instead of vandalizing the content which you don't like. You can't remove the talks of anybody, unless they are spam, hatespeech or totally off topic, so i am looking forward to the permission note which was passed to you by those users who's talks are removed by you.122.179.147.58 (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This IP is almost certainly the indef-blocked Justicejayant/Clarification given. See this AN/I thread. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Quack. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Wouter Drucker reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wouter Drucker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [307]

• 1st revert: [308]
• 2nd revert: [309]
• 3rd revert: [310]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [311]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [312] - note that Wouter Drucker had already posted that he was "Sorry for reverting two times". And note also that I've requested full page protection - this looks to me (in the context of another TZM editor (or possibly the same one under another account?) also making large unsourced changes to the article, see the history and talk page) like an attempt to 'game the system' in advance of protection. There is a long history of POV-pushing problems on this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

His last edit was prompted by a discussion by him and me, where he clearly only read part of what I was saying. I said "Yes, you can edit the page, if the things you add are neutral and reliably sourced, as per above." He seems to have stopped at the word "neutral", and hence prefixed every section with "Peter Joseph claims". He seems to have thought that this would have fixed the issue. I've attempted to explain why it didn't on his talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• I propose a 24 hour block. Electric Catfish 22:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Already blocked by Nyttend for 31 hours. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:HammerFilmFan reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Declined)

Page: 2012 Aurora shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 05:03, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reaction */ removed-how is this directly related to this article?")

   Reversion of edits made by Canoe1967 (talk · contribs): [313][314]

2. 20:49, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504979404 by 130.65.109.101 (talk) This was reported also in the Daily Mail, and NBC News Channel 4 in NY - what cite do you have that he has been released?")

   Reversion of edits made by 130.65.109.101 (talk · contribs): [315]

3. 22:34, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505004214 by 130.65.109.101 (talk) Anon IP - take your concerns to the Talk Pages, please, before doing this")

   Reversion of edits made by 130.65.109.101 (talk · contribs): [316]

4. 22:37, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Related threats */ restored-this is not trivial - take your argument to the Talk Pages to discuss, he's being held for observation but has not been charged, if there is another cite, please note it on the TP")

   Reversion of edits made by 130.65.109.101 (talk · contribs): [317]

• Diff of warning: here

—Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Warring? Three different editors reverted the Anon. The Anon was asked to please give cites (which his edits did not contain in their summaries) and to take it to the Talk Page, which he eventually did as far as opening a discussion on the TP (but no cite, just his view on BLP). The discussion on this particular topic has been civil on the Talk Page, with the exception of Viriditas's personal and unrelated comments about me, which I politely asked him to stop. For some reason, I seem to have raised a hackle with him, which is probably what this is all about. However, whatever recommendations the Admins wish to take, or actions, are fine with me, and I will take my saltwater-dipped lashes like a man. :-) This will be only comment on the matter, as I think I've summed up my view as best I can. Cheers! HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

While I would like to assume good faith, this user has deleted every attempt to contact him on his user talk page,[318][319][320][321][322][323]. Discussion on the article talk page has been even worse, with trollish behavior and provocative discourse. Every attempt to communicate with the user has failed. From where I stand, this user is primarily a "revert-only" account used on 2012 Aurora shooting (and other articles) raising concerns about its overall purpose. If there's any indication of encyclopedia building going on here, I haven't yet seen it. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Who is calling the kettle a troll here? Some may think your edits here and the related pages including my talk page may be considered 'trollish'. I agree with HammerFilmFan that you are focused on editors here and not the project.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment:. I have no qualms with his reversion of my edit. The material I added had no source, was contentiuos, and has since been added back after consensus and sources. I was going to find the source from the article history but decided to seek consenus before reverting his revert. I think the other reverts to the IPs were similar but different material in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined because after that initial posting to the Talk page, the IP ceased to discuss (which means if I were to block, I'd have to do both, and I don't really wnat to at this stage) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Eric mit 1992 reported by User:Bhny (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Blacklight Power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eric mit 1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [324]
• 2nd revert: [325]
• 3rd revert: [326]
• 4th revert: [327]
• 5th revert: [328]
• 6th revert: [329]
• 7th revert: [330] note: this was not a revert by Eric mit 1992 Jim1138 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC). Looks like it is to me (not that it matters now) Bhny (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• 8th revert: [331]
• 9th revert: [332]

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

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

Comments:

Eric mit 1992 is reverting multiple editors.

This article is about a company that purports to generate energy by methods that violate fundamental principles of physics. I.e. wp:fringe The company is making money from investors. Looking through the edit history it would appear that Eric mit 1992 is attempting to whitewash the article. Jim1138 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Administrators: Of course, what Jim1138 asserts and accuses, is not true. I have no doubt you'll find this to be the case, and come to full agreement with my point of view by a simple, cursory review of my edits, and especially my extensive 'Talk' on the subject, where I believe I can definitively state that the effort and thought I've put into the 'Talk' page far, far, far outweighs the effort and contribution of several other users combined, especially the two users who are in the process of accusing me of things I have not done. Note that I've addressed the 'fringe' and 'pseudo' topics in detail in the Talk page, as well as many other topics. Thankfully, due to mostly my efforts, the Blacklight Power page has climbed out of the depths of bias it previously existed in, and it's slowly approaching a solid, correct, unbiased, and fully referenced state. Many more edits, and much additional effort will be required to fully accomplish this goal, which is shared by all good Wiki editors, but I believe it will make a positive difference in the end. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Note to Bhny: "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too."

It's interesting to point out that you failed to include the Talk related to the reversions I've made, which are fully allowed and justified by WP:BURDEN and WP:RS:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blacklight_Power#rexresearch

It's unfortunate you chose to report my justified behavior, especially considering the irony that the same number of edits contrary to mine are the edits which are 'disruptive', not my edits. Furthermore, I am the only one who has participated in the Talk discussion on this matter, as referenced above, as of the exact time of this post: Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I ask for the Administrators kind consideration in removing this unjustified warning against me, and furthermore considering applying the warning to other relevant users if so justified. (better formatting of text Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC))

Secondly, Wiki Administrators: I'm not sure if I need to open a case myself, but for now I'll reference the edit warning I kindly issued to 'Jim1138' in response to his multiple 'undo' operations on the valid edits I made, wherein I also justified those edits using WP:BURDEN and WP:RS, and wherein neither Jim1138, nor my accuser, 'Bhny' offered any associated 'Talk' on the matter, let alone cite guidelines supporting their disruptive edits.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jim1138&diff=505013109&oldid=505007978

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor is still reverting. Just added the 8th revert Bhny (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Added 9th revert Jim1138 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Eric mit 1992 gave me a 3RR warning after two reverts diff Jim1138 (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this dispute and checked the recent page history. This has been going on for far too long and I think the editor has it in his head now that edit warring is a valid means of settling content disputes. Please block and perhaps the editor will understand that this behavior is unacceptable. Sædon^talk 00:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Bhny, Saedon, and Administrators: Please note, and please take the time to understand this -->> WP:BURDEN allows an un-cited and unprovable reference to be removed by the decision of an editor. Once the text is removed, the burden of proof lies on the editor who wishes to re-introduce the text by showing that the reference can be properly cited, which in this case would require that a reliable/reputable archive exists which contains the news story in question, where in fact the text of that news story can indeed be verified as true, let alone even existent in the first place. Furthermore, the raw text which is referenced on the wiki article exists on a web server that is by no uncertain terms NOT considered a WS:RS (not even CLOSE). Clearly, this is one of the basic requirements of Wikipedia, if not the most important requirement. Therefore, all edits that I have performed have been justified, and in fact they are necessary in order to correct the disruptive edits that are being made against all related WP guidelines. Please also read the sections of the Talk page previously referenced here. One must invest the time to understand what is happening here, and therefore allow the proper resolution. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:71.10.60.130 reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: Blocked)

Page: Stop Online Piracy Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.10.60.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [333]

• 1st revert: [334]
• 2nd revert: [335]
• 3rd revert: [336]
• 4th revert: [337]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [338]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Sourced the assertion and attempted to begin discussion with the user ([339]), to no avail. User has continued to revert without discussion.

Comments:

• In addition to the active revert warring by 71.10.60.130, who has never commented on the talk page, we see a fair amount of IP vandalism earlier in July, including blanking of the whole article. I would favor at least a month of semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • • Blocked IP blocked for edit warring and page protected for a month. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Santos30 reported by User:Trasamundo (Result: Page protected)

Page: Spanish Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Santos30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [340]

These reverts are in a simple way

• 1st revert: [341]
• 2nd revert: [342]
• 3rd revert: [343]
• 4th revert: [344]
• 5th revert: [345]

Better explained and detailed, it is the combination of two issues: contemporary to a discussion of the flag to put in the Spanish empire article in wikipedia in Spanish, User santos30 did ​​two editions:

• This one [346] to remove the pre-existing flag.
• This one [347] to add a source about the incorporation of America to Castile.

With the simple argument of a historic coincidence of later centuries with Carlism Santos30 removed again the flag twice [348][349] Then he began a discussion in the talk page, and while he has continued to try to impose his changes [350][351][352], despite I warned him his disruptive behavior [353][354][355]

Regarding the addition of the source about American incorporation to Castile, I have stated several times that the adding breaks the meaning of the pre-existing sentence and paragraph, and therefore I changed the site of the source within the same article, fitting to the sense of the existing text. [356] [357] [358] [359] but no way, santos30 incorporates it back in the same place and even he hides the addition with the removal of the flag [360] [361] [362] [363][364] Although I have not deleted the source, Santos30 has canvassing a user and has said her that Trasamundo delete my contribution to put clear that America was a part of crown of Castile [365]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [366]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [367][368][369]

3RR is not the main problem. The problem is that it is an original research. Do not exist any published source about cross Burgundy as a flag Spanish Empire. See long discussion [370]. Trasamundo I can only tell you again and again: if you say -Burgundy- is "more representative of Spanish Empire" citation needed. Thanks. --Santos30 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Protection will expire in 24 hours. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:San culottes reported by User:Wustenfuchs (Result: 48h)

Page: Flag of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Syria (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: San culottes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring at the Flag of Syria

• 1st revert: [371]
• 2nd revert: [372]
• 3rd revert: [373]
• 4th revert: [374]

Insulting at the Talk:Syria

• [375]

I also tried to explain to the user that he cann't continue edit warring without sources. He always shows sources based on his own conclusion (WP:OR) from certain images. Also, I warned him not to make any more edit reverts, but I also saw his insult at the Talk:Syria. It is not possible to discuss with him in normal way. He also accused me of being a troll.

Comments:

--Wustenfuchs 00:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs is the real problem here. He has being edit warring across a range of Syria related articles for the past several days. I have actually added references to all of my edits. Also, Wustenfuchs is including edits that arent actually reverts. Sans culottes 00:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also these edits are over a three day period with multiple intermediate edits by several other editors. This is nothing but a pathetic attempt by Wustenfuchs to smear another user for not agreeing with their own views. Sans culottes 00:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Your constant editing without reliable source is edit warring, as you always return article to the earlier form. And also insults don't have a justification. --Wustenfuchs 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What insults? You need to actually read what other users put and reach consensus, rather than make desperate attempts to silence other users by making invalid Administrators' noticeboard posts. Sans culottes 00:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't trie to silence anybody. Stop accusing me for such action. Calling me to act like a troll, as you stated, and other user a liar are insults. There are far more better ways to explain how someone is wrong or not. --Wustenfuchs 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that English is not your first language Wustenfuchs, and I feel that this is a major impediment to you contributing constructively here. And yes, the user you are referring to, made an untrue and unproductive remark on a talk page, which constituted a wp:personal attack. This editor User:DanielUmel I might add is a self-identified Assad supporter with an axe to grind. Sans culottes 01:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Here are the recent edits by User:San culottes at Flag of Syria:

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

1. 19:53, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "The Syrian Independence flag flies in most of Syria, deleting it is vandalism")
2. 19:55, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "additional Ba'athist regime flag details")
3. 23:09, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "Yes, actually laws in Libya recognize the independence flag as the flag of Syria")
4. 23:24, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "wikilink and additional image")
5. 23:43, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "added references")
6. 23:47, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "same previous")
7. 00:39, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "added reference")
8. 00:53, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504853786 by Wustenfuchs (talk)No, not kidding")
9. 16:36, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 504932365 by Wustenfuchs (talk)")
10. 16:38, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "re-adding citations")
11. 02:29, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505030151 by ArabizedEuro (talk)this article has finally reached a stable state, see talk page for additional changes.")
12. 14:52, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "undo actual vandalism which totally ignores the talk page consensus")
13. 22:06, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "Yeah evidence is plentiful. Stop being a troll and ignoring consensus.")
14. 22:23, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "added flag adoption details")
15. 22:26, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "same as previous edit")
16. 22:52, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "refer to talk page consensus")

Edits 1 & 2 are consecutive. So are 3-7, 9-10 and 13-15. So San culottes has made four reverts in the last 24 hours, and eight reverts altogether since 19:00 on 29 July. There is an underlying issue as to whether a rebel flag ought to be counted as the 'Flag of Syria' and ideally the editors would work that out on Talk. SC favors including the rebel flag as 'Flag of Syria'. At first glance Wustenfuchs' position seems more in accord with how things are done elsewhere on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, his sources are certain images from which he makes his own conclusion that is this rebel flag is adopted by the Syrian National Council, and it is not. Also for some reason he always ignores my source, a reliable one, 'cause it deals with the flags, where is stated that no flag is adopted and the the SNC uses both version, current one and the green version. They don't have a de iure flag, only de facto, but those de facto flags are also very much disputed. --Wustenfuchs 02:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also a thing which insults me, when he states that my goal is to silence other users, it sounds like I'm working for Mossad or FSB. Also, statses I act like a troll, and I really wonder why would he say that? I only asked for reliable source, and I only get insults that I'm biased and I'm trying to push my POV into articles, which I really don't. --Wustenfuchs 02:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. A similar dispute involving San culottes has taken place at Syria, which has led to that article being fully protected for a week. The gradual spread of full protection to more and more articles on a current event would be undesirable. In the meantime, it should not be too much to expect the active editors to work for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)