Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

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

User: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: [1] 1st revert: [2] Removes reliably sourced content 2nd revert: [3] 3rd revert: [4] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] 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. [7] this is pure WP:OR as is this[8] 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: [9]

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14] and [15]

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: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [18]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

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: [21]

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: n/a -- this report is for persistent WP:EW

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [25], warning for edit warring at Focus on the Family 2 days ago
2. [26], warning for ew at Poli positions of Mitt Romney
3. [27], warning for EW at Chick-Fil-A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

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[29] 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: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]
• 5th revert: [34]
• 6th revert: [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

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[38] this editor went to these pages as well as other pages by making up same reverts:-

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]

Went to vandalize the similar pages[41], 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[42], [43], [44], [45], [46], same thing was done in the page Syrian Civil War with actually more amount of vandalism,[47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], and then this editor removed the warning which was made hardly a day ago on his/her own talk page.[56]

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: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]
• 4th revert: [60]

Warning was given too[61], but soon removed by this same user as well[62]. 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: [63]

• 1st revert: [64]
• 2nd revert: [65]
• 3rd revert: [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68] - 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): [69][70]

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): [71]

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): [72]

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): [73]

• 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,[74][75][76][77][78][79]. 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: [80]
• 2nd revert: [81]
• 3rd revert: [82]
• 4th revert: [83]
• 5th revert: [84]
• 6th revert: [85]
• 7th revert: [86] 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: [87]
• 9th revert: [88]

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: [89]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Sourced the assertion and attempted to begin discussion with the user ([95]), 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: [96]

These reverts are in a simple way

• 1st revert: [97]
• 2nd revert: [98]
• 3rd revert: [99]
• 4th revert: [100]
• 5th revert: [101]

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 [102] to remove the pre-existing flag.
• This one [103] 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 [104][105] Then he began a discussion in the talk page, and while he has continued to try to impose his changes [106][107][108], despite I warned him his disruptive behavior [109][110][111]

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. [112] [113] [114] [115] but no way, santos30 incorporates it back in the same place and even he hides the addition with the removal of the flag [116] [117] [118] [119][120] 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 [121]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123][124][125]

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 [126]. 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: [127]
• 2nd revert: [128]
• 3rd revert: [129]
• 4th revert: [130]

Insulting at the Talk:Syria

• [131]

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)

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

Page: Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 (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: [132]

• 1st revert: [133]
• 2nd revert: [134]
• 3rd revert: [135]
• 4th revert: [136]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [137]: warned for EW at Political positions of Mitt Romney on Jul 29
• [138]: editor is notified that this is a content dispute and not vandalism

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]

Comments:

Still-24-45-42-125 is edit warring to keep "praised" out of the article as it relates to Romney's recent trip abroad. The pièce de résistance is revert #4. He knows he's about to cross the bright line so he invokes the BLP exemption. The problem is that he takes this opportunity to remove "praised" again. IMO this betrays his true intention: to eliminate the item over which he's been edit warring all day. 3RRNO exhorts editors to "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Still-24-45-42-125 is gambling that 3RRNO will give him cover for edit warring--well it's not going to work. Note: this editor has another report above. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. I am not persuaded that the vandalism or BLP exceptions justify any of these reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:68.96.136.158 reported by User:174.70.63.4 (Result: Semi)

Page: Ed Kosiski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.96.136.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [140]

• 1st revert: [141]
• 2nd revert: [142]
• 3rd revert: [143]
• 4th revert: [144]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [146]

Comments:
User 68.96.136.158 resumed edit war after previous temporary block expired. Please revert to [147] and extend protection.

Result: Semiprotected three months. The named IP seems to be POV pushing by inserting an unsourced defence of the subject of the article, who has been convicted in court according to reliable sources. The unsourced defence, though it is for the benefit of Kosiski, risks violating BLP by stating facts not in evidence. The four reverts listed are not timely -- only one of them is even in the last month. A long semi is used since a variety of IPs have been conducting the same dispute since April. Please try to reach consensus on the talk page. Normal editing by autoconfirmed editors should continue, assuming proper discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, There has only been 1 edit in the past month because the page has been locked as a result of the previous activity. Do we need to go through this 4x each month? Also, I did not revert prior to reporting (I thought this was the proper process) - Can you please revert the prior edit? Thanks 174.70.63.4 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The page was only semiprotected before. The page history shows the names of four registered accounts who are still able to edit. Consider making your proposal on the article talk page. If necessary use the {{editsemiprotect}} template on the article talk to get assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Arcandam reported by User:108.18.174.123 (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [148]

• 1st revert: [149]
• 2nd revert: [150]
• 3rd revert: [151]
• 4th revert: [152]
• 5th revert: [153]
• 6th revert: [154]
• 7th revert: [155]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]

Comments:
I oppose this report and I personally believe this is a waste of time. ViriiK (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editor ViriiK says he will take retaliatory action if Arkandam Arcandam is blocked. That seems like a no-no to me.108.18.174.123 (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent my statement. You are trying to insert an WP:UNDUE sentence in that article and are in a current debate over it. I was simply saying that if you took advantage of any block imposed against Arcandam, I will revert until there is a consensus. Thank you for giving me that idea to go make that suggestion over there. ViriiK (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be a waste of time, but there is a clear 3RR violation. The only reason he should not be blocked would be if he was not aware of WP:3RR before his last revert; it is possible, as he states he is not a strong English-speaker. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you stating that you intend to edit-war? Please rephrase, if that is not your intention. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any edit-war. My point is that since the piece is an UNDUE, it is a 3RR exemption. ViriiK (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, where do you get the idea that removing undue content is an exemption? There are a few exemptions to 3RR but removing undue material is not one of them. Sædon^talk 09:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam has previously been blocked for edit-warring (on July 5), so he knows what it's about. My warnings at his user talk (and at article talk) linked to WP:3RR. His English sounds fine to me (unlike ViriiK's).108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaaaa okay. ViriiK (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember that. That was funny. Read the comments that followed, like this one and that one. I decided to be kind to that admin, he made a stupid mistake, in general he does good work. Arcandam (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@ViriiK: No worries mate. Admins have a brain. They'll read the diffs and the talkpage. The chance I get blocked is close to zero. That is why I don't even bother defending myself, it is just a waste of time. Arcandam (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't check that. In that case, a 48-hour minimum block should be applied, probably to both parties, as the IP seems also to have reverted that many times. 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

Arthur Rubin, are you saying that I broke 3RR?108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think so. I could be wrong, though. I would expect the reviewing admin to check carefully, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

IMHO it is the "Mitt Romney dog incident" page that should be protected for a couple of days, I see a bit of stir there... Cavarrone (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, as long as the tag remains. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Heaven forbid that anyone would ever protect the WP:WRONGVERSION. Arcandam (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, dispute tags can sometimes be added through protection, if it's clear to all concerned that there is a dispute, legitimate or not. As an involved admin, I wouldn't (intentionally) edit through protection, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur has been trouted, this can be closed. Arcandam (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment:. I find this humourous. It happened in 1983, the dog died in 1993, the interview was in 2007, and this is 2012. The dog is dust, the carrier was firewood, the car is probably part of my beer can now. They are finally locked in time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:Old Moonraker (Result: 48h)

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: [158]

• 1st revert: [159]
• 2nd revert: [160]
• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Example: [164]

Comments:
Previous report here --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

My defense: The 1st edit that Old Moonraker claims to be a revert is not a revert; it is the conclusion of a long discussion in both the talk page here and WP:RSN here. The evidence for it is that none of the folks on the opposite side who were involved in those discussions tried to revert it and the edit was untouched for one full day. Many users on the talk page under section "Lack of Sufficient Criticism" have seen this edit and stated their consent with it. That being said, the 3rd edit has tried to cover the new concerns brought up by Snalwibma while remaining faithful to the previous discussions. --Kazemita1 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Many of those users that you speak of, oddly, have only ever edited that talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Side Note: If a group of users are dis-honoring the discussions of the talk page and trying to edit war in group -possibly to avoid individual 3RR- where should I complain to? Is there a rule that bans group edit warring?--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh I think we are all actually following that discussion, but that is beside the point. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I count at least six reverts on this article in the last few days against multiple editors. Using the talk page is not an excuse for edit-warring. Blocked for 48 hours. I would also consider opening an SPI about the brand new accounts on the talk page who appear to be very up-to-speed with Wikipedia policy in their first few edits. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Hypnosifl reported by User:Machine Elf 1735 (Result: )

Page: Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hypnosifl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 08:51, 1 August 2012

• 1st revert: 15:26, 1 August 2012
• 2nd revert: 15:45, 1 August 2012
• 3rd revert: 16:56, 1 August 2012
• 4th revert: 17:59, 1 August 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:39, 1 August 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 17:59, 1 August 2012

Comments: WP:REDACT is not talking about removing an RfC in it's entirety despite the objections of another user, (as nominator, Hypnosifl should have removed the tag only, per WP:RfC#Ending RfCs). Clearly, WP:REDACT is talking about striking out the extant comments of another user. In any case, despite my objections, Hypnosifl removed the comment RfC summary a fifth time, (regardless of strikeout).

“[comment summarizing debate as part of a request for comment removed because Machine Elf has said I have misrepresented his position in the debate, so I want to try to get that cleared up first]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnosifl (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 August 2012”

does not suffice for:

“Summary of comment request: Question about the metaphysical view known as Eternalism (philosophy of time), namely, whether the given sources justify the statement "Eternalism, defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, is also known as the "block universe" theory", or whether this should be changed to a weaker statement that eternalism is only "sometimes known as" the block universe theory, because of the possibility that some philosophers define the meaning of the term "eternalism" differently from the meaning of the term "block universe". Hypnosifl (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)”

Also, please note there's currently a dispute resolution discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Eternalism_.28philosophy_of_time.29.2C_Talk:Four-dimensionalism_discussion.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RfC#Ending RfCs does not indicate to me that there is anything wrong with removing an RfC (both tag and summary paragraph) an hour or two after adding it, before anyone has actually commented on the issue. I have already said to Machine Elf that my reason for removing it was that Machine Elf had said I misrepresented his/her position on the talk page, and since I wasn't sure what specific characterizations Machine Elf was referring to, I was worried that my RfC summary might contain an inadvertent misrepresentation of Machine Elf's side of the debate too, so I wanted to remove the whole thing until that was cleared up (I have also said that if Machine Elf approves the summary, I would be happy to put back both the RfC and the summary). WP:REDACT indicates that the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments is that others may have already responded to them, but no one had yet responded to the RfC or the summary; WP:REDACT also says it's OK to remove a comment and replace it with a "placeholder" summarizing the former comment in brackets, which is what I did with the summary paragraph after Machine Elf complained about my removing it. I don't see anything in the rules that requires that I leave the full paragraph up, if there is please point it out. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

None of the previous attempts to get that "cleared up" at the dispute resolution notice board, on the article talk page and on his talk page have altered his misrepresentation of the dispute. The fact is, he removed it an hour later, after it had already posted to everyone's watchlist. It's confusing and inconsistent for it to simply vanish, and replacing with a comment "placeholder" saying that I'm somehow responsible for it's removal is some kind of joke.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• User:RFC bot 08:01, 1 August 2012 (Added: Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time).)

Hypnosifl claims “WP:REDACT indicates that the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments is that others may have already responded to them”. However, what WP:REDACT actually says is: “It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement.” —Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence starting "Other users may have already quoted you" is exactly what I was referring to when I talked about "the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments". Furthermore, the page then immediately goes on to list acceptable alternatives to total deletion, including the option of putting a "placeholder" in brackets which briefly summarizes what was in the comment. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comments about "misrepresentation" on the talk page haven't told me what specific views you think I am attributing to you that you don't actually hold--see this request for clarification. And my placeholder doesn't say you are "responsible" for its removal, it says that I chose to remove it out of concern that the issue of misrepresentation needed to be clarified first: "[comment summarizing debate as part of a request for comment removed because Machine Elf has said I have misrepresented his position in the debate, so I want to try to get that cleared up first]". I'd be happy to change the wording of the bracketed placeholder in some way (as long as I feel the proposed change would still be accurate) if you have any suggestions. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, his "request for clarification" is ad nauseum and WP:TENDENTIOUS. What would give him the impression that I'm interested in negotiating the "the wording of the bracketed placeholder in some way"? Clearly I want the 100% accurate RfC summary to be restored.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's "ad nauseum", I'd say that's primarily because you refuse to ever actually answer these requests by clearly spelling out how I have misrepresented you (see Wikipedia:Etiquette, "Do not ignore reasonable questions.") If you think you have already done this adequately, perhaps it would help others to judge if you quoted one or more of your own previous comments that you think clearly states some specific way I have misrepresented you, and I can point out if I had any followup questions indicating I thought your statement was unclear, and whether you responded to those.

I offered to change the placeholder because you made a specific complaint about the content of the placeholder, 'replacing with a comment "placeholder" saying that I'm somehow responsible for it's removal is some kind of joke.' I wanted to defuse that as a possible issue, so the only remaining issue is whether it is broadly unacceptable to remove an RfC you just created (and which hadn't yet gotten any responses) and replace the summary paragraph with a bracketed placeholder.Hypnosifl (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypnosifl, see my responses. That's not true, but I refuse to continue to do so, ad nauseum. Perhaps no one cares because it's irrelevant to your 3RR violation? The basic issue is whether or not they'll block you for it.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that my "3RR violation" is the reason you're asking me to be blocked, rather than the basic issue that I deleted my own RfC summary and didn't go along with your attempts to replace it? I think the 3RR refers to reverting other editor's changes rather than your own (the statement of the rule says "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert"), so you initiated the back-and-forth of undoing my attempt to delete it and my re-deleting it, and you did so more than 3 times in a 24 hour period (here, here, here and here). Hypnosifl (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And of course I admit that I also undid your own attempts to put my summary back more than three times (I hadn't been thinking about the three-revert rule so I didn't keep track), although with the first one I was hoping that by adding a bracketed placeholder I would be satisfying your request that I not simply erase all record of the summary (likewise, the last of your four edits above was perhaps trying to satisfy my request that you not put a strike through my text without permission by replacing the summary but not putting the strike through it). Hypnosifl (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, since both of us did end up violating the 3RR (though in both cases, one of the four edits included an attempt to accommodate the other's complaints, as noted above), if either or both of us end up being temporarily blocked by the admins, can I request that the admin also give some comment on how to handle the issue of my having deleted my own RfC summary (which again, no one had responded to yet, and which I replaced by a placeholder to try to make sure I wasn't violating WP:REDACT) once the block ends? Is this or is this not in itself a violation of any wikipedia rules/guidelines? Hypnosifl (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:DanielUmel reported by User:Khazar2 (Result: )

Page: Battle of Aleppo (2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DanielUmel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: No easy answer here; the editor has been reverting everyone else all day long.

• 1st revert: [165]
• 2nd revert: [166]
• 3rd revert: [167]
• 4th revert: [168]
• 5th revert: [169]
• 6th revert: [170]
• 7th revert: [171]

Others can probably be found given this user's activity if necessary, but at least these seven were explicitly labelled as reverts.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor exceeded 3RR long before I arrived at the page tonight.

Khazar2 keeps removing something that has already been decided on the talk page. Another editor was removing the same content yesterday before I posted all the sources on talk page. Then, Khazar2, unaware of what happenned, and apparently unable to check the talk page start removing it again and again despite the information I gave to him. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Given his rage at my report, someone might speak to Daniel about WP:CIVIL as well.

"It is not my fault you are completely unable to read a talk page. You should maybe restrict yourself to you automatic tool helped citations fixing." [173]

"If only you was able to read." [174]

"You are butthurt from being unable to read a talk page and for making yourself look bad for editing out something that was discussed and sourced yesterday? I understand it" [175]

"It is quite unfortunate that you have to be babied so much just to find something obvious. And at the end you will be forced to agree with me because that's what written in the source. I find it amusing that you are losing your nerves so quickly for something you don't understand." [176]

Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Repeat offender, revert-warring on several articles in parallel, got away with a warning just a few days ago. Any further blocks should escalate in length very quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wustenfuchs reported by User:92.40.253.189 (Result: removed)

Report by block-evading vandal IP removed. 92.40.253.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is evidently the same as earlier vandals 92.40.254.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.40.254.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.40.254.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Opinedsenior reported by User:Mrt3366 (Result: 48 hour block)

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

Previous version reverted to: previous version

• 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: See the history of the article and history of the talk page of this user. This user also doesn't AGF and violated WP:NPA and was warned several times (which [s]he ignored).

(Non-administrator comment) - My opinion is that this is just inflaming the situation. On top of that there isn't technically a violation of 3RR as one of the edits was not an undo. Plus the fourth and last revert happened about 30 mins ago (sorry it was more than that - I was looking at the wrong edit) and was one minute after the user was given a level 4 vandalism warning (so there is no way to know if they had seen it before they reverted). As well the user has not edited for more than 30 minutes, I would advocate a wait and see approach. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours There was more edit warring than indicated in the above edits, and the edit warring was in any case just one dimension of a wider pattern of unacceptable editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Nguyen1310 reported by User:Shrigley (Result: article protected)

Page: North Vietnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nguyen1310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [177]

• 1st revert: [178]
• 2nd revert: [179]
• 3rd revert: [180]
• 4th revert: [181]
• 5th revert: [182]
• 6th revert: [183]
• 7th revert: [184]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [185] actually from a few weeks ago, but involving the same page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [186] and user talk[187]

Article protected for 3 days, seems there were two editors guilty of 3rr violation here. Vsmith (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments: