Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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:DonEladio reported by User:Yobol (Result: Protected)

Page

Vaccine controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DonEladio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "/* MMR vaccine */ MEDRS has no bearing on news stories. Removed the Blaze and inserted CNN in its place and added additional information"
2. 16:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624171393 by Yobol (talk) undoing whitewashing. See talk page on THIS article"
3. 16:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624175067 by Dawn Bard (talk)consensus? I'm not part of your consensus."
4. 16:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624177448 by Yobol (talk) Count zero editors willing to respond on this article's talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I'm trying.[1] Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: Article protected one week. Use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Is there any particular reason why DonEladio didn't receive a block? Their refusal to listen to advice and continue to repeat contested edits constitutes very aggressive edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DonEliado was only one of the three editors who broke 3RR, and his reverts were stale. If he resumes you can file a new report. Protection is sometimes better than multiple blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User: Damián80 reported by User:Dswq78 (Result: Semi)

Page: La impostora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
En otra piel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Damián80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs between 2 revisions [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dswq78 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Hello! I need an administrator. Damián80 is taking information from page and when someone is trying to stop him then he undoes edits. Also he is warring in page En otra piel for same information too. Please stop him. I am just witness there. But please help! Dswq78 (talk)

I also add here a page, where you can see how much that user eliminates information, section:Elimination of information [4]

Aug 14, 16:19. A vida da gente. -3,948

Aug 14, 00:35. Quererte así. -1,059

Aug 14, 00:01, Libre para amarte. -10,061

Aug 13, 23:56, La impostora. -1,531

Aug 12, 23:21, Los rey. -15,955

Aug 12, 22:51. Vivir a destiempo. -20,955

Aug 12, 18:52. La que no podía amar. -3,875

Aug 12, 14:00. Lo que la vida me robó. -7,223

Aug 12, 01:07. Santa diabla. -3,672 and much more.Dswq78 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I have nothing to say, obviously it is Sky0000 again. Who created a new puppet. I ordered a verification of accounts. I recommend you read what it says here.--Damián ^(talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That person's behavior is incredible. Sky0000 account creation was blocked, how he could do a new account?. And in En otra piel there is a section about United States Broadcast. That broadcast is allowed and other countrys' are not? Also what that sockpuppet investigation matters here? I was not warring there. That person has to see a psychiatrist immediately. Dswq78 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Just to let you know, the personal attack is inappropriate. Do not cast aspersions about another editor's mental health. LazyBastardGuy 00:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by IP socks. The submitter of this report, Dswq78, has been reported by User:Damián80 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky0000, which seems logical. Whoever closes the SPI can decide if Dswq78 is part of the gang. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked)

Page

Battle of Borodino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622032889 by Charlesdrakew (talk) see Talk, stop deleting sources, your opinion is neither "consensus" nor a source"
2. 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624436808 by Charlesdrakew (talk) no, it isn't stop lying"
3. 17:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624437638 by Alexandru.demian (talk) vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Battle of Borodino. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resumption of previous edit war over this issue. Talk page consensus is very clearly against the change being made. Charles (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for long-term warring. The editor has reverted the outcome of the battle six times since mid-August, and shows no inclination to listen to anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User:184.16.64.8 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Semi)

Page: Sailor Moon Super S: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.16.64.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]

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

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

Comments:
This user is the same one who cause disruption to the Sailor Moon (English adaptations) article (which was merged) by using an IP (both IPs are located in Indiana and Fireball24fire (talk · contribs) ([12]) and it was protected for a week as a result. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. If these IPs are causing trouble elsewhere, consider an SPI. The geolocation is distinctive. Are you sure that User:Fireball24fire is the same person? Their edits seem better. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:172.2.66.148 reported by User:Arxiloxos (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Template:New Orleans Saints roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

172.2.66.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 20:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 00:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Template:New Orleans Saints roster. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has reverted two editors (twice each), no edit summaries or explanations. Arxiloxos (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts; warned prior. Kuru (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Tutelary (Result: )

Page

GamerGate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Well, no. We don't use POV terms unchallenged. Find a way to write it so it's not in Wikipedia's voice."
2. 16:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC) ""Social justice warrior" is not NPOV."
3. 15:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "We don't republish claims that someone is a "social justice warrior." It's a pejorative label."
4. 15:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ This is entirely separate from the Quinn issue. Also, you realize that "social representation and cultural meaning" *are part of the content of games*? Cultural meaning is not a "social issue.""
5. 15:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Um, no, First of all, we cannot describe someone as a "social justice warrior" - that is a pejorative, non-self-applied term. Second of all, the accusations have been laid by many others than just feminists."
6. 15:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Responses */ Nothing in Breitbart can be used to support any claim about a living person. Doesn't matter that Al Jazeera put his tweet in a list."
7. 15:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ Add sourced statement from Kain."
8. Consecutive edits made from 15:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC) to 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "There's nothing in the source about "left-wing ideology." Include Kotaku's refutation of this claim."
   2. 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ write to source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on GamerGate. (TW)"
2. 16:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ r"
3. 16:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ add"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user seems bent on restoring his own preferred version and doesn't see fit that he follow the WP:3RR. Even after I warned him, he went ahead and reverted anyways, and has been reverting more than 3RR for the entire day. Tutelary (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The removal of material sourced to Breitbart which makes derogatory claims about a living person is self-explanatory - that source blatantly violates BLP as an unreliable source.

We cannot describe people as "a social justice warrior." That is a pejorative, non-self-applied epithet, and Tutelary has been repeatedly attempting to revert into the article the uncontested statement that people are "social justice warriors" without qualifying the statement as an derogatory, pejorative epithet.

The fact is, nobody else wants to try and maintain this horrifyingly-BLP-issue-filled article that involves multiple ill-founded and outright-disproved claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing was -not- cited to breitbart, it was cited to The Guardian. Also, that does not give you cause to revert more than 3 times in a single day. Tutelary (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Nothing in Breitbart can be used to support any claim about a living person." That revert is self-explanatory in the edit summary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't explain any of your other reverts and it wasn't sourced to Breitbart, it was sourced to Aljezera, who is a RS. Tutelary (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't "sourced" to Al-Jazeera - it was nothing more than a tweet linked in an unsigned aggregation. There was no obvious attempt at fact-checking nor was there a byline to demonstrate accountability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and how do you know that? Because it doesn't fit the viewpoint that you have on the subject? Did you actually ask them, or are you just assuming? Tutelary (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are free to read the thing for yourself. There is no byline and we don't whitewash sources. Al-Jazeera isn't reporting it; they're reporting that some other obviously-unreliable source said it. That doesn't convert it into a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When an un RS source is picked up by a RS, that means we can attribute the RS since they did fact checking and sorts on the un RS. To add, There was no obvious attempt at fact-checking nor was there a byline to demonstrate accountability., please tell me how you know this is not the case. Tutelary (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, we can't attribute anything from Breitbart, and the RS has not "picked it up" at all - that is, Al-Jazeera is not reporting in its own words that something is the case. Instead, what we have is a game of telephone, in which Al-Jazeera is simply uncritically repeating that "some Breitbart writer has said X." That doesn't make X reliable or acceptable, because all we have is the fact that some Breitbart writer said something. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The reporting user is ignoring the "social justice warrior" issue, in which he has repeatedly attempted to reinsert unchallenged claims that certain people are "social justice warriors," which we simply may not do. That's how he became involved - trying to enforce in Wikipedia the use of a term which is clearly unacceptable unless noted that it is someone's opinion and that it is a pejorative epithet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not my saying, the editor before me was adding in the content from The Guardian, which you too are basing your own content, but are conveniently omitting the negative bits. Also, a single source saying some word is bad does not make the word bad. Tutelary (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're claiming that the phrase is not pejorative? Please provide any reliable source which states that the term is not pejorative.

You and the other editor literally ignored the key wording in your own quote - "writers they refer to as social justice warriors." The Guardian writer is stating that some people think that those people are "social justice warriors," not that someone is a "social justice warrior."

We can make the statement that some people are pejoratively referred to as social justice warriors - we cannot, as you attempted to enforce through reverting [13] make the unchallenged statement that supporters of left-wing ideology (are) called "Social Justice Warriors". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting this 'pejoratively referred to as social justice warriors ' that you like to phrase a lot? I'm not seeing it in -any- sources at all. It seems you like to claim the word is offensive without any sourcing, and a Magazine is not sufficient enough as a source. If it was offensive, The Guardian would have stated such. And do take note of WP:PRESERVE, where you're to fix problems, not outright remove content. Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. You say it's poorly presented, and make no effort to fix it even though that's what you're obligated to do per WP:PRESERVE. In any case, you are grossly over 3RR. Tutelary (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"A magazine is not sufficient enough as a source" - are you kidding? But hey, how about an academic blog supported by the National Science Foundation?

I did rewrite the passage, once given space to adequately describe the claim and counterclaim. The current version is acceptable as it describes the term as pejorative and counters the use of the word with reliably-sourced criticism of the phrase.

Your claim that the phrase is not pejorative is disingenuous and self-evidently ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You need a secondary reliable source for the use of "pejoratively" and you were clearly edit warring to remove the Guardian cite. They you know a word is pejorative is not, alas, a defence here. Nor is the term applied AFAICT to specific living persons as opposed to a large set of game developers -- thus I suggest involving WP:BLP for such a large set of people may not work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is pretty clear that it's a pejorative. This article is even clearer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result:

I've protected the page for one week due to the edit warring and possible BLP issues. All parties should work out the issues on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's a shame you didn't just block the edit-warring editors, I was going to add to the article this evening to include Jenn Frank's response and her subsequent disengagement with video game writing. The bulk of GamerGate is already past tense, I'm not sure freezing the article for a week is of any real benefit. - hahnchen 18:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You're seriously going to claim that I was edit warring, when North is about 9 reverts? The only reason he isn't blocked yet is because this is a touchy topic. Tutelary (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't care about the article history. I just know the actions here mean I can't edit the article. The article needs editing. - hahnchen 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You - and others - tried to insert the "social justice warriors" stuff sourced to an opinion piece in the Guardian (the paragraph even begins "For me..."). Now that the Zoe Quinn article has been pretty much purged of the inappropriate material, moving to this article really isn't a good idea. And that's why he hasn't been blocked. (and also because the article is at AfD, let's get that out of the way first). Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think that The Guardian isn't reliable, then don't use it, but purge the entire page of it, you can't like one instance of 'The Guardian' and not another. The blogs are under their distinct editorial control as well, like any content that goes on the site. Tutelary (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Guardian journalism is completely reliable; opinion pieces in it are not (or, at least, they need to be prefaced with "X, writing in the Guardian, expressed the opinion that..."). That's fairly standard for all RS newspapers. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocking everyone wasn't really a feasible preventative solution here, not least because North's reverts were motivated by a concern to remove possible BLP violations. Hahnchen, I sympathize, but everyone can still hammer out wording and make suggested improvements on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmies reported by User:Viriditas (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:25, 8 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624619637 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the phrase "The...was the direct impetus for the raids organized by the Germans" previously found in revision 624619408)

2. 00:04, 8 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624600103 by 50.184.178.162 (Drmies restored the word "direct" previously found in revision 624569523)

3. 03:06, 7 September 2014‎

   Drmies undid revision 624493355 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the term "German camps" previously found in revision 624492613)

4. 02:55, 7 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624491979 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the term "combined with his apparently non-Jewish appearance" previously found in revision 624488041)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:08, 7 September 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14], [15], [16]

Comments:

• Note, edits by 50.184.178.162 (talk · contribs) were made in response to comments/recommendations I made about the content on ANI and on the article talk page. Drmies' reversion of the IP is particularly actionable considering that I had previously warned him about edit warring at 03:08, 7 September (see link above) and he chose to continue. Please note that Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for a week for simply reverting an IP.[17] For the record, I have not engaged in any reverts or any edit warring on this page. Although there have been subsequent reverts by Drmies, they were part of the post-03:25 revert spree, so I have not included them as they count as a single revert. Additionally, there is a related ANI. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is already an AN/I discussion about this - and it appears to be a big'un - then this is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Let'em deal with it there. Volunteer Marek  04:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's also up at WP:RSN, Marek. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• The RSN is discussing problematic sources, and the ANI discussion is discussing problematic editing concerning NPOV, not the edit warring in particular. Further, the most recent edit warring listed in this report occurred a day after the ANI report was filed, so this is an ongoing case independent of the ANI concerns and focuses on continuing edit warring. The ANI case is focusing on other behavior issues. In other words, there is no forum shopping here. And to quote administrator PhilKnight (talk · contribs) in regards to the Görlitz case listed above, "the same rules apply to me as everyone else." It doesn't matter if you're an admin or an IP, the same rules apply. As far as I can tell, Drmies believes that he is free to edit war against anyone, whether they are an IP or an editor. I filed this report in response. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You really should just drop it, as this tenacious pursuit of yours does not reflect well on you. Sooner or later someone will get annoyed enough to slap a block on. WP:DEADHORSE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:BATTLEGROUND... all them things. Volunteer Marek  05:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. And this grudge you've been harboring against me from 2009 due to my participation in the WP:EEML case against you, and the resulting arbcom decision against you, makes you look very petty and stalkerish. Perhaps you should stop following me around? This has been going on for years now. Stop it. I testified against you in the EEML case and you were appropriately sanctioned. You did your time, and now it's time for you to get over it. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ay ay ay. The fact that you bring up some long forgotten nonsense from five+ years ago (and have the chutzpah to accuse *me* of being petty!) just illustrates the level of your vindictive tenacity. I guess if you haven't been able to drop five year old stuff, you're unlikely to drop five day old stuff. Volunteer Marek  05:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? You've been stalking me everywhere since 2009, trying to take your revenge on every noticeboard where I show up. I haven't followed you anywhere, and I barely notice your existence. You need to check yourself, my friend. It's pretty obvious what you're doing. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been stalking me everywhere since 2009 - diffs or you're full of shit. Volunteer Marek  05:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to hijack this thread. I do not want to have anything to do with you. Yet, since 2009, you've been following me around, trying to get my attention. Enough already. All the diffs you need are in the arbcom case. It's already been established that you target users and stalk them. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you're full of shit. Or to be more precise, you think it's okay for you to make false and insulting accusations with no evidence to back them up, and when you get called on the fact that you're behaving dishonestly and abhorrently you whine about "don't hijack the thread, I get to slander you, you don't get to to defend yourself". Par for the course. Why are you not indefinitely blocked?

(and FFS, how can diffs from a 2009 arbcom case prove that I've been supposedly stalking you *since* that case. You're not even trying to make your lies coherent)  Volunteer Marek  06:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since I was mentioned, I am responding. I was initially blocked for two days for the edit warring and the block was extended for a month with conflicting explanations. I don't support edit warring, but I don't want to misrepresent my block. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You were edit warring against an IP just like Drmies. However, let's see if the same rules apply when it's an admin who is the subject of the report. It is my experience that admins are officially exempt from all rules. Hopefully this report will show otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see what Walter's case has to do with anything. I'm not edit warring against an IP--my last revert was a correction of an obvious misreading of the source, at the very least (explained on talk page). Besides, Viriditas is not an IP: Viriditas is someone who has devoted all but two of their last 82 edits on me--one might consider that hounding, on my talk page, on the article talk page, on ANI, on RSN, and now here. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Walter was recently blocked for edit warring against an IP. You recently edit warred against an IP.[18] Your denial of this fact is troubling, and your reasoning is questionable. It doesn't matter if you think the IP or anyone else misread the source (they didn't, IMO). What matter is that you were given a warning about edit warring before you decided to revert the IP.[03:08, 7 September 2014] And you continued to revert again after that.[19] Do you think you are exempt from our policy on edit warring because you are an admin? Admin PhilKnight recently addressed this in Walter's case: "the same rules apply to me [an admin] as everyone else." Admins are not exempt from edit warring. Please note, I made a sincere effort to communicate with you on the aritcle talk page and on your user talk page, and instead of communicating with me, you threatened me and made accusations. Please also note, that I specifically addressed the contributions and stayed away from addressing contributors. But that wasn't good enough for you, and you continued to revert me without any discussion. Meanwhile, I did not revert, and I did not edit war. What should be done? My one demand is that the rules should be applied fairly and equitably. I maintain that they are not; because you are an admin, you believe you are above the rules, which are intended for the "little people". If it is true that the rules don't apply to admins like yourself, then we should change the policies to say that. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• What happened to good old BRD here: Drmies put down a text, Viriditas started a discussion and Boldly changed the text. That got Reverted. Now we should be at that Discussion about the perceived problems on the talkpage of the page. Not an edit-war pushing the edit without getting to a consensus first (and if that fails, escalate it through the normal processes). Also, there is no urgency, we are not talking a BLP here. Maybe it is time for some cool-down block for those who fail to discuss before the change is implemented (or even chose to escalate before that discussion has come to consensus). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. John (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • John is deeply involved in the related WP:ANI thread and calling for my sanctions, so this is a bad closure. I request that this report be re-opened. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)