Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
+cmt
Line 969: Line 969:
::@ItsZippy - Given that the IP reverted 8 times despite being told numerous times not to do that, why not to do it and what they should do, I'd say a block is warranted now. They can't say they weren't aware of what they were being told, because they replied to edit summaries and kept deleting what was posted to their talk page. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
::@ItsZippy - Given that the IP reverted 8 times despite being told numerous times not to do that, why not to do it and what they should do, I'd say a block is warranted now. They can't say they weren't aware of what they were being told, because they replied to edit summaries and kept deleting what was posted to their talk page. --[[User:AussieLegend|AussieLegend]] ([[User talk:AussieLegend|talk]]) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
:{{AN3|p}} – 24 hours, by another admin. See the comment by ItsZippy above. If the war resumes in 24 hours, the IP will not be in good shape if they just continue with more of the same reverts. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
:{{AN3|p}} – 24 hours, by another admin. See the comment by ItsZippy above. If the war resumes in 24 hours, the IP will not be in good shape if they just continue with more of the same reverts. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

::Interesting that the history of the editors making these claims shows multiple blocks for edit-warring. --[[Special:Contributions/76.189.121.5|76.189.121.5]] ([[User talk:76.189.121.5|talk]]) 20:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:19, 16 August 2012

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    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:Churn and change reported by User:OliverTwisted (Result: stale)

    Page: Paul Ryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Churn and change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    It's not the first, but it's a place to start: [1]

    Diffs

    Warnings

    • 1st warning at 4:02 by 1st editor: [7]
    • 2nd warning at 4:03 by 2nd editor[8]
    • My warning at 4:29 [9]

    Talk Page

    I suppose we should start here, rather than showing diffs: [10]

    Comments:

    This user does not seem interested in dispute resolution. The user and I do not have opposing viewpoints on the information being edited in the diffs above. This user is not the only editor involved in edit warring over the last 24 hours. I'm not sure what other steps can be taken. I have exhausted my abilities as a mediator at this point. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

    Edit numbers 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the remaining edits. The first two edits, in fact, have revealing edit summaries. As to the brown-noser issue, that is being actively discussed on the talk page and WP:BLP noticeboard, and I haven't put it back based on the ongoing discussion. The earlier reverts were because new information was added (a new source, The New Yorker), and there was further discussion on the Talk page and more editors wanting it in. Technically, there weren't three reverts; just two, and those were before the other user reverting got to the discussion page. After discussion started, I didn't revert. As to the warnings; after the last warning shown there, I didn't revert, so I have to question why this has been taken here. I am mostly not going to be around for a week to defend this (no, not because of this; will be back on August 23); I trust WP's admins to address this. I would actually ask the admins for page protection and routing everything through them. Churn and change (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Since 24 hours have already passed, we can dismiss this case, and move on. I'm not sure how to flag this for deletion. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

    Closing as Stale. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Mertface reported by User:Dr.K. (Result:24 hours )

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

    Please note: Times are in UTC.


    Previous version reverted to: [11]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 03:59, 12 August 2012 (edit) (undo)Dr.K. (talk | contribs)(Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Turkey.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

    Comments:
    Keeps edit-warring days on end against multiple users, adding original research and accusing the other editors of racism multiple times. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Warned. I am taking no action at this point. Mertface made one revert and then stopped. I warned the editor that they should discuss content on the article Talk page and should not accuse other editors of bullying or of bias. I also informed them that they don't have to technically violate the 3-revert rule to be reblocked if they recommence edit-warring after an EW block.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.191.12.12 and his obvious sock User:Paull_Barlow reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Semiprotected, 259200 seconds)

    Page: Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 71.191.12.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sock account Paull_Barlow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [13]

    • 1st revert: [14] - Note that he's reverting Paul Barlow.
    • 2nd revert: [15]
    • 3rd revert: [16]
    • 4th revert: [17]
    • 5th revert: [18]

    The IP started off on 96.231.119.38 originally, but is an obvious IP hopper from reposting the exact same misspelling-filled POV-pushing unsourced original research, and an obvious sock from imitating one of the people he's edit warring against.

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Seeing how he's created an illegitimate sock account to imitate another editor to continue to insert his unsourced editorializing fringe POV-pushing, the only thing that's keeping me from dumping this at WP:AIV is the conviction of the edit-warrior. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Semiprotected by LadyofShalott for three days. Nyttend (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:94.192.176.126 reported by User:Digifiend (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: The Beano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 94.192.176.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Full history here.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:94.192.176.126&oldid=507302290 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:94.192.176.126&oldid=507302406

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not much point since it's an unregistered editor. Warnings posted on personal talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:94.192.176.126&pe=1&

    Comments:

    The only possible source for the information he/she keeps adding back in would be either message boards or Facebook. Those sources cannot be cited per WP:SPS. Digifiend (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jojhutton reported by User:Aprock (Result: Page protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [20]

    • 1st revert: 17:23, 12 August 2012 [21] "removal of content a WP:OR"
    • 2nd revert: 17:29, 12 August 2012‎ [22] "only one editors opinion that they do not follow them."
    • 3rd revert: 17:31, 12 August 2012‎ [23]
    • 4th revert: 17:42, 12 August 2012‎ [24] "Discuss removal of content per WP:BRD"
    • 5th revert: 03:28, 13 August 2012‎ [25] "there's an ongoing discussion on this. Please join in."
    • 6th revert: 04:56, 14 August 2012 [26] "Still an open discussion. Outside source is now used"


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:40, 12 August 2012

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion begins at 20:13, 12 August 2012

    Comments:

    At 5RR in 12 hours, continued reverts without talk page discussion. Despite repeated references to talk page discussion in edit summaries, jojhutton (talk · contribs) has yet to join the discussion and continues to revert. aprock (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It takes 2 to tango: let's not overlook user:Galestars participation in this edit war.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 07:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been more than two tangoing here. Page protected for a few days. Jojhutton is strongly cautioned that a return to the edit war following the protection will result in a lengthy block, other editors are also requested to hash it out on talk please. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Minotaurgirl and User:Wolfcho reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: Both blocked for 24h)

    Page: Belle (Disney) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    h User being reported: Minotaurgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wolfcho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    • 1st revert: [27] - 6:39, 14 Aug
    • 2nd revert: [28] - 6:42, 14 Aug
    • 3rd revert: [29] - 6:56, 14 Aug
    • Warning of both users by Jim1138 at 7:02 / 7:03
    • 4th revert: [30] - 7:11, 14 Aug
    • 5th revert: [31] - 7:21, 14 Aug
    • 6th revert: [32] - 7:25, 14 Aug
    • 7th revert: [33] - 7:32, 14 Aug


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] - Wolfcho, [35] - Minotaurgirl

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

    Comments:

    Apparently, the question of the exact color of Belle's hair and eyes is of the utmost importance, and MUST be settled TONIGHT or EXTREMELY HORRIBLE THINGS WILL HAPPEN.... well, if you listen to Minotaurgirl and Wolfcho, anyhow. They're accusing each other of lying, well, the whole thing is quite the amusing spectacle of a catfight... too bad they're too involved to find the humor in it.

    Productive comments:

    Apparently, the color of Belle's eyes is quite the controversy. In reading the talk page, ALL of the "Edit requests" are in regard to changing Belle's eye color in the article. These go back as far as 26 June 2012.

    It seems that Wolfcho and Minotaurgirl each said their peace, writing fairly long epistles in the talk page, before today's little war really got going. After the edit warring began, the only talking was done in the edit summaries. Jsharpminor (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I know this is completely off topic, but this reminds me of the "something is wrong on the Internet" XKCD comic. I mean seriously? Large-scale edit warring over the color of a fictional character's eyes? David1217 What I've done 18:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm only aware of this thread because one of the parties filed a (completely premature) request for arbitration ... but as best I can tell, the page on which the edit-war was taking place was protected several hours before these blocks were imposed, and everyone has been telling these two editors to take it to the talkpage. Under these circumstances, it's conceivable to me that these blocks might not have been absolutely necessary.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Trasamundo reported by User:Santos30 (Result: 2-week protection)

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

    Since the discovery of America (1492) the territories were granted to the crown of Castile by Papal bull Inter caetera (1493). Castile was incorporated into the development of Spain in the Iberian peninsula during Spanish empire. But the new Spanish state emerged from Peninsular War was rejected by Latin American countries that made ​​a retroversion of the sovereignty to the People of Americas from the heirs of the kings of Castile (not the modern Spain).

    Trasamundo delete all information to try to explain the American Independence against Spanish Empire. kidnapped the article and impossed POV map and delete references and information. It is impossible put this references and explain it:

    It is impossible to upgrade the nationalistic map of Trasamundo of national Spain (Brown color. I only put the two crowns of Aragón and Castile (Brown and yellow color). And Trasamundo say it is "Agressive".

    The 3RR:

    Thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    The sockpuppet Santos30 kicked out of Wikipedia in Spanish [41][42] due to the impossibility to impose his POV in Wikipedia in Spanish, arrived to wikipedia in English to impose their POV.

    The lead map is consensuated since 2009. I explained to Santos30 why his changes are not valid.[43] But santos30 hides this information and he only accuses me of nationalistic.

    This was the article [44] before Santos30 was trying to impose their changes product from his personal concept which it cannot be mentioned Spain, and without taking into consideration the probided references. I have respected, or modified, or undone several changes, and I wrote in the talk page Santos30' bias with respect to the policies[45] and he has accused to me about obssesion with "Spain"

    Santos30 lies when he said that I impede to that references in the article, these references are yet included in the article. I have explained several times why they have to moved [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] and his response has been to write this report. All my statements in the article are justified in the abstract and in the talk page. Trasamundo (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I have not lied. Trasamundo delete all what I try to explain about the relation between Discovery-Americas-Crown Of Castile-Spanish Empire-Independence. The references is only for verifiability. Those deletions not have valid reasons but excuses. The obsession of Trasamundo is with eternal Spain. You can see in the talk. And he not care about neutrality, importance or verifiability of the contribution of other people that he deletes.
    I'm not a Puppet. But here Trasamundo not say that he talk about User Retired not expulsed before and not involved in the discussion, and Trasamundo not say that he gives and recive in Wp:es strong support by the person that kick me and said these ugly words about WP:en. But this is a problem of WP:es exclusively. But Trasamundo not say. Thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected for two weeks. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:173.0.254.242 and User:Cresix reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result:Page protected )

    Page: Mabel Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported:

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

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


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

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

    Comments:

    See my comments in my report below. I did not make 4 reverts, but as you can see in the links I provided, anon 173.0.254.242 made four reverts. He also did so in a previous edit war, which I have linked below. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Page protected. I have locked the article for 3 days for you the editors to work out the content dispute on the article Talk page. I am not going to get into how many reverts each party has made, or whether there was a warning before the last revert. Both sides are edit-warring in the spirit of the rule, regardless of whether any technical breach of the 3-revert rule has been committed. Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:173.0.254.242 reported by User:Cresix (Result:Page protected )

    Page: Mabel Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 173.0.254.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Article before reverts: [59]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mabel Simmons#Reversions

    Comments:
    173.0.254.242 has been reported previously for the very same edits. The admin took no action. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive189#User:173.0.254.242 reported by User:Cresix (Result: No action)


    Cresix (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, these same two users seem to have gotten involved in another edit war in July. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected. I have locked the article for 3 days for you the editors to work out the content dispute on the article Talk page. I am not going to get into how many reverts each party has made, or whether there was a warning before the last revert. Both sides are edit-warring in the spirit of the rule, regardless of whether any technical breach of the 3-revert rule has been committed. Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call, Bbb23. Thanks. For my part, I'm taking the article off my watch list for a while to let the dust settle. Cresix (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Often a good idea to step back in these matters and take a deep breath. Thanks for understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Armbrust and User:66.199.245.66 reported by User:spc_21 (Result: Both editors blocked)

    Page: Snooker season 2012/2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 66.199.245.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Comments: Both making it impossible to add a constructive edit to the page. Armbrust has broken the 3RR and the IP isn't helping matters at all. Spc 21 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Update: This is getting ridiculous. We have had 10 reverts by Armbrust and the IP is just adding it back.[reply]

    Comment If you block both of us, than please also semi-protect the article to avoid the unregistered user returning under a different IP address. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Why are you behaving so odd Armbrust? Are we not supposed to talk things through constructively on talk pages instead of reverting 15 times? You know better than this and the article should also be protected from yourself. Look at the history of it now..... It looks ridiculous. Spc 21 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The edit warring continues. This is ridiculous. Ryan Vesey 20:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that's 16 reverts now I think - I thought 3 was really bad lol. Why have you moved it to the bottom of the page in the hope no one sees this Armbrust? For an experienced editor to revert 16 times is staggering. Spc 21 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    New requests go to the bottom, as a side note 2.100.234.199 (talk · contribs) also violated 3RR at some point, but then continued to use the talk page. Noom talk stalk 20:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the 20-odd reverts then. I was blocked a few months ago for accidentally making 3! Go figure.... Spc 21 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While this is ridiculous and a block is easily appropriate, I suggest temporary full protection. I feel the problem could be resolved at that point and we could avoid blocking the editors. Ryan Vesey 21:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But I want to add constructive edits to the page. Why should I and the countless other editors be punished for the actions of 2 people? Spc 21 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VictoriaR2020 reported by MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Lesley Arfin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: VictoriaR2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 20:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 06:01, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "This section includes verifiable sources and direct quotes that illustrate Arafin's writing "style".")
    2. 15:51, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Information has to be *FALSE* to be slander. Furthermore, you don't decide what's relevant. Stick to indexing porn stars and transexuals.")
    3. 18:32, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Quotes are accurate and verifiable.")
    4. 19:32, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
    5. 19:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Significance is subjective. I've seen entire sections devoted to a writer's "controversial" work or positions. This is a verifiable pattern in her work. It's worth noting.")
    6. 20:24, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
    7. 20:31, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Contribution deleted for no valid reason.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The formal edit-warring warning was not posted to the editor's Talk page until after her last revert. However, the discussion on the article Talk page clearly put the editor on notice of her conduct and she was clearly aware, despite being a newly registered account, of what edit-warring is, before her last revert. Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Embattled Grady and User:Fry1989 reported by Esoglou (talk) (Result: Fry1989 indeffed, Embattled Grady warned)

    Page: Coats of arms of the Holy See and of the Vatican City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:54, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Removed Escutcheon")
    2. 19:59, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Please provide a reference")
    3. 20:04, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507426297 by Fry1989 (talk) I want a reference")
    4. 20:12, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507427274 by Fry1989 (talk)")
    5. 20:34, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Request citation")
    6. 20:47, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "failed verification")
    7. 20:52, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "You are attempting to give a escutcheon using heraldic notation. I want a source.")
    • Diff of warning: here


    User being reported: Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:41, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "no shield for Holy See")
    2. 19:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507424998 by Embattled Grady (talk) not correct")
    3. 19:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
    4. 20:04, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "It's not in the escutcheon section, it's in "other elements", there's no reason to remove the description")
    5. 20:11, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "if you remove it again I will report you for vandalism, it has been explained to you that "other elements" section is for symbols that are non-heraldic, while the "escutcheon" section is for sumbols that are, you have been warned twice")
    6. 20:39, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "the citattion is your eyes, it's clearly two keys crossed, one silver and one gold, with a silver papal crown lined in gold, that doesn't need a citation")
    7. 20:42, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "There are already three citations in the introductory sentence which confirm this, how many do you need???")
    8. 20:45, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "5 damn sources")
    9. 20:49, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "use your damn eyes, it is beyond obviously a silver key and a gold key crossed in saltire, crowned with a papal crown, that doesn't need a citiation it's infront of yoru eyes!")
    10. 20:56, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "FFS")
    • Diff of warning: here


    • Comment - Updated previously incomplete report, although EW appears to have slowed since warnings.

    —Tgeairn (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually half of my supposed "warring edits" can be cut out if you actually look at the details of them. For example, #8 was after User:Embattled Grady added a "citation needed" tag, and that edit by myself was simply adding the requested citations, clearly not an warring edit. Or look at #1, that was a minor edit I made myself against my own previous edits to correct the description I had previously added to the infobox, removing part of it that belonged in one infobox but not the other one. Or look at #10, that one was me giving a simple English description in the infobox, after User:Embattled Grady kept removing the heraldic description. That edit wasn't reverted by him because it's what he wanted (a compromise) and it seems to please him. Almost every single edit listed includes a concession in it, an alteration from the previous one in an attempt at compromise with User:Embattled Grady, based on our "discussions" (if you can call them that) on his talk page and the article page. I'll be happy to lay out each concession in my edits, they're not blind forceful reverts as the term "edit war" suggests, and I've clearly been trying hard to compromise with the user. I would also like to know why I was not notified of this discussion? Isn't that one of the rules? Fry1989 eh? 23:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't cull the edits fully as some of the reverting was to combined edits, and it was in no way one sided (which I assume is why the original reporter reported both editors instead of just one) so I tried to keep in the edits that each editor was reverting that were made by the other. Yes, notification is mandatory. I checked your talk page history as you had already blanked the 3RR warning, and it looked like you had been notified and blanked it. I now see that I was mistaken, and I apologize. As the dispute has stayed on the article talk page for the last few hours, hopefully this will get resolved without this notice having to go any further. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it's one-sided (I don't believe I have even inferred it), but I am saying that 80-90% of my edits on that page today include some sort of compromise in them, changing this and that which the user disliked about the the previous version of the page. His edits on the other hand, were completely unconstructive blind removals of content he didn't like. I tried telling him on his talk page several times that if you see a problem with something that can be fixed, fix it, don't just remove it all. He never did fix anything he didn't like. I did though, I fixed several things he didn't like, I've compromised very hard on this despite sources because of his "problems", and I'm still doing it now on the article talk page, and getting slapped on the hand despite my efforts. Fry1989 eh? 23:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It does look like you are working hard to find a compromise, and those efforts are appreciated. The only issue here is whether or not the involved editors are edit-warring, and particularly whether or not the WP:3RR bright line was crossed. No one is interested in slapping any hands that are doing productive work! Cheers --Tgeairn (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean anybody here is slapping my hands (including yourself), I mean I'm trying to lay out some options on the talk page of the article, and they are being overlooked/ignored. In all probability 3RR was broken by other one of us or both, but the issue is more complex then a simple revision rule. Looking at the big picture, I've tried hard to compromise, and fix things that my "opponent" (I use that term loosely) disliked, and the majority of my edits follow that purpose. Fry1989 eh? 23:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned as to Embattled Grady. The formal warning of edit-warring came just shortly before EG's final revert. EG apologized for it on their Talk page and hasn't done anything since. Cutting the editor some slack.Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:89.240.173.122 Reported by User:85.167.111.129 (Result: Page fully protected)

    Page: Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 89.240.173.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    I haven't bothered to list the ones not marked "undid revision of" as there is sufficient evidence.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

    Comments:
    Not sure I did everything correctly, but I have at least been able to provide sufficient diffs of reversions. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DustyCoffin reported by User:Guerillero (Result: No violation)

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

    Time reported: 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Previous version reverted to: [72]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

    7 reverts over the last 3 days. I feel like this is a bit of overkill --Guerillero | My Talk 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation. The 5th revert is not a revert. Thus, there are 6. If you don't count the first edit the user made, there are 5 - and, as you say, over a 3-day period. It's been over 12 hours since the user's last revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:Belchfire (Result: both warned)

    Page: Paul Ryan (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: [diff preferred, link permitted]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]


    Link to one of several Talk discussions, purely for edification purposes. Talk:Paul_Ryan#Krugman

    Comments: Due to Ryan's very recent VP nomination, this article is currently the favorite Silly Season hang-out for all political edit warriors. This particular user was just blocked for edit-warring a little over 2 weeks ago, but nevertheless has managed to rack up 5 reverts in well under 24 hours. I came in late and nobody else has thought to warn him, but remember... it's only been about 16 days since his last block. He visibly counts off his reverts for all to see ("1RR", "2RR", etc.), ostensibly so he can't be accused of going over his God-given 3-revert entitlement. Strangely, he openly admits to being at "5RR" in his last edit summary. What was he thinking?

    • Still is well versed in the EW policy. He was actually a complainant 2 days ago [87]

    To put this in context, Lionelt is the editor who openly stated that he plans to get me permanently banned by reporting me as often as possible.[88] He's reported me here three times here, including this time. The first time, his report was not taken seriously. The second time, he got me blocked by lying about my edit count; he treated two adjacent edits as separate.

    See below; it was Belchfire's turn.

    I was asleep so I couldn't correct his error. I'm awake now, so let's see the play-by-play, in reverse chronological order:

    1. Changed "the the" to "the". This could have been marked Minor. [89]
    2. Restored Nobel prize mention; labeled as 2RR and last, as I'm keeping myself to 2RR voluntarily. [90]
    3. Restored Nobel prize mention; labeled as 1RR [91]
    4. Mistakenly restored cite, followed immediately by full self-revert [92]
    5. Restored "conservative", labeled as 1RR [93]

    Now, I'm guessing no sane person would imagine that #1 or #4 count. I've been trying very hard to stay at or below 2RR, but Paul Ryan is so active that #5 had scrolled out of sight, causing me to lose track of my count for the day. If I had seen it, I would not have performed #2. If I could revert it now, I would, but it's too late. So I accidentally hit 3RR but , as before, Lionelt Belchfire miscounted it to 5RR so as to make me look bad. How amusing.

    As I said, I'm holding myself to 2RR and actively participating on the discussion page. I believe we have a consensus forming for "conservative", but it's not clear whether the Nobel prize mention will make it. I would suggest that this self-restraint and discussion is the exact opposite of edit-warring. On the other hand, given the "errors" in this 3RR report and Lionelt's history of "errors", I am rather unhappy with his behavior. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

    Self-correction: Belchfire filed the report, not Lionelt. In my defense, Belchfire and Lionelt work very closely together, backing each other up as part of a small group of conservative editors that generally does not like my edits. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I see how I confused the two: Belchfire filed but I saw Liolelt's name right at the bottom. As I said, the two work closely together. Now that I redacted myself here, I have one more comment for now. It looks like Belchfire read my edit comment for the "the the" copyedit and missed the intentional irony. The comment reads:

    "(5RR: MASSIVE REVERT to show the conservatives what for!!!!!)"

    I would have thought that the 5 exclamation points, the over-the-top craziness of the comment, and the fact that it claims that removing "the" counts as a MASSIVE REVERT would all be obvious signs of humor. Guess not.

    If you have any more questions, I'll try to keep an eye on this. If I don't respond promptly, please drop a note on my talk page. Otherwise, have a pleasant day. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Right, that isn't a revert. But he is still edit warring, and he has violated 3RR, as shown here:
    [94] re-added "Nobel Prize" which is a revert of Arzel's edit here [95]
    [96] re-added "Nobel Prize", a revert of Kenatipo here [97]
    [98] re-labelled Empower America as "conservative"--a revert of JournalScholar's edit here [99]
    [100] re-labelled National Review as "conservative"--a revert of Journal Scholar here [101]
    – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 09:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the 4RR at Ryan isn't bad enough, Still is currently at 3RR at Focus on the Family
    [102] a revert of Littlegreenrosetta [103]
    [104] this is a revert of Belchfire's edit here [105]
    [106] this is a revert of NatGertler [107]
    He seems to be prone to "3RR accidents." Based on his behavior, I have to wonder how committed he is to 2RR. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 10:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, Lionelt is generating spurious claims faster than I can keep up. Please give me a minute to research this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How about 48 hours? – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 10:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, let's see the play-by-play for FotF:

    1. I don't see what this is supposed to be a revert to. In fact, this looks like when I first came up with the phrase "Christian adoption", replacing the less accurate and contested "adoption by Christians". I also added a cite here and my edit comment reads "See talk", where there's a substantial discussion. [108]
    2. My comment here was "1RR (there's probably a revert in there somewhere), see talk". In other words, I wasn't even sure that it was a revert, but I labeled it so as to err on the side of caution. [109]
    3. The comment says "see talk", but I don't see what this supposed to be a revert to. [110]

    At most, we've got one revert in here, and absolutely no hint of edit-warring. Is Lionelt going to keep this up all night? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I was about to post on that subject. Lionel/Belchfire, whilst not doubting your claims, can you give diffs as to which edits Still was reverting each time? Since they mainly aren't "obvious" reverts, like in an edit war, and there are something like 300 revisions in the last couple of days, it's not at all clear to me what I'm supposed to be looking at. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black--I have added the specific details of Still's edit warring. It should be clear now who he is warring with, and what POV he is trying to force into the article. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 11:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now the details for the reverting at FOTF have been added. This editor is at 4RR at Paul Ryan and 3RR at Focus on the Family. He is not observing his own voluntary 2RR, he is not complying with 3RR, he is edit warring across multiple articles with multiple editors. He was blocked 2 weeks ago. His disruption at these high traffic articles is intolerable. I'm not even gonna go into incessant incivility he engages in on talk pages. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 11:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The disrespect he shows veteran editors like Guy Macon and Arthur Rubin is disgusting. People who make positive contributions and are actively engaged in building an encyclopedia.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 11:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is 3RR, not ANI. If you wish to report me for how you imagine I treated Guy and Arthur, feel free to do so. But if you do, I'll bring up Guy's attempt to OUT me and Arthur's ongoing incivility and admission of stalking. So, really, you need to stop trying to poison my reputation. Stick to counting up reverts CORRECTLY. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. I was hoping that if I stopped responding Still-24-45-42-125 would eventually get tired of accusing me of wrongdoing, but it is clear now that that is not going to be the case Still-24-45-42-125, put up or shut up. Either file a case against me for this alleged "outing" (which consisted of telling someone the result of clicking the geolocate link on a Wikipedia IP user contributions page) or stop accusing me. Admins, I would be quite happy if you were to impose an interaction ban here. I never edit the political pages this user typically edits and he never edits the engineering/technology pages I favor, so there should be no occasion for either editor to violate such a ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And having wasted my time looking at Focus on the Family, Still is correct that he's not anywhere near 3RR there. I'm starting to get very unimpressed by all this, you know. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I first ran into this group of editors / pages when several of them started filing cases at WP:DRN where I volunteer. (otherwise I have no involvement) There were DRN cases at:
    Political positions of Mitt Romney
    Focus on the Family (twice)
    Thomas Sowell
    Chickfila
    -- all highly visible political pages.
    This looks like a liberal/conservative war between editors with POV issues, along with attempts to use various noticeboards as weapons. Are they here to improve the encyclopedia, or are they here to vanquish their opponents? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point, I'm going to wait for Lionelt to show what each "revert" is a revert to. Until he does his homework, I'm not wasting my time. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Lionelt is grasping at straws here. This edit is not a revert. Originally, it read "adoption for Christians" and was uncited. After the "for Christians" was questioned, I agreed that it wasn't the right phrase and needed citations, so I changed it to "Christian adoption" and cited it.

    If you think the two are the same, you've obviously ignored all the discussion on the talk page. Anyhow, this isn't even technically a revert, and it's absolutely not any indication of edit-warring. In fact, when "Christian adoption" was reverted to "adoption", I left it alone. I'm still in the process of discussing it on the talk page, and may need to escalate, but I'm content with leaving it not quite right in the meantime. Does that sound like edit-warring?

    At this point, I'm running very low on patience. Lionelt has a track record of "accidentally" miscounting my edits, and this is just more of the same. He's also on record as planning to get me blocked as often as possible until I give up. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So, the basic conclusion is that, yes, this 3RR report is obviously bogus, but let's wait until they report another 3RR report that's obviously bogus. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase is originally "adoption by Christians" and Littlegreenrosetta removes "by Christians" [111]. You add "Christian" to make the phrase "Christian adoption[112]. Normally we would give you the benefit of the doubt. But because of your history of past and present edit warring we are justified in counting this as the POV revert it is.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 11:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, you're not the one who gets to decide what is and isn't a revert. When you try, you seem to always count it wrong. I don't think any admin who actually looks at the two will agree with you. Second, you're trying to establish that I'm edit-warring, so your argument can't be based on the assumption that I'm edit-warring. That would be circular logic, a fallacy. Frankly, it reeks of desperation on your part. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Now he's claiming that [113] is a revert of [114]. It's not. Look for yourself. This is just bullshit and I'm sick of it. I'm reporting Lionelt on ANI right now for this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you read the definition of a WP:REVERT to an article? Quote: "any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors". That means per article, not per specific content in the article. For example, if you revert something in the lede twice, and then something further down twice, that's 4 reverts. See edit war where it amplifies "3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period". Indeed, you can be edit-warring with a single revert, period dangerouspanda 12:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you compared [115] with [116]? There are ZERO reverts in it. I think I can have as many non-reverting edits per day per article as I have time for. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are here because you went to 4RR at Paul Ryan. The FOTF is merely offered to show that this is not an isolated incident, but a pattern of disruption. The EW at Paul Ryan is fully blockable.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 12:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ::::You are lying. I am here because Belchfire pretended I went 5RR. When that fell through, you pretended I went 4RR. And FotF failed to show any evidence of edit-warring. So, in conclusion, you are a liar. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And the above is blockable ... care to strike and rephrase the personal attack? dangerouspanda 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So very sorry. He's not continuously lying about my revert count to get me blocked. He just doesn't know what a revert is or how to count up to to 5. WP:AGF but not WP:COMPETENT. Better? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Still24 has been blocked before for EW very recently, made accusations in various places including Jimbo's talk page, been edit warring on ultiple articles, been called on it, used incivil language and makes personal attacks [117], implicit threats to edit war on other articles [118], accuses others of "coaching" editors to attack him [119] , responded with complaints of his own [120], [121] clueless as to why the EW rules exist, accuses others of "stalking" him [122] as nauseum. And the interesting colloquy at [123]. The editor does not only have EW as his problem on Wikipedia, alas. Collect (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a clear attempt to distract from the fact that there's no sign of me edit warring. As it's not relevant to this report, it gets the hat. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Read what "personal attack" means. I suggest your Stetsoning of all posts you dislike is likely to be found wanting. Collect (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I haven't witnessed any 3RR violations by Still at FOTF. His POV pushing is a bit annoyning, because when challenged he seems to refuse substantive discussion by saying that the sources agree with his view without expounding, or drumming up specious arguments to support his POV. Is this edit warring? No, but its not helpful either. Little green rosetta (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's not edit warring, why are we talking about it on ANI/EW? I'll be glad to discuss POV issues on the article page, but not here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw some comments above which implied you were skirting with EW on FOTF. I was simply saying here, that while I see other issues with your editing that I don't see you EW at FOTF. Simple as that. Little green rosetta (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Noone said he violated 3RR at FOTF. The violation of 3RR occurred at Paul Ryan.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 12:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you said I edit-warred on FOTF, but you kept coming up with reverts that weren't reverts. It was pretty sad, really. And since none of this amounts to evidence of me edit warring, I'm going to hat. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I object to Still's hatting of my remarks. And have asked him to stop. I have every right to revert him. However I desire that this thread stay focused on the 4 reverts in the blue box above clearly establishing edit warring.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 12:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to request that Still stop hatting comments. This feature should never be used lightly, and seldom by involved parties. Little green rosetta (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I see why I reverted Kenatipo's edit: he incorrectly marked it as minor while claiming WP:PEACOCK (which doesn't apply). My impression was that this edit was made under misleading circumstances; an attempt to sneak in a change. When I confronted him politely, he eventually admitted that he was wrong to mark it minor and then claimed that Paul Krugman was a clown, which supports my original hunch.[124] Gotta love neutrality. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing that was reported today constitutes edit-warring, therefore I should not be blocked. The various attempt to prejudice this proceeding by bringing in false and irrelevant claims are despicable, which is why I hatted them. The fact that you won't leave them hatted means that there's no reason for me to continue. If you can't already see that none of the reported edits constitute warring or you're easily distracted by personal attacks, then that's that. I'm off to do real-life things. Feel free to close this one way or the other. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still-24-45-42-125, you were blocked about 2 weeks ago for edit warring and are here again. 3RR is not a right and you can still be blocked again for edit warring without going past 3RRs. --Mollskman (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned Still-24-45-42-125, comments like "to show the conservatives what for!!!!!", even when clearly meant in jest, give the impression that you are here to push your point of view more than to neutrally improve the encyclopedia. The rest of your edit history does not unambiguously refute this characterization. You would be well advised to follow WP:DR; the process can be slow and frustrating, but compare that to the editing experience you have now. Your comment elsewhere that you intend to restrict yourself to two or fewer reverts per article per day is a definite step in the right direction. I am not going to impose any editing restriction at the moment, but you are definitely looking at a topic ban if your editing continues in this vein.
    • Warned Belchfire, you are being disruptive. Productively editing the articles with an eye to impeccable sourcing and neutral phrasing will get you what you want significantly more effectively and with less hassle than your current path.
    • Warned Lionelt, you are still being disruptive. Knock it off.
    I am not going to protect the article for now, as it is currently in the news and needs immediate updates. The calmer editing environment in the past few hours is instructive. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    On the advice of council, I'm not going to comment on the above action. However, I do want to add for the record that I recommend that anyone who imagines I might be edit-warring take a quick look at my edit history on the talk page of this article. Or just look at the Talk:Paul Ryan for my signature. I think you'll clearly see that, rather than try to force my edits down anyone's throats through warring, I'm actively participating in consensus-building discussion. That's all. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's not too late to comment, I'd like a ban from my talk page against Still-IP. I've told him to stay off my talk page and he refuses to do so because he has a clear intention of constantly harrasing me. You can clearly see the diff's here on the first page [125] ViriiK (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why?
    A) He was browsing through my edit history of preventing vandalism and when he was the uninvolved party, he questioned why I made changes everytime I reverted a user other than him. [126] [127] [128] [129]. He went onto lecture me that he's free to post on my talk page despite my telling him not to post on my talk page whatsoever. See: [130]. He also posted fake warnings against me which were disregarded since they were not edit-warring and he was the user edit-warring. [131]. Also on my talk page, he accused me of supposedly violating POV when I deleted a POV that this user inserted in. [132] ViriiK (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a noticeboard to deal with edit warring on noticeboards. That is all. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the diff's? He accused me multiple times of edit-warring when it was not the case at all and proceeded to harass me at my talk page. ViriiK (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tide rolls has taken care of this elsewhere. Please start a new section if there is new edit warring or follow dispute resolution for any other issues. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:88.104.26.6 reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: prot)

    Page: British Freedom Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 88.104.26.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [133]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [140], also Talk:British Freedom Party#Far right

    Comments:
    Editor is quite obviously the same as 88.104.30.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), responsible for the first revert. Revert 4 is either the removal of {{UK far right}} or the removal of "far right" from the lead, both are repeating changes from the first 3 edits. 2 lines of K303 12:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DanielUmel reported by User:I7laseral (Result: Declined)

    Page: Timeline of the 2011–2012 Syrian Civil War (from May 2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Diff of 3RR warning: [145]

    Diff of the user reported undoing by warning: [146]


    Only 3 reverts. The first one reported as a revert was original content added by myself that L7laseral then started to remove without explanation. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    On the contrary, I was the one who added that paragraph and you kept on making unnecessary changes to it without explanation. Here is the diff that proves this. [147] I7laseral (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you aware of what is a revert? I did not revert anything you did with my first edit, just added a word and bolded a part. Not a revert by any mean as I did not touch your addition. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined. I'm going to repeat what I say here in the section below. Both of you have four reverts if the first change to the article is counted. I7laseral's first change is more of a revert than Daniel's, but no matter. Because some count the first change and some don't, I could either block you both or block neither of you. I'm choosing the latter in the hope (a) you will learn something from this without a block and (b) you will stop bickering and behave more maturely (I wanted to block you more for the bickering than for the edit-warring). Some words of advice. Assume your first change to the article is a revert. Don't hope the admin won't count it. Second, any change to the article of any material counts as a revert. It doesn't matter whether the content is "related". It doesn't matter how minor the change is. Read the policy. Now stop battling, stop bickering, and go do something useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:I7laseral reported by User:DanielUmel (Result: Declined)

    Page: Timeline of the 2011–2012 Syrian Civil War (from May 2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: I7laseral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Easy to see that it is four pure reverts in less than 24 hours. Two of these have the "undid" mark and the two other are reverting my additions. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you out of your mind? These four diffs you showed have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. Please re-read the rules. Your allowed to edit and revert, but you are not allowed to revert the same content more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. I7laseral (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." --Onorem♠Dil 12:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seriously filing a tit-for-tat report? You're both edit-warring, and should both be blocked accordingly dangerouspanda 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    I have not broken the 3RR rules, I7aseral did, that's the difference. And the Wikipedia rules is "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period."

    So yes, I7aseral you broke the rule. And don't pretend you did know it. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretend that I don't know it? I7laseral (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If you were to notice, we both stopped editing the page upon receiving the warnings. The only difference is that DanielUmel deleted my warning. If you check the first and second diffs that DanielUmel provided, you will see that both editors are different than DanielUmel, so I didn't revert an editor's content more than three times. I7laseral (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To break the 3RR rules, you don't need to reverse more than 3 time the same person. 4 reverts of 4 different editors in less than 24 hours in the same page is a break of 3RR rules. You broke it definitely.--DanielUmel (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I have a link to wikiguidelines page which specifically says that EatsShootsAndLeaves? 4 different editors of different content still counts? I7laseral (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined. I'm going to repeat what I say here in the section above. Both of you have four reverts if the first change to the article is counted. I7laseral's first change is more of a revert than Daniel's, but no matter. Because some count the first change and some don't, I could either block you both or block neither of you. I'm choosing the latter in the hope (a) you will learn something from this without a block and (b) you will stop bickering and behave more maturely (I wanted to block you more for the bickering than for the edit-warring). Some words of advice. Assume your first change to the article is a revert. Don't hope the admin won't count it. Second, any change to the article of any material counts as a revert. It doesn't matter whether the content is "related". It doesn't matter how minor the change is. Read the policy. Now stop battling, stop bickering, and go do something useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WBRSin reported by User:Vvarkey (Result: 24 hours for both)

    Page: 2012 Mangalore Homestay attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: WBRSin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [148]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [156]

    Comments:

    vvarkey (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Take a look at the talk page Talk:2012_Mangalore_Homestay_attack before commencing action. It shows the real nature of malicious and slanderous edits Vvarkey is indulging in and resorting to vandalism when the article was changed to a NPOV by me. And now he has the cheek to report me for vandalism. WBRSin (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hemmeband17 reported by 208.38.59.161 (talk) (Result: 24 h)

    Page: Kaitlyn (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Hemmeband17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaitlyn_%28wrestler%29&oldid=507327389

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

    1. 03:03, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
    2. 05:49, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
    3. 10:59, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
    4. 19:01, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
    5. 00:45, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
    6. 03:06, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "")

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hemmeband17&oldid=507549014

    Comments:
    I've warned user before on talk page, and myself and others have commented in edit summaries about rules they've been breaking, even adding hidden text about not breaking these rules yet they continue. Is adding fansite as living person's official website, going against Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling by adding poorly sourced moves and week-by-week accounts (also a violation of WP:NOT) --208.38.59.161 (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Yes, Hemmeband17's version is decidedly not policy compliant, but someone really should have started a real talkpage discussion in the month or however long this has been going on. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eaglestorm reported by User:TiagoTiago (Result: no action)

    Page: Talk:The 6th Day (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Eaglestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [157]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161] (I didn't explicitly mentioned any specific rules, but i did ask if we needed some thirdparty to help us settle things)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The reverts are being done in the talk page itself, i already tried having a conversation but User:Eaglestorm keeps reverting my comments as you can see above.

    Comments: As i wrote in the reverted comments i consider adding information about those aircrafts to help with improving the article, and therefore a request for more information about them does belong in the talk page of the article about the movie.

    --TiagoTiago (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am tempted to block the both of you for playing at silly buggers, but let us see how this works instead. TiagoTiago, when someone removes a comment per WP:FORUM and WP:TPO, please only replace it if you also add some explanatory text or refocusing on the discussion at hand; your most recent version probably just barely qualifies; please try explaining your point more plainly. Eaglestorm, when someone disagrees with your assessment of relevance to improving the article, please invite them to elaborate before hatting or removing the content again. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm commenting back. I believe this entire report is NOTHING MORE than some attempt by a bitter editor who cries "why are my edits not considered? wahwahwah" and wants to circumvent WP:FORUM to generate some discussion about a fictional piece of technology. Such talk is not allowed on any talk page, and he has the nerve to label observance and enforcement of policy "rude". I never saw any valid points about the guy's diatribes, anyway.--Eaglestorm (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LuckyWikipedian reported by User:Still-24-45-42-125 (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Family Research Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: LuckyWikipedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Different ones in different cases, so please see my parenthetical comment for each.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [167]

    Comments:
    This is a brand new account that is a pure SPA: it has only edited this one article. We've managed to get them to come to the talk page, but they're not even slowing down with the reverts while we try to talk to them. I may have missed some, but they're on at least 4RR.

    • Yes, please. This editor has finally posted on the talk page, but only to the tune of "You're all nuts, I'm right" and then right back to massively editing the article against consensus without discussion, removing sources, so rapid fire we cannot even follow what s/he's doing. A brief block to get them to slow down, and to allow the regular editors to assess the changes and impress upon this user the importance of working with others would be greatly appreciated, and will ensure the article isn't completely rewritten to a single pov by a newbie who does not understand our policies. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly an SPA and fairly disruptive, removing important content, using edit summaries to discredit the contributions of other editors and ignoring attempts by other editors to reach consensus on the talk page. I think some cooling off time may be in order. - MrX 21:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and using talk pages to assail the integrity of other editors. - MrX 22:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:79.138.3.117 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 24h)

    Page: Talk:Jew Watch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 79.138.3.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 03:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    1. 13:41, 14 August 2012 (edit summary: "/* bias */")
    2. 16:48, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507490644 by Walter Görlitz (talk)")
    3. 16:55, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "/* bias */ talk pages are not for censoring either;)")
    4. 16:59, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "i see. would you kindly explain why its not constructive?=) try debating why instead this should or should not be in the article")
    5. 18:55, 15 August 2012 (edit summary: "you never said why it wasnt constructive. if you have anything you want to add or discuss why it shouldnt be in the article, please do so. edit warring is indeed not allowed here")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Comments: User is insisting on posting long rants about how "jews... lobby for media control". It's been removed and hatted, but the ip continues to edit war and post more in the same vein, even past his EW warning. —  — Jess· Δ♥ 03:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kkm010 reported by User:71.212.77.233 (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Volkswagen Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [169]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

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

    Comments:Tried to engage the user on his talk page rather than the article talk page. The only feedback I got was unconstructive and non-specific. His edits introduce WP:ACCESS violations and are not aligned with the guideline on template:infobox company. I believe that I complied with WP:3RR, but I'm new to WP and could also be in error. Regardless, I tried to resolve the problem and Kkm010 would not engage in a helpful discussion.

    71.212.77.233 (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You're both equally at fault. We don't assume good faith only of the person who screams the loudest that the other editor is a vandal. Page is protected for 1 week while you two figure this out. Try to get some third opinions. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xenophrenic reported by User:174.48.32.232 (Result: )

    Page: PolitiFact.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [175]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Did not break 3RR rule.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The editor refused, after much prodding on my part, to take his issues to the talk page.

    Comments:
    This editor continues attempting to remove a massive amount of sourced content on this page for reasons he refuses to clarify. He points back to his original "reason," given in a previous edit summary: "rem sentence not supported by source; (only says 'runs the risk of...' and 'sometimes do...')." Not understanding what sentence he was referring to, along with being only semi-fluent in Wikipedia edit summary speak, I asked him to translate what he meant into the Queen's English onto the talk page, and he smugly replies "ibid," before the page was locked by an administrator.

    He is the only editor trying to remove this content, he hasn't even attempted to gain consensus on the talk page after I asked him to take his problems there, and he seems to not even be pretending to have a legitimate reason.--174.48.32.232 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing truthful in the above comment is that I "Did not break 3RR rule", whereas the reporting IP has. Boomerang?
    The article is already protected, at my request. See this RFPP, and please note my reasoning.
    I have left multiple requests on the article talk page for the IP to engage in discussion about his repeated edit. The IP has never responded.
    The IP's problematic edits have been reverted by several editors, not just me, and he has several warnings on his personal talk page regarding this.
    Please advise the IP to utilize the article Talk page and address the concerns raised there about his edits, instead of revert-warring. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.189.121.5 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Protected)

    Page: Hotel Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 76.189.121.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 16:02, 16 August 2012

    1. 1st revert: 16:12, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507703270 by TBrandley (talk)Per previous edit comments, my version removes all unnecessary content/wordiness and corrects all grammar/usage/redundancies.")
    2. 2nd revert: 16:49, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507708344 by AussieLegend (talk)edits clearly explained in orginal edit, totally unnecessary content removed, redundant wording in sentences, poor grammar, misordered content")
    3. 3rd revert: 16:54, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507709580 by AussieLegend (talk)I did original rv so you are obligated to take to talk page, my edits were to improve content per previous comments, stop EW over good edits")
    4. 4th revert: 17:02, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507710594 by AussieLegend (talk)I did the first rv, so no other editors should've done a rv (especially a complete rv) w/o going to talk page")
    5. 5th revert: 17:20, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507712710 by Drmargi (talk)Collusion among editors is a violation that is cause for a block. I made the original rv and improvement edits, so others need to go to talk page.")
    6. 6th revert: 17:49, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507716467 by Bihco (talk)There is a talk page discussion going on. I made the original edits/rv's of content, so no further rv's should have been done w/o talk page discussion.")
    7. 7th revert: 18:01, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507717803 by TBrandley (talk)Stop rv my edits w/o discussing the legitimate concerns raised in the talk page discussion, these rv's are hurting, not helping article")
    8. 8th revert: 18:07, 16 August 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 507718547 by TBrandley (talk)See talk page discussion. If anyone disagreed with the orginal rv of content (mine), it should have been taken to talk page then.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183]


    • Diff of attempt to engage editor on his talk page: [184][185][186][187]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [188]

    Comments:

    The IP made some edits that condensed all of the article prose into the lead and remove cited, encyclopaedic content, claiming some of the content was redundant. This was reverted by an editor with an appropriate edit summary.[189] The IP reverted to his version. I then reverted, explaining in my edit summary that the content was not redundant and it was reasonable encyclopaedic content. The IP reverted that, so I reverted to the status quo, noting in my edit summary that he should stop edit-warring and discuss on the article's talk page.[190] I then posted a note on the IP's talk page.[191] However, by that time the IP had revrted again. Subsequently the IP has continued to revert, accusing editors of collusion in several edit summaries.[192][193][194] Other editors have reverted the IP,[195][196][197] but the IP continues to revert back to his preferred version of the article, despite having been warned that he has breached 3RR,[198] and even after it was suggested that by revrting back to the status quo he may avoid a block.[199] --AussieLegend (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not much better on the article talk page. The IP editor expected to be thanked for his/her edit, at least metaphorically, and has made a series of bad-faith assumptions, which have in turn driven his/her edit warring. Any sort of consensus building doesn't seem to be on the horizon; he/she wants the edits accepted, unchallenged and unchanged. --Drmargi (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Fluffernutter has fully protected the page, so blocking the IP now would not prevent the edit war. It seems that discussion was difficult because an edit war was happening at the same time; perhaps now the page is protected, they will be more willing to discuss. If not, and if edit warring continues tomorrow, a block may well be warranted. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Right now, all they're willing to do is finger-point and blame. I have no confidence that once the PP is lifted in 48 hours, the IP won't simply resume the edit war. --Drmargi (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AussieLegend and Drmargi are among the editors who initiated the edit-warring, so it's disappointing that they have chosen to come here and completely misrepresent the situation. But fortunately, any administrator can read my original edit comments and, more importantly, my clearly outlined explanations in the article's talk page discussion. And it should be noted that Aussie has not even partipated in the talk page discussion, choosing instead to simply revert and ignore the issues meant to improve the article. And although Drmargi has participated in the discussion, he has failed to address any of the specific, substantive problems I outlined. If there were some minor tweaks that were necessary after my edits, that would have been fine. But to simply make a wholesale revert of my entire edit does not indicate an intention to improve the article's content, but rather a focus on simply preventing any changes to it, warranted or not. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmargi didn't even touch the article until after you had already breached 3RR. I reverted initially explaining that content that you have removed was not redundant and was in fact reasonable encyclopaedic content and your only response was to revert me with the excuse "edits clearly explained in orginal edit, totally unnecessary content removed, redundant wording in sentences, poor grammar, misordered content)", although two editors had clearly opposed your edits. When I subsequently asked you to discuss the matter on the talk page and pointed you to WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, you did exactly what you did when TBrandley pointed you the WP:LEDE, you ignored it. Then you reverted my edit and deleted what I had written from your talk page.[200] Your edit summary was somewhat ironic, as you accused me of doing exactly what you had already done to two editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @ItsZippy - Given that the IP reverted 8 times despite being told numerous times not to do that, why not to do it and what they should do, I'd say a block is warranted now. They can't say they weren't aware of what they were being told, because they replied to edit summaries and kept deleting what was posted to their talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected – 24 hours, by another admin. See the comment by ItsZippy above. If the war resumes in 24 hours, the IP will not be in good shape if they just continue with more of the same reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that the history of the editors making these claims shows multiple blocks for edit-warring. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=507736338"