Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475
476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
318	319	320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:89.110.19.176 and 91.122.6.3 reported by User:Nightscream (Result: )

Page: Alan Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.122.6.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 89.110.19.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First edit by 89.110.19.176, which is traced to the Russian Federation
Revert by Nightscream
Revert by 91.122.6.3, which is also traced to the Russian Federation
Vanamonde93 reverts 91.122.6.3's revert and leaves a message on that IP's talk page
91.122.6.3 again reverts Vanamonde93
Nightscream reverts the article again, and try to caution 91.122.6.3 in his edit summary and on 91.122.6.3's talk page about edit warring.
91.122.6.3 reverts my revert, and makes no acknowledgement of my message or the policies and guidelines I linked him to.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Record of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (actually the reported user's talk page): diff

Comments:

User:Florian_Blaschke reported by User:Ragdeenorc (Result: 24 hours)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragdeenorc (talk • contribs)

Florian Blaschke has really only reverted three times across multiple edits. I'm seeing no attempt at discussion by you nor warn the editor before you reported him, and it's already been explained to you that the POV you're pushing is undue. Accusing someone of vandalism when it isn't can amount to a personal attack. You seem to be here for only one reason that doesn't particularly seem in line with WP:NPOV, and you also have a precocious edit history.

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely running out from the actual thread. I am neither pushing POV nor can my edits be classified as "undue", which I'll try to explain below. Just because Florian says so it doesn't mean his claims are correct. And its not me who is obliged to use the disscusion page, since I am not the one who removed >> sourced << material. Anyway... in fact there are three different cases:

^{Case 1:} Florian removed RELEVANT etymological elaborations of the scholar Mario Alinei. Since the etymological section can't be a case of "undue", because of the simple reason no alternative etymology EXISTS, it is a clear case of hardcore POV by Florian.

^{Case 2:} Next, he removed a substantial component of NPOV-relevant material in the section /*/ Kurgan hypothesis /*/, which has always EXISTED at the article. Again, a clear POV case by Florian.

^{Case 3:} This time he completely removed the entire Etymology section INCLUDING the Sergei Starostin reference. This can't be an "undue" case but only a clear POV case by Florian.

A similar POV case has also happened here, but fortunately prevented by User:Yagmurlukorfez. There are various users who were confronted by Florians stubbornness and his frequent, seemingly harmless fitted, insults such as "Pan-Turkist" or "Paleolithic Continuity Theory™" (1, 2). --Ragdeenorc (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear-cut editing dispute with no attempt to discuss the matter from either party. The content is not exempt from the three-revert rule and no warning was issued by the reporter. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:82.132.234.244 reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.132.234.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

17:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614253216 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
17:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614252402 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
17:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614251794 by NeilN (talk)"
17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614251161 by NeilN (talk)"
17:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614250817 by NeilN (talk)"
17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614204460 by Mdann52 (talk) cant delete previous discussions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned on previous account/IPs about EW. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. If they jump IPs, semi-protection will be forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Favonian: FYI, they are a know sock on a dynamic IP. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey92 reported by User:Wikiweb10011

Page: Talk:Madison McKinley (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jersey92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

03:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614702314 by Wikiweb10011 (talk)"
05:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614716033 by Wikiweb10011 (talk)"
06:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614723752 by Wikiweb10011 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: (talk)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (talk) (talk)

Comments:

Abusive tagging from user jersey92 without any the actual improving of the article (all tags and no actual writing or benefiting for the article) -- Edit warring and abused tagging reported for user Jersey92 (talk). Also, vandalism reported for user Jersey92 --

Noted abusive tagging warning to: Jersey92(talk) -

Reported Vandalism: Jersey92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – actions evidently indicate vandalism by user Jersey92 for article: [1], Abuse of tags. Repeated inappropriate tags without any actual contributing to the article. ignored warnings. talk 06:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reported by Wikiweb10011 (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:I.Bhardwaj reported by User:Faizan and User:Smsarmad (Result: Both articles locked)

Page: Economy of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: I.Bhardwaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 614280140 by I.Bhardwaj (talk): Reverting vandalism by IP. (TW)"
Consecutive edits made from 21:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) to 21:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
1. 21:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "please see the link"
2. 21:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Added {{original research}} tag to article (TW)"
Consecutive edits made from 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC) to 20:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
1. 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "link says "40 per cent of population is below poverty line", this is latest 2013 figure, List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty has outdated figures"
2. 20:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "revenue figure is Rs 1939bn in 2013"
3. 20:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "labor force is 59.74 million according to Labor Force Survey by Pakistan Bureau of Statistics."
4. 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "occupations by sectors according labor force survey of Pakistan Bureau of Statistics"
5. 20:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Added {{original research}} tag to article (TW)"
6. 20:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "citation needed tags"
Consecutive edits made from 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) to 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
1. 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 20:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 20:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "latest figure for labor force"
6. 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "occupations by sector"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring with multiple editors at the article, he is a suspected sock of User:Sudhir7777. Filing an SPA too. Edit-warring and source misrepresentation. Fai zan 06:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Part of the edit warring is with an IP that another administrator has blocked for disruptive editing. Indeed, you reverted an edit that the administrator had just reverted before you, meaning you reverted the admin. As far as I can tell, the editing on the article is a nightmare. Please also see my comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudhir7777.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: 22 October 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: EW warning

Comments:
Repeatedly trying to add the same content. Earlier the user edit warred to add a slightly different version of it (1, 2, 3). -- SMS ^Talk 07:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and why you only reported me? There was Mar4d who reverted me calling the source editorial which is actually a comprehensive report from a reliable source, diffs [6], [7]. I was also reverted by his sock IPs, see the history. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles have been Page protected (full) for one week. During that week, I suggest the parties resolve the content dispute. If someone thinks this is a behavioral issue, then, depending on the relief sought, WP:ANI or WP:AN would be a more appropriate venue than here. As for the sock puppet issue, the report filed against I.Bhardwaj has been closed with a finding that they are not a sock puppet of Sudhir7777.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sky0000 reported by User:Chema (Result: Blocked; warned)

Hi, I need an administrator to do something about this user; he spends a constant edit wars. I already have explained in a thousand ways and this user does not seem interested in anything. Items En Otra Piel and La Impostora were protected because of this user, all it does is add primary and information sources without references, apart from irrelevant information.--Chema (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

He hasn't explained me anything, he just undoes all my edits without no reason, I have told him a lot of times, that Wikipedia's not for him it's for everyone. He just wants , that people would not get more information about cast. My edits are necessary, because of person, who doesn't understand, why he/she died in telenovela and can't watch telenovela from internet, he wants to know and then he can use Wikipedia. Please, that person doesn't fight only with me, he had also war in article Lo Que La Vida Me Robo. He harms Wikipedia. I hope you understand me. Sky0000 (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just enough to see discussion, Where I have left several messages. I explained that their issues are irrelevant; if someone wants to know how the characters die you see the soap opera that was created for that. This user and was previously blocked by the same.--Chema (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at behavior of Chema. He has been also blocked for editing this information. I talk about , when he didn't see an episode, where was death, and he can't watch it from internet. Then he sees Wikipedia. Chema is perhaps scared of deaths and because of it, he says it's irrelevant information. I hope you understand, that he harms Wikipedia. Sky0000 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've blocked Sky0000 for one month for sock puppetry and his puppet, User:Bbbbb000, indefinitely. That said, Chema, you have been blocked recently for edit warring. The way you are going about this is inappropriate. I'm not sure if you suspected sock puppetry, but you don't appear to claim it as an exemption from edit warring. You are warned that if you persist in battling in articles rather than engaging in content dispute resolution or to an appropriate venue for behavioral issues, you risk being blocked again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Warned)

SMcCandlish made several changes to this template documentation earlier today, some of which was controversial (it relates to a long-standing dispute at WT:MOSICON that has no clear consensus). I reverted some of the changes because I felt that they were not NPOV and others because they were wrong (i.e. claiming that the standard template usage was deprecated, which has not been agreed anywhere). SMcCandlish then reinstated his preferred version. I again removed the controversial elements, and asked him to respect WP:BRD. He reverted again, as did I, and again requested that he respect BRD.

SMcCandlish has since added his preferred text for a fourth time, and basically stuck two fingers up to me by saying You've hit WP:3RR in his edit summary. The edit summary also states "BRD is not policy." I really don't feel that this is acceptable behaviour, and would appreciate some neutral oversight of what has gone on. Thanks, Number 5 7 13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Warned both editors. Need to discuss this on the template's talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: Thing is, we're not both simply editwarring. I'm making policy-based edits, someone else is reverting them and doing nothing constructive, nothing conductive to compromise, just taking a WP:OWN position, and I'm restoring my material and (this is the important part), then majorly re-editing it to try to address the other party's concerns (to the limited extent they make sense). I've fully justified what I'm doing, in detail here, Number 57 is putting up objections I've already shown to be demonstrably false on their face. That's the D in BRD. Running to ANEW to WP:FILIBUSTER any further progress is an abuse of process. Nothing useful is going to come out of re-forking the discussion to the template talk page, when the only issue in question is actually the application of MOS:ICONS to football articles more broadly, whether via this template or not. The proper venue for that discussion is the one already being used, WT:MOSICONS.

Details:

Unclean hands: [8][9][10][11][12][13]. Also, WP:CANVASSING at WT:FOOTY [14]. At my user talk page, his explicitly stated assumption of bad faith[15], and a personal attack in an unveiled accusation of dishonesty.[16] WP:BOOMERANG comes to mind.
My restorations of the policy-supported edits to that documentation page have been progressive, and respective of the concerns raised, addressing them to the extent they're defensible at all. The guideline and policy facts under dispute are already covered in detail, so I needn't rehash them here, other than to say a) MOS:ICONS very specifically and clearly addresses when flag icons are and are not permissible, b) the template in question is frequently used in ways MOS:ICONS says no to, and c) its documentation was actively encouraging this. One editor refusing to see that MOS:ICONS says what it says does not mean that the guideline doesn't say what it says. The same editor's misunderstanding of the larger discussion at WT:MOSICONS, which was a failure to reach consensus to change MOS:ICONS, doesn't mean there "is no consensus" at MOS:ICONS. The objections of a WP:FOOTY editor on "our project does it our way"-type grounds raises serious WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN concerns, too.
There's actually more than one OWN concern. Unrelated to the MOS:ICONS disagreement, Number 57 also reverted my use of an example of traded players to illustrate the |other= parameter,[17] (note he reverted rather than fixed it) and told me that there's a Wikiproject (i.e. local) consensus against such information being added to articles in this form.[18]. But I actually copied this material out of an association football article, Boca Juniors, and the only other person arguing favor of Number 57's views about any of this, used that very data in that article as exemplary of what football/soccer articles should be doing with flag icons! I couldn't make this up, it's in the first three paragraphs opening the huge discussion about maybe changing MOS:ICONS [it did not arrive at a consensus to do so] to be more lax with regard to sports articles: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles. At any rate, whether the editors participating in a particular project agree on something among themselves does not mean they can dictate to others what they can write in relevant articles, much less how they document examples in a template related to relevant articles.
Number 57's reverts have simply been reverts, which he cannot justify or explain other than vaguely and/or on false bases, and with no attempt at compromise or understanding.
This isn't about "preferred text" but about whether the instructions in the documentation comply with MOS:ICONS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy (I actually reverted myself and deleted quite a lot of my text, while retaining that compliance, which Number 57's reversions keep undoing, willy-nilly, with no effort to improve and find common ground).
It's perfectly civil to remind someone of WP:3RR, and certainly much nicer than hoping they didn't notice and will revert again, then running to WP:ANEW to get them blocked. Everyone is responsible for their own emotions, and I have no control over whatever "fingers" Number 57 wants to imagine in place a simple reminder. I've also reached the 3RR point myself now, probably (even if my last version is substantively different and not simply a revert.) Not a big deal; there's lot of other stuff to work on. Four in rapid succession would be a big deal, and that was the point of the reminder.
WP:BRD isn't policy, and one of the first things it says are that it isn't mandatory. It's not "unacceptable behaviour" to note this, or to act on it. BRD does not work when one side has their facts wrong and will not even examine them to see if they do. Especially if they do not understand WP policy well, and (for example) cite WP:NPOV as their revert reason, when NPOV applies to article content, and there is no "neutral point of view" to maintain about whether templates should or shouldn't comply with site-wide guidelines like MOS:ICONS.
I have actually satisfied WP:BRD anyway, by opening a discussion at which I explained the edits and their rationale under current policy and guidelines, and why Number 57's complaints are not valid. He then simply reiterated the complaints and reverted again, meanwhile I've re-re-explained why he's provably wrong, and then bent over backwards to address his concerns anyway. At some point, doing what the guidelines and policies say is more important than continuing to try to discuss the matter with someone engaging in WP:ICANTHEARYOU tactics or simply confused. WP:FILIBUSTER does not permit someone with an obstinate objection to indefinitely postpone editing progress just because they're disagreeable or don't understand something. Meanwhile, WP:BOLD is policy.
See also WP:Revert only when necessary#Unacceptable reversions, paragraphs 2, 3 and 5, all of which apply to Number 57's reverts. By contrast, when I've reverted I've immediately and extensively edited further to try to assuage Number 57's concerns.
Finally, the kinds of MOS:ICONS-impermissible [mis]uses of flag icons that Number 57 is trying to stop me from deprecating in the template documentation weren't even rationally being used anyway, because the parent template, Template:Football squad start, puts a "Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality." notice at the top of the table, making any attempt to use the flags to show something else (e.g. players' countries of birth or residence) is already self-contradicted, and the resulting tables would be confusing and make no sense to readers! Ergo, Number 57's entire disruptive abuse of process has been about absolutely nothing of consequence.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think both of you have something to add to this conversation (noting that, at least for myself, this is something merits-wise not something I'm familiar with). I've taken note of your diffs above, SMcCandlish. I think it'd be prudent for both of you to take a breather from this page for now. I think we can all agree that in the broad spectrum of disputes on WP, this is pretty lame. At the moment, I don't have the time to go through the entire history of this issue to work it out, but I'd be more than happy to work with you two on--at the very least--trying to get a common understanding of what's going on. At the core of most disputes, as it seems with this one, is a failure to agree on past consensus (if there was one) or process. I'm a member of the Mediation Committee so I have some experience with that if you think that'd be worthwhile. Cause, whatever the case, seeing these fast-paced reverts isn't going to be productive at the current rate. Fair? --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; some neutral mediation would be helpful. To get up to speed on this without reading 50,000 words, it's very instructive to read the two short archive pages and the MOS:ICONS debates they relate to. What this shows is a crystal-clear pattern of some fractional minority of WP:FOOTY participants not being happy with MOS:ICONS (ever), and filibustering all attempts to get this template to comply with it. It also handily summarizes at least 3 years of repeated (cf. WP:FORUMSHOP) attempts by them, at great lengths, to get MOS:ICONS changed to reflect what they want, none of which have been successful. The archives also link to various debates from WT:FOOTY and its archives that demonstrate the same pattern - years of attempts to comply with MOS:ICONS, and handful of tendentious editors blockading this process again and again. No other sport wikiproject's participants evince anything like this level of recalcitrance.

MOS:ICONS has not changed in the least on bad ideas like misusing icons to indicate misc., unclear things, like what country someone was born in, what country their last team was in, what country they reside in, what country they're a citizen of, etc., or using them them even when they're redundant (e.g. putting an Argentina flag in front of every player name in every use of this template in an article about a sub-national team from Argentina, when we already know everyone on every team in the article is on an Argentine team). The archives show that various WP:FOOTY participants (among others - this is not, or should not be, about "what a wikiproject wants" – it is not a hive mind) have been working for several years in good faith to comply with MOS:ICONS and have simply been blocked at every turn by the holdouts, so much that they have to create multiple content-forked alternative templates to work around the filibusterers (Template talk:Football squad player/Archive 2#Flags mentions at least two such forks, which are still in use). Part of my goal here is to massage these templates toward merging (not just the association football ones). It's notable that not a single code change I've made has been reverted or even questioned. Number 57 and his lone (now back-peddaling) supporte at the WT:MOSICONS sub-thread about this simply don't want me to talk about MOS:ICONS in the documentation. Last I looked, WP doesn't operate on any sort of hush-hush policy.

The ultimate source of the disagreement coming from a handful of association football editors (note: pretty much no one else, and not all editors of that topic) is that they note that some off-WP sources use flag icons completely indiscriminately, so their idea is that WP "must" do so too. Their side of the very long debate at the top of WT:MOSICONS consists of little but variants of this theme, repeated like a broken record. It's a terrible misapprehension of the "follow the sources" idea, mistaking off-WP stylistic shenanigans for something akin to reliable sourcing of facts about a topic; it's the WP:Specialist style fallacy. WP does what WP needs to do for itself stylistically, via WP:MOS and subpages thereof, based on broad (not inconsistent, subject-by-subject) consensus about what works best here for our readers. Our collective decision-making in this regard are not tied to what topical sources like soccer fansites and football magazines are doing with flag icons.

Here's a key quote, from a football/soccer editor, at Template talk:Football squad player/Archive 1#RFC: Changes to Football squad templates to comply with WP:MOSFLAG (23 July 2010):

[D]iscussion on the rights and wrongs of whether we should have flags, and if so, whether they should be expanded, has been going on for years at WT:FOOTY. The consensus [there] has always been that we must represent nationality somehow. Apart from those whose attitude is "to hell with flag policy", there was also broad acknowledgement that ideally we needed to try to address the problem of non-MoS compliance. Therefore, that is exactly what we have tried to do here. There was no need to consult WP:FOOTY again; the correct process was to find a solution, see if it worked, and then discuss the way forward if for some reason it didn't.

This is important for three reasons: 1) It's shows that progress with guideline compliance has been blocked at this template alone for almost four years, and more broadly at this project for several more years before that. Resolution of this is very long overdue, perhaps even WP:RFARB-overdue. 2) Some members of the wikiproject consider that project itself to be forging its own consensus to always use flag icons, no matter what, despite the fact that we have a site-wide guideline to definitely not do that, obeyed by everyone else; this is an undeniable WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy problem. A participant in that project is clearly observing that others at it have a "to hell with flag [guidelines]" attitude. 3) Even back in 2010, opponents of MOS compliance were using precisely the same "you haven't discussed this with WP:FOOTY and gotten our consensus to proceed" tactic. That 2010 quote from a WP:FOOTY editor trying to do the right thing is correct: "There [is] no need to consult WP:FOOTY again." We have a well-accepted, stable guideline (which its straggling detractors have failed to rend apart), we have obvious ways to improve the code and its documentation, and we have everyone's buy-in but (today) two editors (presumably a few more might pop up from previous versions of this debate if they were prodded to do so).

Disclaimer: I'm one of the principal authors of WP:Manual of Style/Icons, and I've previously tangled with WP:FOOTY participants over MOS compliance, but not at this template, and not in any depth over flag icons. Much of the non-article editing I do is finding where wikiprojects are violating LOCALCONSENSUS policy to push anti-MOS positions and behaviors, and then I work to unravel those knots of discord. This prolonged period of insular, organized "wiki-insurrection" needs to draw to a close. These disputes are only WP:LAME in their particular, minute details. Taken as a whole, they represent an ongoing tide of erosion against Wikipedia's unique form of consensus-building, a pressure applied largely unconsciously by topically-based special interests in the form of wikiprojects, frequently more concerned with mimicking offline publications in every possible way on WP:ILIKEIT / WP:IKNOWIT bases, than writing the encyclopedia in the ways we collectively determine best serve our ultra-broad readership. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Thank you for the in-depth review of the situation. I think I understand where you're coming from far better now. I don't want to flood this noticeboard thread with intimate discussion, but I'd be grateful if (@Number 57:) could respond with (a) areas of SMcCandlish's summary above they agree with and (b) their own perspective of the situation. Nothing too detailed, but if we could work on avoiding further issues on these pages--at least try, that is--I think we could spare a lot of grief for everyone. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: I disagree with pretty much everything SMcCandlish has written above - it's a highly biased viewpoint and not a true reflection of the situation. I won't waste time responding to each individual bit that's wrong, so here's a more accurate (and brief) summary of the situation:

The wider (and main) dispute is not over whether MOSICON should be implemented or not (pretty much everyone accepts that it's an official guideline) but is instead about the interpretation of what the guideline says. There are some sections of it that are crystal clear (e.g. "Avoid flags in infoboxes") and with which there is little problem with implementation (I myself remove flags from infoboxes whenever I see them). However, the subject of the dispute is {{Football squad}}, which produces a table of a club's current team. The guideline currently states that "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." What the dispute is therefore about is whether the nationality of players is pertinent in the context of club football (the table is used on articles about clubs (see an example here). There appears to be agreement amongst WP:FOOTY members that nationality is relevant to club football. However, some of the enforcers of MOSICON (who do not write about football) disagree. The entire purpose of the discussion at WT:MOSICON was about clarifying the wording to try and put a stop to this endless debate. As you can see, there was no agreement.
There is a secondary issue over the country name not being displayed on the template, which is recognised as being a problem as is non-compliant in that regard. The editor who started the discussion at WT:MOSICON proposed an amendment to the template to resolve this, but this was ignored (and therefore not implemented) as the enforcers focussed only on the complete removal of flags from the template.
This more specific dispute (over the table documentation page) revolves around SMcCandlish attempting to insert their opinion (i.e. the enforcer view) on the debate into the template's documentation. As you can see here, i did not revert his entire addition to the template, but only removed wording so as to couch the issue in neutral terms (i.e there is a dispute) rather than make a clear judgement on which side was right or wrong, which is what SMcCandlish's additions were an attempt to do. His changes to the template also included the claim that the common use of the template (with flags) was deprecated. This is clearly not true, as there has never been a discussion that resulted in this being agreed. Number 5 7 12:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, an entire essay could be written about this fallacy: "the enforcers of MOSICON (who do not write about football)...." Oh, wait, we don't need, to – there are already two formal policies about it: WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Number 57 reiterates this thinking frequently, e.g. with "There appears to be agreement amongst WP:FOOTY members...", as if never understanding that a wikiproject is just a page at which some editors agree to collaborate, it is not a rule-making body.
Second, and we all know this has already been addressed in detail at WT:MOICONS: Using flag icons (at all, ever) for purposes of showing someone's birthplace or country of residence (the disputed purposes this template is being abused for) are specifically forbidden in the "Unacceptable uses" section. This is one of the very "sections of it that are very clear". It's basic, incontrovertible logic: If we already know for a fact that these uses of flag icons are not appropriate then they cannot magically be decided to be appropriate on someone's whim just because they seem pertinent; the "pertinence" provision cannot be applied to uses that are already disqualified for other reasons. By way of analogy, if you know that stealing is illegal, it doesn't matter how much you want or need something, it's still not okay to steal it. The dispute is not therefore about whether the nationality of players is pertinent in the context of club football. That's totally irrelevant, because it does not override the rule against using flag icons to show birth, citizenship or residence nationality in such a way. If it needs to be included, then use the |note= parameter, and don't insert a flag there, either. There is no rational path from "we want to include this information" to "violate clear guidelines against flag abuse instead of just presenting it as text, and then editwar to keep it out of guideline compliance". The guideline is fully supportive of showing sporting nationality with flags and a text country identifier, when it's useful to do so, and the template itself says that it shows the formal FIFA sporting nationality with a note at the top of the template that's very clear about this. But editors like Number 57 insist on abusing it to show other forms of nationality anyway, against both the template's own wording and against MOS:ICONS in at least two sections. What "the dispute is therefore about" is tendentious editwarring and filibustering in violation of two policies and a guideline, to thwart attempts to document the template properly so this blatant abuse of it stops. No one has ever made a WP:IAR case about this, and it's unlikely that a plausible one could be mustered. It's pure WP:ILIKEIT. Some (not all - see quote above and previous debates where plenty of WP:FOOTY participants are trying to get their fellows to comply with MOS) editors who participate in that project just really, really, really like flag icons, and no logic against applying them in unhelpful ways seems to sway their emotional, subjective attachment to them. Well, WP:Get over it.
Third, no one in the debate has ever suggested completely removing flag icons from the template; "the enforcers focussed only on the complete removal of flags from the template" is patent falsehood, and a red herring. The idea is not even part of the conversation. I.e., that was a non-substantive, misdirecting response on Number 57's part.
Fourth, Number 57 does not seem to understand what "deprecated" means. If a template can incidentally be bent to actions that a guideline or policy says should not take place, then those [mis]uses of the template are, by definition, deprecated. "there has never been a discussion that resulted in this being agreed" Wrong. The entire history of WP:Manual of Style/Icons and its extensive talk page archive are that discussion, it just didn't happen to be all about football, because the world doesn't happen to revolve around football, and it is not any more important a topic here than other topics. This entire "deprecation" stuff has been a pointless red herring, however, as the re-re-re-draft (presently the locked-down text of the /doc page) not longer even uses the term. That was another non-substantive, misdirecting response on Number 57's part. And his note about what he did and didn't revert doesn't even make sense: The table in question wasn't one I added, it was the original, MOS-violating example in the documentation when I got there! What Number 57 reverted (among many other things) was the observation that the example unequivocally violates provisions of MOS:ICONS.
Fifth, The entire purpose of the discussion at WT:MOSICON was about clarifying the wording to try and put a stop to this endless debate. As you can see, there was no agreement. Yes, which means nothing at MOS:ICONS changed, so it's all still applicable. This debate is a waste of time.
Sixth, yet another red herring is the "country name not appearing in the template" matter, which is not connected at all to this dispute over documenting the template to stop mis-applying the flag icons to non-sporting nationality. (Number 57 and I even both agree on what the solution to that separate issue is.) That's three attempts at misdirection in one post. Anyone trying to hand-wave that much instead of sticking to the actual topic doesn't have an argument.
Seventh, referring to people actually trying to comply with policies and guidelines as "enforcers" is at best the fallacy of argument to emotion and ad hominem, as well as a violation of both WP:Assume good faith (note same user's previous blatant accusation of bad faith) and WP:Civility, even if it stops short of WP:NPA. It's no different from labeling anyone who disagrees with this (or whatever) MOS rule to be "wikicriminals".

Finally, Number 57's response simply evades almost every substantive point raised, and re-iterates arguments already debunked in multiple forums. One cannot use a claims of brevity to refuse to actually engage in a debate without effectively conceding it. And the conciseness claim can't be taken seriously, since what Number 57 really did is waste space and time inserting a whole trio of extraneous arguments. If this continues to protract along similar pointless, time-wasting lines, I'm perfectly happy to take this to WP:RFARB, honestly. It's been several years since ARBCOM last looked at this kind of insular "our Wikiproject is its own sovereign fiefdom that can make up its own rules" nonsense and restrained it. That's how we got WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy to begin with, but various projects are still not taking it seriously. This is actually an ideal test case in at least five ways. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

76.99.126.199 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Semi)

Previous version reverted to: 23 June 04:17 (first rv.); [19] (subsequent rvs)

Reverts:

Warning: [20]

Attempt at discussion: [21]

Comments:

The three IPs, 76.99.126.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 157.130.51.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 208.80.105.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), are evidently the same user; all resolve to the same geolocation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Indefinite semiprotection. The problem is long term socking plus warring by IPs who don't wait for consensus on the talk page. Editing of this article is subject to WP:ARBMAC. Behold the vastness of the existing protection log. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarnetteD reported by User:82.8.252.13 (Result: IP blocked)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.8.252.13&oldid=613180701, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.8.252.13&oldid=614351222 and Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Question_regarding_categories

Comments:
MarnetteD has chosen to ignore the discussion, enforcing their own point of views with over four reverts in some instances. Tried to gain consensus to remove the category, failed, but has proceeded to enforce their own POV regardless. Editor has a history of 3RR, but in this case has crossed the line by inventing consensus, abusing a block time, and now claiming "BRD". In short, tendentious/battlefield editor who needs a smack on the wrist and told to avoid WP:OWN as well as a disregard for IP-editors, WP:BITE, not conforming to WP:CONSENSUS and inventive revert claims. Editor failed to address the comments raised at the CFD page or my IP talk page, despite admin involvement. Has a bullyish attitude, low-tolerance for IPs and fantastical interpretation of guidelines as "strict policy" in an anti-WP:BURO style manner. As a result of his inability to holster this attitude his reverts and proving disruptive, made with an authoritativeness unwelcome in a collaborative environment, lacks civil graces, and despite WP:IAR being raised to make efforts, this editor clearly wants to "champion" the articles he watches and prevent anyone doing anything against his personal ideals. Further to the point, editor has never made any attempts to confirm that there are no sources, as he claims, and has made reverts blindly, disrespecting the efforts made, ignoring all common sense. Looking back through theie edit history we can see a massive amount of reverts made by this editor, often with weak reasoning. This editor lacks collaborative sense and is highly motivated by ownership, which affects anyone trying to better a wide selection of articles which bear his scrutiny. No editor has the right to mass-revert another editor's contributions and "warn" them with uncivil gestures, and ignore them, it is the height of pig-ignorance, and prevents anyone getting anything done respectably. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarnetteD

Quoting from Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.

The IP has, from the beginning [22] refused to acknowledge this. The conversation continued for awhile and got heated. The IP then launched into a series of unfounded "Personal attacks" and accusations so I disengaged from their talk page and opened a discussion that wound up here Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Question regarding categories. The discussion there was sidetracked into what to do with the cat and my main point was not addressed. Neither was the cat given full approval to be added "ad hominum" to the article for any actor who had appeared in a TV western, thus, there was no "consensus." It should be noted that a) I did not take the category to CFD and b) I did not remove it from actors that had sourced info that the western TV genre was a defining part of their career. The fact that this report contains yet another personal attack is not surprising. Nor is the lack of proof of any "ownership" on any of the articles involved. Yes, reverting vandalism means that any editors editing history will contain reverts. I also have a large number of edits designed to improve articles, but that is a matter for an RFC/U and not for answering the accusations posted here.

One last thing. Ignoring this concepts regarding categories was the chief problem that got User:CensoredScribe blocked. Note: I am not saying that the IP is CS. He/she is not that editor. Nor am I asking that this IP be blocked, in spite of the personal attacks, I am mentioning the CS situation as my experience of the guidelines and policies used there lead me to understand that they apply here. MarnetteD|Talk 17:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does anyone "need approval" to do anything which contributes to the project? - unnecessary WP:BURO claim.

You removed Eric Fleming from the cat. Clearly you don't know what you're doing if his career is "not defined by Western TV acting" - laughed my ass off at how bad that revert was.

You've also removed John Payne (actor). - Funny that, the lead makes reference to his career in Western TV. Your link to WP:DEFINING states that something in the lead is worth of being a category. Like Fleming, you simply removed because you prefer throwing blind punches than knowing where you're hitting. Evidence that you're being tendentious, not logical.

You failed to gain consensus to remove actors names from the cat, CFD acting as a fom of BRD. Yet you went ahead and removed them anyway, and are using "personal attacks" as a diversionary tactic here to sidetrack that point, that you invented consensus in bad faith, manipulated a block period, misquote guidelines as "policy" and have reverted close to breaching WP:3RR. It's all about your POV and not about anything being discussed.

"Chief concepts" are simply those, concepts, not strict policy, not WP:5P, guidelines. You've removed cats that have tertiary sources leaving no sourcing. It's not a NPOV.

You appear to have cherry-picked who to remove from the cat. Again, POV reverts done without due care. Mistakes have been made in that you have failed to address. I am reluctant to "BRD" with you because it's all "me, me, me" and no give and take.

82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that, with this post, that the IP has expressed an intention to "sock" edits in this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 17:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no it didn't, it expressed nothing of the sort, it simply stated that "I could sock if I wanted to" it doesn't prove that I do, have or will. Shouldn't put words into people's mouths, it has a habit of coming back and biting you on the ass. Misinterpretation is also your problem when it comes to policy, so don't start with complex people until you grasp the basics of wiki. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing where the violation of 3RR allegedly took place? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this page does not state that it is only for 3RR reports. It says: "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule." MarnetteD is an edit warrior who falsifies consensus in order to perform his reverts, which is why there is a problem here. 3RR is easy to evidence, but an editor who manipulates consensus and policy to achieve their own ends needs investigating because they are a threat to the collaborative process. He keeps moving the goal posts to suit his own POV, changing his tune several times whereas I've maintained one line of reasoning all along. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether that's the case or not, a violation of 3RR requires more than 3 reverts. Do you have links to more than three reverts on the same page? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained it to you in plain English, what else do you want? I'm not reporting a case of 3RR violation, the top infobox doesn't say this ANI is "only for 3RR violations", I'm reporting it as "edit warring" which is also in its remit. If you're going to respond to this case please at least look at the purpose this page has and don't subject it to something it is not exclusively designed for. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week for personal attacks or harassment by Diannaa.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For reference the duck test strongly suggests this IP is blocked user MarcusBritish (talk · contribs). See also 82.8.250.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), in the same IP range. —SMALLJIM 11:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense. Thanks for your work in getting to the bottom of this Smalljim. MarnetteD|Talk 16:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:108.64.172.207 reported by User:ProgGuy (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:

An anonymous editor is repeatedly adding "death metal" to the article Mr. Bungle despite it being unsourced. Repeated warnings have gone ignored and no attempt has been made to justify these edits. ProgGuy (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this edit war for several days now and want to say that I believe ProgGuy is equally, if not more at fault than 108.64.172.207. For four years, "death metal" has been listed as a genre in this band's infobox based on one of the many styles the band does perform. Recently, ProgGuy decided that he did not want that there and not only removed it but added genres that he decided on himself, without any talk page discussion. None of the existing or added genres were sourced within the infobox itself. However, death metal has been sourced as one of the styles the band played in the "Styles and Influences" section of the page. Ska punk, frequently added by ProgGuy, however, has not. When ProgGuy decided to place a warning on 108.64.172.207's talk page, I made mention of these facts and suggested talking about genres on the band's talk page instead of making the decision himself. For that, I was accused by ProgGuy as being the coward behind the death metal changes. I can assure you that I am not. If an admin wants to do an IP check on me, by all means please do. In fact, he is also accusing other articles, such as the Mudvayne talk page, of being the anonymous account "vandalizing" the Mr. Bungle article. I just find ProgGuy to be very hypocritical in this situation and it needs to be addressed. In my opinion, BOTH users need to handle this better and discuss it with the many other users who edit the page. Accusations of vandalism against a user who is just maintaining information that has been accepted and sourced for at least 4 years is unjust. Additionally, the uncivil approach via unfounded accusations is not appreciated either. Thanks, NJZombie (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected Semi'd for three days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skylar3214 reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Little Things Give You Away (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skylar3214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 03:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC) to 04:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
1. 03:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 04:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

08:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC) "/* The Little Things Give You Away */ new section"
20:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC) "+comment"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

21:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Necessary? */ +comment"
22:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Necessary? */ +comment"

Comments:

I don't know why only two reverts are showing up, but if you look at the exchanges on User talk:Skylar3214, User talk:Sergecross73, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Little Things Give You Away (2nd nomination) and Talk:The Little Things Give You Away you will find that the user is being particularly bullish regarding maintaining the redirection of an article, based on a consensus seven years ago, despite the newer version of the article meeting WP:GNG (in my opinion at least). If someone would please help me ram home that consensus can change, the flagrancy with which he violates WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT and that the song thoroughly deserves an article (I have started an AfD for the article because I suggested it and he ignored my suggestion, making clear my argument and his). I take the view that if the song was not notable, it would probably have been AfDd at the time it was created due to its DYK nomination, where one editor actually said "Good work, Launchballer, for taking a contested article and making it Wikipedia-worthy!". Sorry for rambling, but I do feel passionate about this and will be shortly going to bed to calm down. Laun chba ller 22:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing/edit warring. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the other party was also blocked for edit warring, about 45 minutes later. Just for the record.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tuvixer reported by User:Jaakko Sivonen (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User Tuvixer is edit warring in this article against the majority view of users on talk page, and is now breaking the 3RR rule. He is reverting without discussing; though he has left a couple of messages on the talk page, he has refused to wait for responses before acting. From the edit summaries above you can also see that he is using personal attacks, accusing users who disagree with him of being vandals. Previously he has also accused other users of "trolling" for disagreeing with him:[35] --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tuvixer reported by User:Gabrielthursday (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Tuvixer briefly came to our attention a few weeks ago when he made a personal attack in an edit summary: [45] He was warned on that occasion: [46]

In this episode, User:Tuvixer has accused both editors maintaining the page of vandalism on their user talk pages: [47] and [48] as well as in his edit summaries (see diffs above). Finally, the edit being reverted by Tuvixer was the result of a long and detailed discussion on the talk page that took place over a week and which he did not participate in. His conduct, in light of the efforts of myself and others to reach consensus on this issue, is particularly galling. Gabrielthursday (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus. Gabrielthursday, Jaakko Sivonen and Otto, are for your changes. Rubiscube, barjimoa, Webdriver Torso, Captain frakas, RJFF and Tuvixer are against. Tuvixer (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now posted an answer to that on the talk page; as you can see from there, several users whom you cited as being on your side, actually favour removing the top candidates provided that certain conditions are met. In any case, this isn't a proper defence of committing a 3RR violation, and the proper place for the discussion on the article's content is the article's talk page. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked per the above thread. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jaakko posted his report while I was compiling mine, thus the repetition. Gabrielthursday (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gabrielthursday and User:Jaakko Sivonen reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: Declined)

Page: European Parliament election, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gabrielthursday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jaakko Sivonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gabrielthursday#Stop_vandalizing

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments: Users Gabrielthursday and Jaakko Sivonen are changing together an important article about European elections [52], trying to change facts and history ignoring arguments of other users who do not agree with them. Talking about a consensus where there is none. Talking about things they don’t understand. The leaders in the infobox have not been changed before the elections. Why are they trying to change it now? One month after the elections changing the infobox. While the article in that matter was not changed for about a year when the “Spitzencandidates” were presented. Tuvixer ([[User talk:Tuvixer|talk] 12:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakko Sivonen is removing the warning on his talk page: [53]

The definition of 3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period.". I and Gabrielthursday are different editors, so there was no 3RR violation, unlike in your case (above). In addition, your so called "warnings" don't even mention edit warring or 3RR (instead they include a personal attack), and they were posted long after all the reverts. You are the one, who has been edit warring without discussing first, as the article talk page reveals. As to removing a comment from one's own user talk page, that is allowed under WP:DRC policy. Repeatedly restoring those removed comments, like you did, is forbidden. There is an ongoing case on user Tuvixer on the many personal attacks he has launched:[54] --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC) --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No violation based on a look at the talk page and interactions between the editors. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:177.104.88.198 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

Page: 2014 FIFA World Cup Group F (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 177.104.88.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

12:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Nigeria vs Bosnia and Herzegovina */"
17:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614530178 by PeeJay2K3 (talk) I am not saying about quarter-finals but the previous round. Also, I'm saying about NO debutant teams, all the others had"
18:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614658871 by PeeJay2K3 (talk) Sure, I'm not blind, so I could check and affirm this. Or should I pay a website to post it and then you can be pleasured by a ref tag?"
18:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614664917 by Walter Görlitz (talk) The source is my own research I have done in all World Cup articles here."
18:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614666648 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Stop being lazy and prove that this information is false. It's already saying that needs a citation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2014 FIFA World Cup Group F. (TW)"
18:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "please source it"
18:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "+"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:62.193.158.242 reported by User:IJA (Result: Blocked)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
This IP has become engaged in a dispute which had already been taken to the talk page before it boiled over into an edit war. You can see the discussion here: Talk:Kosovo_War#US regarding KLA as a terrorist organisation. Everyone on the talk page seems to be in agreement. I've told this IP twice to take it to the talk page 1 and 2.I've raised the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to the IP's intention but the IP chose to ignore.
I've felt the need to bring it here because I don't want to get involved in an edit war. I don't want my name against Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia again. This IP is edit warring (having made the same revert 4 times within a 24 hour period) and refuses to properly discuss on the talk page. Perhaps a semi-protect for the article might be healthy? Regards IJA (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

62.193.158.242 is certainly edit-warring, but it looks like a more experienced editor who has logged out. bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:177.125.112.14 reported by User:Takinzinnia (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21 June 2014: [56]
26 June 2014: [57]
27 June 2014: [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Comments:
Since 11 June [61], three IP editors have repeatedly added a certain game to the List of Wii U software without citing any source, reliable or otherwise. After failing to find any confirmation of the game's existence, I have reverted most of these edits while inviting the participants to discuss on the talk page in my edit summaries [62][63], on the article's talk page [64], and the most recent IP user's talk page [65]. So far, none has responded to these invitations and each one simply reverts without comment. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Socialgoverment reported by User:Sjö (Result: 24 hours)

Page: James T. Butts, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Socialgoverment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC) ""
20:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "edited this page as i started this page to inform not to start a warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism"
20:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "During The last 3 years several editors have taken control of page for political purposes. This PAGE WAS STARTED TO INFORM but instead SO CALLED SOURCED EDITORS have started a personal attack."
20:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "This Page has been HIJACKED BY writers with a PERSONAL goal to kill and attack."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on James T. Butts, Jr.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ryulong reported by User:Artichoker (Result: Declined)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72] (Warned him. He proceeded to remove the warning from his talk page and continue edit warring.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:

It is important to note that this user has a long history of edit warring and multiple blocks. Even after all of this and continual promises that he will cease this behavior, he continues to edit war a week or two later and nothing ends up changing. Apart from even the aforementioned edit warring above, a particularly interesting note is that this user was reported here for violating 3RR and edit warring on the same article just a few weeks back, which shows that his behavior has not changed. A link to the report is here. Artichoker^[talk] 23:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the edits are removals of different pieces of content. The first three diffs are all essentially the same single edit I performed (because there was no one editing the page in between any of those diffs), not to mention the third diff listed above cannot even be considered a revert at all considering discussion on the talk page on that content died exactly 2 weeks ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are still in violation. Please read WP:3RR. A relevant excerpt from it: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Artichoker^[talk] 00:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you barely have 3 as it is. I do not think that removing content that had been contentious two weeks ago that no one acted on counts as a revert here. And that first diff barely counts. It probably counts as something that I should have left a user warning template for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've self reverted because I am tired of this god damn bureaucracy. Do you want me to self revert the not very good edit left by the editor whose sole edit is to add a poorly formatted addition that says "we don't know Canada's release date" or what.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) 5 reverts. And no, removing the material for which there was clearly no consensus to remove, does count. Just because you waited to two weeks to try and unilaterally remove it without discussion doesn't make it any less of a revert. Artichoker^[talk] 00:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was discussion and it was leaning towards removal in two different places.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And really, all this is telling me that people on this website don't have the fucking decency to accept that they were reverted in the first place because I certainly would not be at five at your count if Tezero didn't revert me reverting him 4 days ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I count three reverts by Ryulong in a 24 hour period. The first 3, 17:39, 17:41 and 17:42, count as one revert since there are no intervening edits. Then one at 19:07 and a final one at 23:34 (this has now been self reverted) which would drop it to 2 reverts. GB fan 00:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. GB fan is absolutely correct. Even before the self-revert, there was no breach of WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Shadow Treasurer reported by User:DMacks (Result: )

Page: Fraternity Vacation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Shadow Treasurer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

02:28, 29 July 2011‎ (UTC) "That scene is the most notable of the entire movie and it is not unimportant."
23:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC) "Undid revision 441980025 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
01:34, 29 October 2011‎ (UTC) "Basically there is no other reason for people to remember this movie than that scene."
22:51, 14 November 2011 UTC) "Undid revision 457915761 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)" + "Trailers shows the prominence of that scene plus Roger Ebert's comments about it"
07:25, 11 June 2012‎ }(UTC) "Undid revision 495055105 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
05:01, 18 June 2012‎ (UTC) "That previous remark is abusive and I request that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be thrown out of Wikipedia."
01:52, 25 July 2012‎ (UTC) "This is the resolution of the matter and there should no more excuses for its removal."
03:26, 25 July 2012‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 504054413 by DMacks (talk)"
01:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) [no edit-summary]
02:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC) "IMDb has spoken on this and DMacks leave me alone."

Note: many of these are old, because the same situation keeps flaring over many years (I can't find centralized list of the diffs from previous behavior-discussions).

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

‎June 2012: new section

Note: editor has made it clear via edit-summaries and talk-page comments that he does not wish to be contacted by (specifically) me or certain others who participated in talk-page/AN discussion of (generally) or others regarding his edits.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Fraternity Vacation#"Classic nude scene"

Comments:

There's consensus on talk-page, including discussion of reliable sourcing, and we already had a trip to WP:AN (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Edits by User:The Shadow Treasurer) regarding behavioral requirements for collaborative editing and discussion of disputed edits. Editor was not willing to accept this outcome when it occurred 2–3 years ago, has now come back after little or no editing of WP and immediately returned to the same WP:EW and non-WP:DR behaviors. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:99.46.209.18 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: )

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

Diffs of the IP's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [79]

Comments: The IP kept changing the date contrary to MOS. When I reverted, their edit summaries got more and more aggressive. On one of my three reverts, I put MOS:DATEFORMAT in the edit summary. When that didn't work, I went to the trouble of explaining it all to the IP on their talk page (see diff above). Clearly, the IP was having none of it. The IP's 4th revert occurred outside the 24-hour window by about 1.5 hours. Actually, I prefer that the IP "get it" rather than be sanctioned, but I'm not sure if that's possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards