Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                           65

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2st revert: [10]
• 3nd revert: [11]
• 4rd revert: [12]
• 5th revert: [13]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: all different edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Darkness Shines reverted here again after this against the RFC closure removing the content which was included per RFC with attribution [16]. Further responded with an uncivil reply in response to my attempt and suggestion to resolve. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I wanted to leave it upto an administrator to finish up this report but now that you want to continue wikilawyering the consensus, I'll like to see this to the end and get this report closed and actioned. I added this content on March 19, 2012, Darkness Shines started an RFC as he opposed this addition on the same date where he specifically asked in the RFC summary whether or not this section was to be included in the article (as of that version which he opposed in context to my addition). This RFC was closed as keep with attribution. DS has now repeatedly editwarred and removed saying that the content is covered in the article while it is clearly not - the names of towns are not present anywhere - (and even if it was, the RFC closure was for this version as I presented the diff on the content he objected to). His reverts are not only editwar but also in clear violation of consensus with further attempts to wikilawyer around and confuse the onlookers/admins about the consensus. Also his clarification with the closer does not contain any agreement with the removal [17], the closer only tells him to discuss further the details he wants and does not tell him to do it by first reverting the content out (which still has the consensus). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: [18] as of 16:56, July 23, 2012

• 2nd revert: [19] as of 16:23, July 23, 2012

• 3rd revert: [20] as of 15:58, July 23, 2012

• 4th revert: [21] as of 10:49, July 23, 2012

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22] as of 19:24, July 23, 2012

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

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

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

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

• Revert: [23] as of 00:19, July 26, 2012

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [24]

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]
• 4th revert: [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous versions reverted to: [31] [32] [33]

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37]
• 5th revert: [38]
• 6th revert: [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: After 3rd revert: [40], again: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, it's a revert.

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

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

Therefore, my edit is completely uncontroversial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of warning to 81.129.112.196

Diff of warning to 86.131.167.23

Diff of warning from admin (Tide rolls)

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 23

Previous version reverted to: [43]

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

July 24

Previous version reverted to: [48]

• 1st revert: [49]
• 2nd revert: [50]
• 3rd revert: [51]
• 4th revert: [52]
• 5th revert: [53]
• 6th revert: [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55], [56]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

==== User:IIIraute reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [57]

• 1st revert: [58] (note misleading edit summary - it's not a "ref" but a link to German Wikipedia)
• 2nd revert: [59]
• 3rd revert: [60]
• 4th revert: [61]

Additional continued reverting and edit warring on a related AFTER this report was made, and AFTER IIIraute was warned by User:Magog the Ogre [62].

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

More generally IIIraute's "contributions" to Wikipedia essentially consist of reverting people, often mindlessly, without bothering to read the actual content of their edits. One example is here [63]. If you click on his/her contribution history [64] it's pretty plain that most of his edits have the edit summary "Undid revision xxxx by yyyy". Now, a few of those are legitimate reverts of actual vandalisms but most of them are just simply reverting folks per... I dunno, joy of reverting others or itching to get into disputes.

Previous 3RR reports on the user [65]. That's worth reading just to get a sense how frustrating it can be to try and reason with this user (note the attempts to re-argue the edit warring dispute rather than back off from reverting, as well as the multiple warnings from several users/administrators).

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Notice of this report (removed by IIIraute, note the edit summary): [67]

Comments:

I better leave this recurring smear campaign without further comment [68] & especially → [69] ←. Marek, better do count your own reverts and don't take yourself so important.--IIIraute (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

further statement: the fourth revert is none → see Danzig-Vote → [70]: Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.

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

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

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

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

User VolunteerMarek did revert the same context four times, right after my first edit, following me to a page he had never worked on before. He has clearly violated the 3RR rule on Malbork Castle → [71], [72], [73], [74].--IIIraute (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

IIIraute, please read WP:REVERT. Making an edit to an article does not necessarily constitute reverting. For starters the first edit there is not a revert of anybody, certainly not of IIIraute. I did revert him two or three times, mostly because I simply could not comprehend the rationale he gave in his edit summary ("rmv vandalism" for edits which were clearly not vandalism, and "restore original version" as if that made any kind of sense on an evolving project like Wikipedia). And it's very frustrating to spend some time on an article just to have somebody come along and undo it all in seconds with a nonsensical edit summary. I've left off reverting him further at this point though trying to discuss the issues with him on the talk page is not exactly proving productive. On the other hand, IIIraute has continued reverting on the article [75], which I believe would make it 5 reverts in 24 hrs, with the last one made after this report was filed.VolunteerMarek 18:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Actually looking at it again, that edit by IIIraute [76] was also a revert and since it was made towards the end of the day on the 24th, that makes it 6 reverts in 24 hours. Correction - it would make it another 3RR violation on another article during the same period, rather than 6 reverts on a single article.VolunteerMarek 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You did follow me to an article you had never worked on before, and then you undid the edit I had just done four times → [77], [78], [79], [80]. Period. --IIIraute (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's you who has been hounding me since ages [81]. You came there to 'point out' supposed tag-teaming just to antagonize me.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe I came to that article because five days earlier I got a note on my talk page [82] and then kept an eye on altetendekrabbe. VolunteerMarek 19:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess now you are revealing your real face, Marek → [83].--IIIraute (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The guy has revealed such 'manners' [84], [85], [86] since the time I first met him. He was recently blocked for 48 hours for gross incivility.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 18:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Marek does WP:HOUND me, he also accused me of being a SP → [87] ←. That's how he tries to get rid of other editors to push his POV campaign.--IIIraute (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, I do not think removing a reference which is to the German Wikipedia is really such a crime[88] Reverting[89] it back in however is in violation of WP:RS Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

The 4th revert had nothing to do with it [90]. It just happened to be in the same article and does not count as a revert → see Danzig-Vote → [91]: Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR).

Marek however, as evident from the diffs, changed 4 times the title into Malbork Castle → [92], [93], [94], [95]. This qualifies as breaking the 3 revert rule. Clear and simple. --IIIraute (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

No Marek, why don't we stay with the truth. I did two edits, right next after each other → this was my main edit → [96]; at the second edit, the one you are showing, I only added a semicolon, and as evident from the diffs, you changed the title 4 times back into Malbork Castle → [97], [98], [99], [100].--IIIraute (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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

More and more

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

1st revert: [101] 2nd revert: [102] 3rd revert: [103] 4th revert: [104]

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

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

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

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

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

VolunteerMarek 06:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, I am clearly not →→ [105] ←←.

Danzig-Vote → [106] : "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany." The decision was for Danzig during the period of 1308 to 1945. The nationality issue of Copernicus is well documented in the article [107].

Period between 1308 to 1945 - Danzig-Vote: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above."[108] and "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)."[109]

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [110]

• 1st revert: [111]
• 2nd revert: [112]
• 3rd revert: [113]
• 4th revert: [114]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been much discussion on the talk page, beginning here, cf [116][117][118][119][120]

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

It clearly says his idea is false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

I don't happen to notice all these things.

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [121]

• 1st revert: [122]
• 2nd revert: [123]
• 3rd revert: [124]
• 4th revert: [125]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

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

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

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

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

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

• Rosacelese not involved in this series of reverts

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

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [127]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128] Given four minutes before user violated 3RR

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

Comments:

User:Jim1138 asking user to discuss on talk page: [129]
Me asking user to discuss on talk page: [130]
User:Benzband asking user to discuss: [131]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 1st revert: [132]
• 2nd revert: [133]
• 3rd revert: [134]
• 4th revert: [135]
• 5th revert: [136]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

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

User:Krizpo reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [138]

• 1st revert: [139]
• 2nd revert: [140]
• 3rd revert: [141]
• 4th revert: [142]
• 5th revert: [143]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144]

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

Comments:

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