Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 30 July 2012

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: No action)

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.

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 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)

• Darkness Shines reverted here again after this against the RFC closure removing the content which was included per RFC with attribution . 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 , 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)

I've not had internet access for two days, so am coming at this a bit late. I don't know what happened two days ago (and I have no interest in spending ages looking into it), but I can see that there is no edit warring at the moment, and a discussion taking place on the talk page. No administrator action is necessary, and I can't see that an open 3RR report hanging over it can be helpful. I am going to close and archive this, and will request that no one adds to this discussion thread; if there is an actual 3RR violation, feel free to open a new thread. Hopefully, though, that will not be necessary. ItsZippy 17:31, 27 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:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been much discussion on the talk page, beginning here, cf

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 /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 /c 14:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Okay Montalban (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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 01:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - this is a tough one. You both clearly violated 3RR (no, you don't get to revert "back to the way it was" and not have it count as a revert). You were making an attempt to discuss more than the other user, and yet the other user appears to have been confused by the process. Also, false warnings of vandalism are a bad idea. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:99.226.214.165 reported by User:HandsomeFella (Result: blocked )

IP user 99.226.214.165 keeps reverting the women's Olympics football tournament articles and artifacts (templates) back to using inferior sources – women.soccerway.com instead of the more official london2012.com and fifa.com. In addition, the result is worse visually in the template (no "References" heading).

Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game A1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game A2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game B1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game B2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game C1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game C2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since the attendance info differs slightly between women.soccerway.com and fifa.com, he consequently keeps reverting the main page back to the number that is supported by womensoccerway.com:

Page: Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 99.226.214.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've tried to talk him out of it, but to no avail. He doesn't even respond. A block would be welcome.

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 25 July
• 2nd revert: 25 July
• 3rd revert: 25 July
• 4th revert: 26 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have limited myself to providing diffs for the first article, Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game A1. It could be that the user has not violated the 3RR rule for the other pages, but it's still disruptive.

HandsomeFella (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User is notified. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked. I was tempted to block the reporter as well, but the IP was refusing to discuss, the reporter wasn't. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jjmihai reported by User:Mortifervm (Result:No action )

Page: FC Steaua București in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jjmihai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: , 05:16, 30 June 2012
• 2nd revert: , 19:28, 26 July 2012
• 3rd revert: , 07:35, 27 July 2012
• 4th revert: , 11:26, 27 July 2012
• 5th revert: , 12:45, 27 July 2012
• 6th revert: , 13:37, 27 July 2012
• 7th revert: , 13:38, 27 July 2012
• 8th revert: , 13:42, 27 July 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: 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 the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. In addition, I think this user make modifications with another IP (for example, see FC Steaua București in Europe: Revision history. Mortifervm (talk)

This is a malformed report. First, the above aren't diffs - they are links to revisions. Second, you did not notify the editor as you are required to do. You did the same thing at ANI (). Third, you did not warn the editor of edit-warring. Finally, as far as I can tell, you are all fighting with each other, and you are talking in Romanian (I assume) on each other's Talk pages, which is not helpful (WP:SPEAKENGLISH). I can't even tell what the dispute is about, but I suspect it's about the use of dashes.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. For procedural reasons and because involved editors have quieted down. Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Xcore7 reported by User:112.203.40.176 (Result: warned)

Page: Mac OS X Leopard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xcore7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:
• 11th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mac_OS_X_Lion&action=history, and another IP ediitng as 112.203.43.238.

I was just adding a reference to OS X support policy in the Mac website, when I came back there have been multiple reverts by the two, please look into it --112.203.40.176 (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Warned Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Wanderer602 reported by User:YMB29 (Result:Warning )

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.

Page: Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wanderer602 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Nothing but reverts the last two days:

• 1st revert: 00:14, 26 July 2012
• 2nd revert: 05:43, 26 July 2012
• 3rd revert: 15:40, 26 July 2012
• 4th revert: 01:29, 27 July 2012
• 5th revert: 06:27, 27 July 2012
• 6th revert: 10:45, 27 July 2012 (removed the sourced result)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user behaves as if he owns the page. He reverts everything he does not like, even if the edits are directly supported by reliable sources. -YMB29 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not owning the article. User YMB29 edited the section which was still being argued on the talk page without any consensus so far. Actually from the comments from other editors YMB29's views were not generally supported. Claimed 'sourced result' was exactly what was still being discussed on the talk page. Numbers for the losses section have been discussed previously in great detail (see article talk page archive 1), reverting back into values already shown by editors as well as by several authors (Manninen, Glantz) not to be representative was nothing but vandalism. They do not represent the whole of the Soviet losses of the offensive as was previously noted. Removal of 'Finnish estimate' text was because it was not accurate, see reference notes: Manninen (1994), The numbers available in Krivosheyev's books are only up to the capture of Viipuri at the Karelian Isthmus thus missing the heavy fighting between June 21-July 15 at Karelian Isthmus. Manninen had collected those numbers from Leningrad Front daily casualty reports from archives of Soviet Ministry of Defence. The values were actually Soviet but instead user YMB29 attempted to represent them as Finnish. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No effort to resolve the dispute or to reach consensus was made by YMB29 in the talk page, despite of several editors supporting the opposing view user has so far insisted on his version of the result. So far there has been no constructive behavior from the users part only attempts to debunk opposing view and enforce his own. As can be seen from the talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The users who gave a third opinion also agreed that it was a Soviet victory, but they suggested that the aftermath section could be linked to instead of using a general "Soviet victory." I did not put "Soviet victory." I added "Strategic Soviet victory," which is directly supported by sources.

A discussion cannot be said to be going on if you don't answer. You disputed a general victory, not strategic victory, so I don't know why you kept reverting it.

The casualties were estimated by a Finnish historian based on Soviet archives, so they still come from a Finnish source. I attempted to make this clear to avoid confusion by Russian editors, but you reverted even that. -YMB29 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, the users explicitly stated that they preferred to have no result at all. It is stated so in the talk page, you can not avoid that by inserting conditionals to your result. You inserted a biased question and then demand an answer to it, that is not constructive behavior. I reverted the 'strategic victory' since the article is not only about the offensive at strategic level, if it were then it would be ok, however that is not the sole level on which the article and therefore also the result box observers the offensive - so it as a sole result is not representative of the offensive as a whole. Which is exactly why separate aftermath section was recommended by several other editors so that the matter can be properly discussed. So far you have not taken such initiatives only falsely (just like in the past) claimed that i had lied. As for the note, I stated that had you inserted notice that values were based on Soviet archives compiled by a Finn then i would have had no qualms with it, instead your edit appears to discredit the values as being Finnish estimates instead of being based on Soviet archives. Also this is not the place to have this discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, so don't discuss the details here.

Again, others agreed with a general victory, even though they also suggested something else. I did not add a general "Soviet victory." You did not object to strategic victory in the discussion.

The point is that you can't just be making reverts all the time. -YMB29 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Others said they preferred something else than stating anything in the results box. That is what they said. Trying to twist it does not further your case. I have understood that reverts are allowed if there is a case for them. None of the reverts i did were because the edits in question would have been opposed to mine or that i woulkd have particularly strongly felt for them. Only that the previous edits had been done to sections that had earlier been discussed in considerable length (the losses) or ones that were still being under discussion (the results) or to text which did not clarify the issue at hand (the note). With other editors in all of the cases actually not bothering to discuss or even say anything beforehand of the issues in the talk page where they had all been already discussed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't make excuses; you had no reason to just revert entire edits like you did.

Others suggested a compromise for the result instead of just victory (which they agreed with also). Once again, I did not add just plain victory which you disputed, but strategic victory which you did not dispute. -YMB29 (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Which of those were excuses? All were perfectly valid reasons why i chose to revert. None of the edits that i reverted had been discussed and agreed upon to in the talk page and were done to known 'hot spots' of the article. Only perhaps questionable revert was the one done to your statement of Manninen's results, i could have just appended more information to it however i thought it would be better to first agree in the talk page what exactly should there read before i write anything there.

Yes, even i initially suggested a compromise as the result however you rejected all such suggestions. And while i do not dispute the strategic victory that is not what the article is about and therefore it is not representative to be the sole expression of the result of the offensive. It is merely part of it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said that i would have been entitled to edit-war only that in the cases listed above matters were discussed and agreed upon in the respective talk page. So do i understand correctly that you are suggesting that editors should ignore what is agreed upon in the talk page and then refuse to take part in dialog? Some of the changes were made to the article before they were agreed upon in the ongoing discussion on the talk page, you can see that from the logs or from the talk page itself if you want to. I have been led to understand that nothing should be done to the contested section while discussion regards to it still continues until it has been agreed upon in the talk page, I'm sorry if this has not been in accordance with wikipedia procedures. However i had understood that was to be so just to prevent edit-warring but you are apparently stating that it is perfectly fine to edit section that is still under ongoing dispute. If what has been agreed upon in the talk pages has no value then i suppose, yes i would seek for a third block since it would only prove that wikipedia does not follow its own rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also as for that matter the claimed '6th revert' on the list is actually only what the consensus on the talk page had been. Again, feel free to check it if you like but consensus which was rejected by YMB29 was to use separate aftermath section. Perhaps a technicality but it was not a revert unless edits done in accordance with what most of the participants in the dispute resolution had agreed upon count as such. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus... The result I added was not rejected by anyone, even by you. You stopped discussing it, so it looked like you had no objections. -YMB29 (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer, your interpretation and application of policy is wrong, and to some extent your refusal to listen is more troubling than the 3RR violation. I'm not going to take any action on this and will leave to another admin to decide what is appropriate. I strongly suggest, however, that you leave the article alone for a while and restrict your comments to the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So the third opinions offered by Jaan and Nick-D who both favored the use of separate aftermath section simply do not exist? I had previously repeatedly stated that using only single aspect (ie. strategic) to represent the whole of the offensive is simply not representative. And you knowingly ignored all the others representing only single cherry picked POV of the matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please then explain what exactly was wrong there? So far only impression i have had from your comments is that anything agreed on talk page can be ignored. This and other comments from you are especially peculiar when the consensus in the talk page was supporting the view i had (ie. no result, use of separate aftermath section). - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My last comment. Read WP:3RR. There is no exemption for "I'm only implementing the consensus on the Talk page so I can revert as many times as I like". Consensus is often a matter of interpretation. If you believe the consensus is in your favor and yet it is being thwarted, then use WP:DR. Edit-warring is not an appropriate response. And don't tell me it's been tried before (I saw your comment on the Talk page). That isn't an acceptable answer, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes i read 3RR rule, which i do not have broken, certainly skirted, but not broken. Also now that there actually is an admin present another serious question, given the anonymous IP edits to the article, what is the method or basis used to determine vandalism from serious edits in such cases? As last i checked the 'opponent' in the edit-war was apparently a sock-puppet. Also for that matter as stated above the last edit noted as a revert was not a revert, you can check that too, it was edit done what had been stated previously on talk page to the exact dispute in question - in other words it was neither revert nor was it repeating occurrence (unless i missed something) nor did it return the article to the existing state. Oh and while at it can you or other admin please take a look at Continuation War article, as i would prefer not to revert anything at this time. Thank you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am a sock-puppet?

You removed a sourced result for which you had no objections to on the talk page, so it is a revert. -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not you. The other editor, Pyotr Isaev - at least according to User talk:Pyotr Isaev. As said before you had not stated that you would insert it to the article and it really surprised me since it went against opinions of everyone else involved including me as well as the third party opinions that you had requested. Following the third party opinion after a dispute would not be revert however. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop accusing me of going against consensus? You did not bother to reply, so it looked like you did not have any objections to my new suggestion. -YMB29 (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was to use separate aftermath section. You ignored it - I would be lying if i said you didn't. You had no suggestions at the time, only a question. It is not the same. You didn't even suggest that there would have been an agreement or ask if there would be any objections. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:201.7.130.25 reported by ] (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 201.7.130.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:Drive-by IP user, not much point engaging on Talk page when he probably never looks. DISREGARD, user already blocked. Belchfire 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked Blocked by Alexf. Electric Catfish 20:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Minar-e-pakistan reported by User:Darkness Shines

User115.188.247.153 reported by User:Callanecc (Result: )

Page: India and weapons of mass destruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 115.188.247.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (see comments section)

1. 21:28, 19 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 05:55, 21 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 01:45, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 07:55, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
5. 12:23, 23 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
6. 19:32, 23 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 19:31, 24 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
8. 11:52, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
9. 22:40, 27 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
10. 21:01, 28 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
11. 01:06, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
12. 02:26, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
13. 03:02, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Comments:

Regarding the previous version reverted to - this is a long term issue so I'm not 100% sure where the best version to return to would be. This report is on the IP user, but it may also be worth looking at the actions of Anir1uph (talk · contribs). Note: there has also been a talk|history|links|watch|logs)|submission on WP:RPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:SumerianPrince reported by User:Abhishek191288 (Result: 31 hours)

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

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

Link of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

May not be a violation of 3RR in 24 hrs, but it is a slow motion edit war. User has been in an edit war in the same article before. — Abhishek  13:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Tourbillon reported by User:Ceco31 (Result: stale)

Page: Bulgaria
User being reported: User:Tourbillon

Previous version :

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - I suggest that this is the attempt, but as I was not participator in the edit-war I am not sure

Comments: I was sure I missed to report Tourbillon for breaking three revert rule somewhere back in time and checked the history of Bulgaria article for the near past, I find myself wrong and found maximum 3 reverts by Tourbillon in the edit-wars between me and him, but I came to May and I saw that he made 5 reverts in a 24 hour period in edit-war between him and different person/s, I am noting that this edit-war was not between me and him but between him and three others - 109.242.16.227, 69.253.167.49, 65.95.212.202 - and that these IPs are not mine, because I am falsely accused that I have sock-puppets. That's the only one for which I report the user- three revert rule. He has also bad behavour, but I do not want to describe it, you can start with his statements in the talk page of Bulgaria, usually he do not humiliate himself to answer the others' statements wheter they are long or short while intrudes insolently his opinion in the page without proving why and without missing a revert as the onlyone owner. --Ceco31 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: The filing user has been suspected of sockpuppetry by me and at least three other users. At least one of his suspected IP socks was involved in block evasions. He has been continuously edit-warring against me, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Chipmunkdavis, User:WilliamThweatt, and at least one other user (User:Jingiby) has reverted his edits. Currently he and the suspected puppet are the only ones partaking into a lengthy content dispute, in which the user/his meat/sockpuppets are actively refusing to WP:HEAR the other side. Other POV-pushing can be found in the contributions history of the user. I believe this proposal is yet another classical example of WP:POINT. - ☣Tourbillon 16:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: I am only noticing to the administrators that all this is defamation against me, I have no socks nor three other users say that. I will not engage with lies anymore.--Ceco31 (talk)

• Stale. The diffs supplied above are two months stale. Accusations of sockppetry can be resolved at SPI. Kuru (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: )

Page: Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kazemita1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
Editor is editing pretty clearly against consensus. Took it to WP:AN for unknown reasons and now seems to think that (s)he has some sort of administrative carte blanche to add material. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think that a 24 hour block would be in order. Electric Catfish 23:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

On my defense, there was no attempt in resolving the dispute from the plaintiff's side. There was no mention of a specific part of my edit except for the removal of the summary of the viewpoints of the criticizers here. Which I addressed immediately and gradually during my last 3 edits; yet the plaintiff is counting that as an edit war. Moreover, on the talk page I kept requesting them to mention which specific part they disagree, but heard no response other than bulk reverts of disputed and non-disputed material by different users. I also, argue that wrong sentences, such as "Dawkins' criticizers are all Christian thinkers" does not require consensus to correct when we have atheist like Michael Ruse in the article on his opposite side.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Besides the fact that my edits are all different and are moving towards the middle-ground, don't we need 4 edits for 3RR?

I issued the warning a full half hour before your third rv. Had you read the warning you would have seen this "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of "behavior", I am continuing my effort in resolving the issues in the talk page. You are also invited to attend.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You still do not seem to understand that you violated 3RR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User:GabeMc reported by User:99.251.125.65 (Result: )

Page:Pink Floyd  Page-multi error: no page detected.
GabeMc: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:This the/The argument has been under dispute for many years. This editor has launched a mediation for this edit and while the medcom board is deciding continues to make the same changes at various musical group articles. He was warned and stopped on several Beatles articles in the previous week for the same edit.

99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I have stayed away from Beatles articles this weekend to avoid this constant drama and harassment. Now, you have followed me to Pink Floyd and a boomerang is forthcoming. Can an admin please put an end to this time waster. This account was made for the sole purpose to fight for this issue while attacking me and posting creepy messages on my talk page, they have accused me of having an "agreement" with them, and are trying some type of psychological warfare/stalking/harassment. They are perhaps even the master of the Beatlesgirl socks, I don't know, just please, someone end this nonsense! I'm not gonna bother posting diffs unless needed or asked, just take a browse through, you'll see what I mean. ~ GabeMc 04:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oh yeah, this is also a fake report because I never reverted them once at Pink Floyd, or anywhere to my knowledge. ~ GabeMc 05:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  Slay the troll. Now. Evanh2008 05:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: Chick-fil-A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Still-24-45-42-125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is edit warring across multiple political/controversial articles, against multiple editors, and without consensus.

While this is a new user, they demonstrate familiarity with our policies and I'd recommend waiving WP:BITE due to the rampant disruption. A review of their contribs suggests that they are a WP:single-purpose account. While there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, a SPA who edit wars is particularly troublesome. To their credit this user does use the talk pages and WP:DRN, but IMO that does not excuse the edit warring across multiple pages against multiple editors. I would resist allowing the user to use their talk page participation as an excude to revert "per discussion." The edit summaries they leave when reverting make no claim of exemption under WP:3RRNO. As we move closer to the US Elections, we can't have these types of users wreaking havoc with our political articles. – Lionel 05:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For context, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:ViriiK&diff=next&oldid=504532076, in which Lionelt outlines his plan to get me blocked. If you want to help him game the system by using you like a tool, please block me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I updated the links for notices of edit warring to show my responses, in which I pointed out that the warnings were false. Feel free to ask them to show actual edit warring as opposed to their false reports of edit-warring. Good day. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring