Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:SarekOfVulcan reported by doncram (Result: 40 hours)

Page: Charles M. Robinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 18:16, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "moved to talk")
2. 20:31, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433445233 by Doncram (talk) no")
3. 21:06, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Doncram (talk) to last version by SarekOfVulcan")
4. 21:23, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "rm database dump, leave new item. "Lifelong architect of academic structures" would seem to indicate this is accurate")

Editor SarekOfVulcan and I were recently both blocked for going over 3RR at architect article List of George Franklin Barber works (see block notice at SarekOfVulcan's Talk (archived) and link to block notice and discussion at my Talk). It's an example of a typical architect list of works which includes addresses of buildings and other details. Today, SarekOfVulcan followed my edits to new article Charles M. Robinson and repeatedly, unreasonably removes similar detail, which I restored. I tried, some, to have discussion at talk, but that has rapidly failed. SarekOfVulcan exceeded 4RR. He has also followed me to other articles, and seems to be similarly engaging in removal of similar info at Marion M. Steen, where he is at 3RR at the moment. These removals, particularly in edit-warring mode, are unreasonable. --doncram 21:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

—doncram 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that every time Doncram reverted me, he included an item on that list that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article, despite the fact that I had specifically called it out on the talkpage. If he couldn't even perform that level of due diligence, why should we believe the rest of them are accurate? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which item you are referring to, you have not answered my request for you to identify any specific problem you might have. I take it you "know" one item is incorrect, but rather than explaining that, you withhold that and remove them all? That seems unreasonable and unhelpful. --doncram 21:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon reviewing, SarekOfVulcan may implicitly be questioning one South Carolina item, different than another SC item; i mentioned a question about a SC item meaning "Lutheran Theological Seminary Building: Beam Dormitory, 4201 Main St., Columbia, SC (Robinson,Charles M.), NRHP-listed[2]", when he may have interpreted i was recognizing and insisting upon return of a different SC item that I did not notice. SarekOfVulcan, whatever, you need to communicate clearly at a Talk page and it is unreasonable to wholesale remove all the works of the architect because you question one (which you did not even explain).

Its a clear case of 3RR violation, anyhow. --doncram 22:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. In other words, you're just now getting around to reading my talkpage post, after reverting three times. That works well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I read what you posted. You did not name a specific item; I take it you think i was supposed to understand a strikeout which just appeared to be a record of a removed item. As I said, I spoke of a SC item and I think you misunderstood what I referred to, i.e. you did not really absorb/read my posting either. It's flat out 3RR violation for you to remove the material. If you just removed one row you questioned, and explained, I wouldn't object, but it is unreasonable for you to remove everything else in the article. Even if i didn't read what you wrote, it is not justified to edit war like that. --doncram 22:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan exceeds 3rr also now at Marion M. Steen:

Page: Marion M. Steen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 17:12, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "cleanup")
2. 21:27, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "locations and attributions belong in the articles, they don't need to be duplicated here")
3. 21:31, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Doncram (talk) to last version by SarekOfVulcan")
4. 21:38, 9 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433454401 by Doncram (talk) wasteful and duplicative")

Each removal removes address and attribution specifics that are useful, normal information in an architect list of works. --doncram 21:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Note discussion at WT:NRHP#Straw poll on inclusion of NRHP attribution in architect article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Umm, that seems like a distraction, that new "straw poll" is entirely unrelated to question of your edit warring. --doncram 22:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, but it's entirely relevant to the question of your edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not relevant that, at 21:34, 9 June 2011, after every one of my edits (and all but one of your offending edits itemized above), you open a different discussion elsewhere that is tangentially related to the content of the architect articles. It is not relevant to any assertion of edit warring on my part at all. How on earth can you even suggest that? --doncram 23:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, does SarekOfVulcan, because he is an administrator, get a free pass to edit war? I see he's now posted a "gone for 3 hours" note at his Talk page, which I presume is to dissuade any action here. And, the current articles are in the version he edited to in violation. This does not seem fair. --doncram 23:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of forty hours -- tariqabjotu 23:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but something seems really wrong here - on Marion M. Steen, Sarek has four edits total on the article - the first is not a revert, just an edit with a valid edit summary, so how has he exceeded 3RR, as Doncram claims? Same thing on Charles M. Robinson - yes, they're both edit-warring, but neither one of them has actually passed 3RR - and since Doncram is just as guilty, why was he not blocked as well? MikeWazowski (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That first edit on Marion M. Steen with summary "cleanup" removed material. I think u only looked at the top part of that diff, which was reasonable rewording, which i did not dispute. The bottom part of that diff removed a ton of info, same info as removed in the other edits. --doncram 00:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So he removed material - that's not a revert, that's just an edit. By simple math, it was impossible for him to break 3RR, even if he was right up to the edge of it - it takes four reverts to violate 3RR, and he had only three. Think about that over the next three weeks... MikeWazowski (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Doncram was edit warring just as much as Sarek. I've blocked him for 21 days, as the last two one week blocks apparently didn't take. Courcelles 00:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think this is a bit harsh in both cases. Both parties only actually reverted three times apiece, and stopped when they hit the limit. I thought blocks were meant to be preventative, so considering they did actually stop and didn't break the limit then I'm not really sure what the purpose of the blocks. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of blocking here is to discourage present and future edit warring. Both SarekOfVulcan and Doncram have been blocked more than once in the past year for edit warring (SoV twice, Doncram three times; Doncram's last block expired less than three weeks ago). While making more than three reverts is a bright-line guarantee of a block (with certain narrow, specific exceptions), three reverts per day is explicitly not an entitlement (see the full text of WP:3RR). Allowing editors to regularly revert up to the edge of 3RR doesn't discourage edit warring; it just teaches them how to count to three. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. But why does an admin who has just been barely reconfirmed and apparently takes that as a license to war get only 40 hours while the other guy gets 3 weeks? hm... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Courcelles answered that. -- Avanu (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really; Sarek's just off a block from last month. Curiously enough, the admin's blocks get upped by hours, the regular guy's get upped by weeks. If there really was equal treatment, Sarek should be blocked for a week... at least. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To make it clear: SoV's edits improved the encyclopaedia. DC's edits made it worse. Sanity would have probably meant SoV not getting blocked at all, on the grounds that improvement is good William M. Connolley (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoever said that sanity has anything to do with the way we do things on Wikipedia? --B (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

concur with WMC's comment; what happened to IAR? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarek could easily have got more, or Docram should be reduced and a solution should be worked out for them - edit warring whether right or wrong is not the correct way to go and as we seem to expect a higher standard of editing from admins Sareks actions are disappointing, he was recently supported only just at RFA (I supported him) and since has continued in a messy dispute with TT and now this repeat situation carrying on a previous with Docram. I support a reduction for Docrum to compare with Sareks block and then some discussion and dispute resolution to sort the issue out. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a thread open at WP:AN on how to reform the editing of NRHP stubs going forward, if necessary with an editing restriction on one of the parties. I see no consensus at AN yet, but more discussion is surely possible. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tamajared and User:Vitashaomi reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: Protected)

Page: Bon Iver, Bon Iver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vitashaomi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Tamajared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Vitashaomi
• Tamajared

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1] and [2]

Comments:Pretty much the same undos back and forth. There's some underlying dispute about article naming, and a discussion, but they've been edit warring back and forth a few times now. This needs to stop.

Hello, Please note I used talk three times within the 24 hours, though the page (article and talk) was redirected, so I can see why this was missed. Also note that 4 other users also rv the same edits. Thanks. Vitashaomi (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Fully protected until 22 June. A dispute has been raging over the album title for several weeks. Some think it will be 'Bon Iver' and others believe it's 'Bon Iver, Bon Iver.' The official release date is 21 June, and the actual title should be known by then. If agreement on the title is reached earlier, protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on which title is correct, but there was a recent RM discussion which resulted in the article being moved to Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Therefore I think the article at Bon Iver (album) needs to be returned to a redirect, as it is a copy-paste move. Those that want it move, are free to open a new requested move. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion at Talk:Bon Iver, Bon Iver#Album title but I don't perceive consensus there for the longer title. The sources appear to be in conflict. The move discussion that you cite is from 22 May and new press coverage has appeared since then. No objection if you or any other admin read the consensus as favoring the longer title and want to move it back. There was another suggestion for a compromise such as '2011 Bon Iver album.' The protection will probably need to stay in place whichever way the title goes. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Page Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [3]

• 1st revert: [4]
• 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maurice_Duplessis&action=historysubmè

it&diff=433336020&oldid=433335905]

• 3rd revert: [5]
• 4th revert: [6]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
Roscelese has been ignoring WP:BRD for some time now. She makes appearances of engaging in discussion, but continues to edit war even as the discussion follows its natural progression. In the particular case, after my request to Talk it over, she opened discussion on the Talk page, and then reverted a fourth time before I was even able to join the discussion. On other articles she usually reverts right up to 3RR and stops. This time she was careless and did revert a 4th time. Lionel (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note that the fourth diff settles the edit warring with a scholarly source. No cited source was present until Roscelese introduced it. As well, Lionelt complains about Roscelese ignoring BRD but there is no talk page entry by him; no discussion at all. There was no "natural progression" of a discussion underway about the term "pro-family" used anachronistically to describe Duplessis. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Is a revert not a revert? Introducing another source on the 4th revert does not absolve an editor who should know better, she has been blocked for this before. - Haymaker (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You, too, did not take part in discussion, ignoring the 'D' part of BRD, and you reverted three times to return the anachronism to the article. In so reverting, you were guilty of tendentious editing and also of hounding Roscelese. You had never before edited that article, not as Haymaker or Schrandit, and it must be assumed you followed Roscelese to the article as you had done so many times before to other articles. There is an open noticeboard discussion about this hounding of yours at WP:ANI#Long-term harassment by Haymaker. Beware of the boomerang effect; your actions on this article can get you blocked. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question directly, I think that the last diff is building the article, not simply reverting. Nobody else was introducing sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Technically there was a 3RR vio since the fourth revert came just within the 24 hr period. However, the dispute was about an unsourced claim, so given that the fourth revert added a source you could say it moved the article to an improved state. It's would be very harsh intrepretation of 3rr if the edit that added a source was the edit that copped the ban. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the logic in that, but it did violate the letter, and spirit of WP:revert and it is from some one who has been blocked for it before. - Haymaker (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As a three-time reverter on that article, on the day in question, you have some brass talking about violating the spirit of 3RR. Your three edits were pure edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Please discuss changes on the talk page of the article instead of blindly reverting one another. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that page protection should allow us to get some discussion at the article's talk page. I'm surprised that Lionelt would so openly call attention to his tag-teaming with Haymaker, but maybe now that the page is protected, the two of them will choose to discuss instead. Cheers, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion? They must have changed that word since I got out of school. - Haymaker (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No it is not a discussion, it is one editor voicing their opinion. A discussion needs at least two editors that talk to each other and tell their side and work towards a consensus. GB fan (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is, even now, more than either of the users trying to restore the POV, unsourced term have done. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so cavalier about throwing unfounded accusations. I happen to watch Haymakers page, as I do yours, Ros, and when I saw the ANI notices I reviewed contribs to see if the hounding charge was sustainable. Then I saw your POV edit warring, reverted, and requested Discussion. To imply that I am tag-teaming, stalking or anything else is ludicrous. I have been on Wikipedia 3 years, am approaching 10,000 edits and have never been blocked, banned or any sanction whatsoever. Because of the controversial topics I choose to edit I am constantly belittled and ridiculed. Yet I am extremely civil and respected by many in spite of perceived differences. Note the new barnstar on my Talk. I even go out of my way to interject humor in the mundane walls of bickering I read on a regular basis. I find your insinuations insulting to the highest degree. Lionel (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of stalking. Tag-teaming ("working together to circumvent the three revert rule," to start) is an entirely separate thing. I figured you were there via Haymaker's contributions and not via mine - it's still gaming 3RR to force your favorite uncited, non-neutral terms into articles or otherwise for the apparent pleasure of reverting me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are accusing Lionel of tag-teaming? - Haymaker (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that should have been clear from my first comment, where I referred to his tag-teaming. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Weren't you just warned about making unfounded accusations? - Haymaker (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You say this as though I was "warned" in a different incident by a user other than one who is doing the tag-teaming, instead of just now by Lionelt. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? If you think that Lionel and I are actually violating the rules then write it up and take it to the proper venue. Short of that, stop trying to muddy his name and mine. - Haymaker (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Political positions of George W. Bush was the particularly egregious one, but there's also Category:Anti-pornography activists and Maurice Duplessis - coincidentally, I'm sure, all articles you stalked me to. I provide this information for your own edification - once you are banned from stalking and reverting me, I imagine the problem will go away, so there's no reason for me to take action against Lionelt. You, by the way, are the last person who should be pretending to be righteous about sullying others' names at noticeboards. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I can be more direct than "put up or shut up", but seriously, put up or shut up. - Haymaker (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Political positions of George W. Bush was the particularly egregious one, but there's also Category:Anti-pornography activists and Maurice Duplessis - coincidentally, I'm sure, all articles you stalked me to. I provide this information for your own edification - once you are banned from stalking and reverting me, I imagine the problem will go away, so there's no reason for me to take action against Lionelt. You, by the way, are the last person who should be pretending to be righteous about sullying others' names at noticeboards. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your examples don't hold up. I have been tagging Reagan & Bush articles for WPRight for months. When I made it to Political positions I was so distracted by your POV editing I forget to tag it. I went to Duplessis as the direct result of your ANI activity and found you there POV edit warring. And category anti-porn? Are you serious? I was there before any of you. Lionel (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm not accusing you of stalking, how you got there is irrelevant. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:BottomDog reported by User: Brainsteinko (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

• 1st revert by 93.233.102.27: diff
• 1st revert by Brainsteinko: diff
• 2nd revert by 93.233.122.72: diff
• 2nd revert by Brainsteinko diff
• 3rd revert by 93.233.122.72: diff
• 3rd revert by Brainsteinko diff
• 4th revert by 93.233.103.229: diff

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

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

Really sorry if I've done anything wrong while filling out the form

The deletion concerned is this passage from the introduction. It was roughly deleted 4 times and reverted by me 3 times within 8 June.

It is a long-standing leader as comes to the amount of supported text formats, though there do exist file converters. PB's open-source software is updated nearly every month and can boast arguably the fastest page flip in the market.

I can defend every word of this passage and I partially did on View History page (see all changes since 6 June) as well as refute *any* sweeping changes made by BottomDog. All German IPs and BottomDog is supposedly one person never participated earlier. He appears to be dissatisfied PB customer. I've invited twice him to Discussion Page to no avail. NONE of my arguments on View History page were refuted by BottomLog. And he continued making changes like adding Controversies section based on forum refs and topped all that with advert tag (for what reason now ?). I believe that dissatisfied customers need to be some majority to be reflected in Wikipedia which is not the case. See PocketBook on Amazon (picture for 902 model on that site was hacked yesterday). Even if there is only one dissatisfied customer he has the right to write to Wikipedia basing arguments on *reliable* sources. After I reverted his changes, he became personal, creating "Brainsteinko" section on Discussion page (changed by user Ronz to COI and reference concerns). Still none of my arguments about the passage above were addressed. I kindly ask the Administrator to tell him to stop. I will inform BottomDog of this report. Using this opportunity please stop Ronz from deleting "Services: Bookland.net" from the infobox which he did again on the quiet Ronz's deletion

--Brainsteinko (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Neither User:BottomDog nor any of his IPs have never been warned for edit warring. I've gone ahead and warned the most recent few. If edit warring continues, leave a message on my talk page and I'll range block the IP and BottomDog. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User: Brainsteinko reported by User:BottomDog (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&oldid=430983844

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=433126743&oldid=432837427
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=433181155&oldid=433173798
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=433290607&oldid=433274505
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=433617601&oldid=433352963

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PocketBook_eReader#COI_and_reference_concerns

Comments:

I hope I have filled out this part correctly. I'm curious as to why I have been warned for edit warring while it is Brainsteinko who has so far managed to revert all changes done by anyone besides him. Please look at the revision of the article and you will notice that in the end it has the same marketing speak that it started out with before I tried to add some more useful information. In the revisions he undos around 5-10 revisions in one go and then tells everyone to defend their additions to the article. I might be new here but I thought nobody owns a page like this.

He just goes and deleted whole blocks, reverts other parts and reads text that sounds more like marketing than anyone else. I have refrained from again undoing his undo to my additions and asking for advice / help here. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information on the issue.

BottomDog (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I presented a whole bunch of arguments against BottomDog changes both on View History page (since 8 June) and on Discussion page (the very last section). None were answered. I can refute any single change made by him. But let's start talking about change by change.--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: Discussion sections from this one--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

first you removed a big group of edits in one go without much explanation and also your discussion was more a statement in the revision by using 4 revisions to make your point and also more of the tone that you own the page and everyone else has to explain to you why the marketing info was removed.

Now we ended up with 2 or 3 peoples edits removed and back to what you wrote and that another admin now had to clean up because it truly was marketing speak. BottomDog (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we started talking on Discussion page. I repeat that only one other man's edit was removed (see my edit warring report just above this report).--Brainsteinko (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The editors are starting to use the talk page. I think we can work this out on the talk page. GB fan (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Declined #User:BottomDog reported by User: Brainsteinko (Result: Declined) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Dbpjmuf reported by User:DWC LR (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dbpjmuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

• 1st revert: [13]
• 2nd revert: [14]
• 3rd revert: [15]
• 4th revert: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

The first and 2nd "reverts" are not reverts. Also, It takes two to tango. Also, you did not "attempt to resolve the dispute". [19]. Dbpjmuf (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The block expires and you drag us both back to edit warring. You unjustly removed sources so I reverted, I didn't want another block so I initiated disscussion (got called "fucking illiterate" for the trouble) you continued to revert while discussion was going on. - dwc lr (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed unreliable sources. You also continued to revert while discussion was ongoing. I didn't "drag" you into anything. And you only got called illiterate after calling me "clearly very ignorant" [20] Dbpjmuf (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes because you are getting confused by the two Volumes (1 & 2).[21] So demonstrate you are not familiar with the book and are in fact removing acceptable sources. - dwc lr (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Schnget reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: 24h)

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

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

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [25]
• 5th revert: [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Ronald Wenonah reported by User:Tirronan (Result: )

Page: War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronald Wenonah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]

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

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

Comments:

The user;Ronald Wenonah has been committing disruptive editing for some time now, he was blocked on June 9th, 2011 because of it. On June 11th, he was right back to it. I don't believe Ronald got the message last time and I am asking for an extended block.Tirronan (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The user;Tirronan has been reverting properly cited and verifiable edits for around two years(see User talk:Hubertgrove and User talk:TirronanArchive 4,in the section "War of 1812".I am sure there are others.I think that, before blocking me, you should look at these links. The editors in question both seem to have had the same problem: Tirronan dislikes their edits and calls them vandals, says that their properly cited and verifiable edits are incorrect or their own theories, and eventually decide to cease editing on Wikipedia . I am thinking of doing that, but would like to get this properly resolved first. Both aforementioned editors would probably be willing to give evidence if they could be contacted. Please advise.Ronald Wenonah (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have reverted Ronald exactly once in the last week and as maybe ascertained by the history of edits, users, Rjensen, Dwalrus, Discool, have all reverted him each giving him reasons why his edits are not reaching a consensus. I have warned him on his talk page before reverting him that his edits were simply repetition of subject matter already covered and that ascertaining a motive of revenge is not encyclopedic, and counter to the current historiography for some time now. Nor have I been the only one to warn him. Once again, attempts to make this some sort of personal vendetta by myself when I was not the one that blocked him seem to be misplaced anger. Neither I, nor any of the editors on the page has been in favor of this addition and Ronald has been repeatedly inserting said addition into the article over and over again without comment. He has been up for this several times and I believe the admin Phillip Bard was the last that I saw on the subject, and again I was not involved.Tirronan (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ron, just to be clear, your intent is to continue to revert the article to your preferred state and ignore the opinions of the four editors reverting you? Kuru (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The user;Ronald Wenonah is wrong to attack the user;Tirronan on this issue. The problem has been apparent to a number of editors and not just to one. Ronald Wenonah has been engaging in disruptive editing for some time now. It has been pointed out to him that part of his edit is already in the article (on annexation and the small size of the US navy) and therefore it is not necessary to repeat it. A large part of his edit is about events that occurred during the American Revolution and it is the view of other editors that it is not appropriate for the War of 1812 article. He insists that because it is in a book on the war by an historian it should be included. I pointed out that this is an article and not a book, therefore the amount of content must be limited. Putting in material on events from 30+ years previously is simply wrong for this article. This is the largest part of his edit. Finally, part of his edit is nothing more than opinion and is not supported by his source. Sadly, since he will not listen to reason something should be done.Dwalrus (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Ronald Wenohan's edits on the War of 1812 article twice, both within a span of two days. In this latest spate of editing, Ronald Wenonah refuses to bring his controversial edit to the War of 1812 article's talk page. When I saw him break 3RR between 08:33, 5 June 2011 and 08:15, 6 June 2011, I was motivated to help keep the article in line with current consensus. This is a case in which I had hoped the editor in question would participate in a discussion about his edits, but he has failed to do so, rather he insists on wasting other editors' time in cleaning up after him. —Diiscool (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Wenonah has repeatedly ignored the editors who point out he's not using RS on the topic of American diplomacy. Rjensen (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Fry1989 reported by User:Adelbrecht (Result: article protected)

Page: Coat of arms of Luxembourg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: edit war

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
User Fry1989 keep reverting to versions of the page that feature coats of arms with clear and grave errors. When I said this to him, he ignored the arguments, saying that they can be fixed in the future (not taking any attempt to do so). Then, he attacks the heraldic rules, and saying that his "original research" (which lacks any research) is the only truth. After his last revert, he says I need consensus for correcting obvious mistakes, and calls all heraldists arrogant.

Adelbrecht (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First, Adelbrecht himself is the one who started this edit war. He proposed a change, and is now trying to force it without consensus. Second, he and other heraldists have this superiority complex (as you can see from his comments on the article's talk page) that just because they're well-versed in heraldry, they can down others and say things like "leave this to the people who know things", as if I'm some sort of idiot. Also note, he has violated the 3RR rule he is trying to use against me. I am the one maintaining consensus. The rule is that the one proposing the change must seek community consensus for his proposed change, but for some reason Adelbrecht seems to think he now has the right to force his proposed change surpassing the consensus rule. I will not allow him to do that. Fry1989 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it takes two to tango. If I need to blocked too, so be it. I have reported you for breaking the 3RR-rule, which I have not. Fry, please, not only read a bit about heraldry, but also about the 3RR rule. You are the one maintaining previously reported errors, and even adding more of them. Adelbrecht (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not bound by the ancient rules of heraldry, and neither are modern countries. I have already cited Kenya as an example, were heraldists such are youself thing you have the right to force your ancient rules no matter what. I have added no errors to any files, except making the sections that were once grey, now white proper. There are no other "errors" you can attribute to me on those files, only the silly "if you use white for Argent, you must use yellow for Or" heraldry rule, which as I've said, is not always followed. The consensus article always had the versions I have maintained, while users such are yourself have systematically replaced it without sources or consensus with the new versions, just because you "think it looks better, therefore is must be better". The rule is the rule, you proposed the change. When it is contested, you must wait out a discussion by the community for consensus. Using terms like "I must force this version on the article, because the old ones are flawed" doesn't help you. Fry1989 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg has a coat of arms that is completely compliant to the heraldic rules. I have corrected the article, clearly stating the mistakes. Yet to pretend to be ignorant of this. I will give of an example of a file that you've added an error to: you readded a double tail to this file, a serious heraldic mistake. Adelbrecht (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And therein lies the arrogance I am talking about: "The rules of heraldry must be always followed, and if the governments of countries don't follow them, THEY'RE the ones who are wrong, not me and my beloved rules". Can you provide a source that the Coat of Arms of Luxembourg's lions don't have a double-tail, OTHER than your "Rules of heraldry"? Rules aren't always followed, and unless you can prove, against current sources, that there shouldn't be a double-tail, YOU are the one who is mistaken, not me, and not the Luxembourg Government. Fry1989 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected 3RR applies to reverts within a 24 hours period. You're both at 3 from my count; I don't see the fourth that would put anyone over. Regardless, you're both edit warring. I've protected the article for a few day to perhaps encourage a discussion (on the article's talk page, not here), not that experienced editors should need such prompting. Kuru (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet, the obvious problems are still not solved. We are left with a version full of errors, by someone who has even admitted that he doesn't really know heraldry, yet still forces his misguided views on the article.

Fry, you still don't get it. The Luxembourg government isn't wrong, only you are. "Rules of heraldry" don't say anything abut Luxembourg, it is the Luxembourg tradition that says something about that. And I don't know if the government has said anything about the arms of the monarch. Adelbrecht (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If Luxembourh displays it with a double-tail (some sources do, some don't), you, and your rules are wrong. Luxembourg sets it's own stile, not the rules of heraldry, that you are pushing. You must show a Lux Gov't source, showing it with a single tail, as you are the one claiming it is that way. I have had enough of this, I have to go to work, but the situation remains, that you are pushing the changes, you must give sources and gain consensus. Fry1989 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me a source that displays the arms of the monarch with two tails on that supporter. You are talking nonsense. Here is a source that supports the thing Xavigivax, Katepanomegas and I know, but you seem to try and remain ignorant of. All versions on wikipedia have this correctly, as far as I know, except yours. Adelbrecht (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't the place to work our your dispute, though I think you are making some progress, perhaps take it to the talk page?Tirronan (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Avanu reported by User:Avanu (Result: Page Protected)

Editors continually removing timidly negative comments in Public image of Sarah Palin article

Page: Public image of Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Recent editors who won't consistently use Talk.

My fellow editors have been collectively reverting.

• Initially the request was "needs an attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV", which I quickly found and provided
• Then was reverted with "That opinion should be attributed in text", which it already was (the editor didn't read)
• Then I went and found 3 more sources for the editor since only one apparently would not do, waited for a response.
• A different editor simply said "it was quite clear what she was trying to say", but provided no sourcing.
• Then without addressing the Talk page as requested, an IP user comes along and reverts, to which I provided 6 *more* sources (total of 10 at that point)
• Finally The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted with "editorializing and not NPOV even if correct and BTW has no importance"

The problem here is that essentially the other editors are all saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that's about it. Meanwhile, I've been out gathering sources and providing the material on the Talk page for discussion, which seems to be a one-sided effort.

I'll stop editing this article for the time being if necessary, but considering the media only called Palin's Paul Revere comments a gaffe because they were poorly spoken, it seems more than fair to have two simple words of "somewhat inarticulate". (supported now by 10 sources)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Public image of Sarah Palin

Comments:

Thanks for advice, please recognize my willingness to refrain from editing on this further, not sure what else to do at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Avanu seems to have some wrong idea what this board is meant for. I advised him not to file any report since he is the one with 5 reverts in less than 24 h. But in light that the article in question is now protected there seems to be no reason to block them and instead given a warning and advise to make themselves familiar with wp:3RR.TMCk (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if this wasn't done correctly. I did go over 3RR, and yes, like many violators, I do have reasons and rationales. I don't think there's any ill-will at the moment, but I am not sure what to do in the face of a lack of discussion along with providing 10 sources that support the addition of the material. I appreciate your sentiment above, and I am looking for a positive solution here. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 3 days by SlimVirgin – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 21:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. -- Avanu (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page discussion seemed collegial and productive until one non-participant editor reverted Avanu. Rationale in the reverter's ed. comment included "not NPOV even if correct and BTW has no importance." Worrisome. Avanu's WP:IDONTLIKEIT accusation, aimed at unnamed editors on the other side of the discussion, is, I think, misplaced. And anyway this whole thing is a storm in a very, very tiny teacup. The drama is unnecessary. Writegeist (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I messed up and went over 3RR. Its proper to report such things. I think Slim is willing to acknowledge my mistake and let a commitment to stop be enough for now. -- Avanu (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's already solved and no action is needed.TMCk (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that you must quote me please quote me in full to keep some context: "sourced or not, it is editorializing and not NPOV even if correct and BTW has no importance (undue comes into mind)" is what I wrote.TMCk (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my use of the word "included" failed to make it clear that I was not quoting the whole thing. Your pointing out the bookends does not ameliorate what stands between them, IMO. In future it would be a welcome courtesy if you were to use the talk page when you want to excise material whose removal is already under discussion there. Writegeist (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You made clear that you only quoted part of my editsummary to which I objected here as it was cherry picking out of context even so the quote in total was short enough to fit this page here easily. Don't know why you felt like providing only part of what I'd said. Further, there was no indication that there was already an ongoing discussion when I made a single revert that I explained pretty good in my opinion.TMCk (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(1) I provided only part of what you said because it was the part that was worrisome, and the parts before and after make no difference to that. (2) "No indication that there was already an ongoing discussion"? You removed the words "somewhat inarticulate" from the article well over 8 hours after Kelly, at the talk page, had opened a section under the title of "Somewhat inarticulate." The subsequent thread debating this wording was in full swing when you deleted the words under discussion. I don't know how much more clearly it could have been indicated to you that there was an ongoing discussion about the words "somewhat inarticulate" than by titling the discussion with the words "somewhat inarticulate". I have nothing more to add here. Writegeist (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion and guess what, I didn't look into the article's history so there was only one summary as reference. End for me too here as there is enough steering in the tiny little teapot already. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Solopiel reported by User:Hohum (Result: )

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

Continued uncommunicative edit warring over the same edit:

• [40]

Previous AN3 cases:

• [41]
• [42]

Warning by Administrator User:2over0 as result of latest AN3: [43]

Comments:

Despite two previous AN3 cases resulting in blocks and warnings, Solopiel has continued to edit war. 2over0 has advised me on his talk page that he can't currently give this attention, and that I should mention it here. (Hohum ^@) 22:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Solopiel's edits seem to be reverted by various other editors right away, also with no edit summary or explanation. This suggests that the issue has been discussed before at a talkpage somewhere and there is consensus to include whatever he is removing. Could you please provide a link to whatever that discussion was? (In any case I think a block will probably be appropriate, I just want to check.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You should see that he has been talked to on his talk page about it, but doesn't respond. (Hohum ^@)

User:MrJoshbumstead reported by User:79.144.86.143 (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [44] (diff against current: [45])

• 0th revert: [46]
• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [49]
• 4th revert: [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:
A weird one here. Someone keeps trying to bowlderise every expletive on that article (plus the word Holocaust!). Not exactly a 3RR but although the guy just seems to have some mistaken ideas rather than being malicious, it's been explained a couple of times in the previous reverts that what he's doing is not quite right, with reference to the proper guidelines. He did attempt to explain himself, I think, in the article's talk page but I couldn't quite extract the meaning out of his heterodox spelling conventions.

79.144.86.143 (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (Yes, I go by IP not user name)

• Declined I understand and sympathize with the concerns of the reporting editor, but the edits have been too intermittent to justify an edit-warring block. I have watchlisted the page and will keep an eye on things. CIreland (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note Updated section title to reflect verdict by CIreland + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 12:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Pensionero reported by User:Tourbillon (Result: Decline both reports)

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

Previous version reverted to: [53]

• 1st revert: 1st
• 2nd revert: 2nd
• 3rd revert: 3rd, with a notable degree of arrogance
• 4th revert: [diff]

An active edit warrior making numerous reverts in what appears to have become a slow edit war, insisting on a personal point of view. Has shown a disrespect for using talk pages (keeps posting on personal talk pages instead), and a POV tendency can be underlined by this revert, where the three heritage branches are replaced by one ("Orthodox Slavic") with a disregard to the source provided. All edits continue to push a POV with demographic data insisting on higher (and misinterpreted) figures as shown here. I am currently working to reduce the article in size for a Featured Article candidate in the future, while the user is doing the exact opposite. I've provided a link to an older version before any edit warring occured, though it is not necessarily the same as the current version due to a number of rather minor changes that have been made.

The user has been engaged in the talk page concerning the constant addition of a "capital" province article which does not exist, with the main reason being that the given user thinks two different provinces can be "confused" [54]. Thereafter, instead of addressing the issue at the article talk page, the user does so on my personal talk page [55], this time with a desire not to engage in edit warring. I responded adequately [56], but after only a couple of sentences the user again demonstrated his own idea of which sources are "reliable" and which are not [57]. I have addressed the nature of his edits on his talk page [58], although he managed to twist it into an imagery discussion. A final example of the tendentious edits of the user would be this edit by User:Питър , which placed the 2011 GDP esimates in the infobox [59]; User:Pensionero's last edits claim mine to be a vandalism to the infobox, while what he does is restoring the old data only to have his nationalist intro and POV-ed information back [60]. The fact that the user engages the issue in my personal talk page, and not on the article talk page, as well as his general preferences for source and image material are demonstrative of his personal POV pushing.

I'll have to remind that the user has already been banned twice on the same grounds.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by Bot and a few seconds later, by me.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Comments:
Could you show where I was exactly insisting with my point of view? This edit [62] I reverted 2 times and explained you that as mistake I haven't seen the source and can you exactly show other example of POV editing by me beacause your explanation have strong misleading? The capital province exist: and I am tired of your illiteracy , when you don't know don't insist. The last GDP edits have not been sourced and usually such replacinf of sourced info is considered vandalism. The things you cover is the distutive removal of information which you revert 3 times today and after my block I was never reverting 3 times in 24 hours an administrator could check. User:Pensionero (UTC)

- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tourbillon reported by User:Pensionero (Result: declined as above)

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

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

• 1st revert: 1st today
• 2nd revert: 2nd today
• 3rd revert: 3rd today

The user is actively disruptevely reverting content from few days in the article. Today he reached 3rd in 24 hours.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Pensionero (UTC)

• Declined Neither editor has yet violated the 3-revert-rule. Both editors are encouraged to seek consensus at the talk page and, if necessary, seek wider input by one the methods suggested at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Ceoil reported by User:Δ (Result: stale)

Page: List of large triptychs by Francis Bacon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 12:18, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Δ (talk) to last version by Tabletop")
2. 12:19, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433872097 by Δ (talk)")
3. 12:20, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433872250 by Δ (talk)")
4. 12:21, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "you win, reverting")
5. 12:22, 12 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 433872421 by Δ (talk)")

Repeatedly re-adding non-free files without rationales. —ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And will continue to do so. You mamy's boys unthinking bot like prat, did you even look at the article. Ceoil 12:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you will be blocked. The usage of non-free content requires a rationale for each. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I may get blocked, but you'l still be wrong. Ceoil 12:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the non-free content policy it requires rationales for every use of non-free materiel. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• what about listing your own five reverts (with no talk page discussion)? Arm wrestling is no way to convince others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Δ, a much easier way to go would be to explain to Ceoil, who is actually interested in the subject matter about the need for tweaking and adding to the FUR, instead of this confrontational behaviour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I left a clear reason in my edit summary, which was ignored, and then I left a clear warning on his talk page, which he blindly reverted. Not much else I can do if the user will not listen. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh you mean that? Why not clearly and succinctly state what needs to be done rather than some generic template which actually doesn't. How on earth is anyone supposed to read that template as a constructive message? The aim here is to solve a problem collaboratively, not charge around threatening other users. Clearly art is a subject Ceoil cares about, so maybe some tact would have gone a long way. It looks like Ceoil and Modernist are discussing how to solve the problem now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • • you really cant get much clearer than remove files without a valid rationale for this usage and linking to the guide to write correct rationales. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind that Beta/Delta is the King of All Deletionists on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Deletionist my ass, There are cases where I will vehemently defend the usage of non-free content, it just needs to be justified (aka the cover used on Virgin Killer is one of those examples) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 12:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Virgin Killer? O mentioning that is a lovely move. Is guilt by association the best you can do, or are you using an extreme example as justification for a crusade. Either is dull. Ceoil 13:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
            • • Neither, It was just the first example that came to mind, There are others, but I dont feel like digging around and locating them at the moment. Two others on quick notice are Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Worf. In both cases I will defend the use of non-free content there. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
                • Listen to yourself. I will defend, Then you will be blocked, Not much else I can do. I'm wondering if there is a mind at work here, prob not given the evidence here. Ceoil 13:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
            • In that one sentence, he's told us way more than we needed to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
              • Yep. Ceoil 13:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • There's plenty else you can do. One thing is to not edit-war yourself and then hypocritically report someone else for edit-warring. Another is to fix the problem yourself, which would have taken less time than edit-warring over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit war has abated and some of the parties are taking constructive steps to address the situation; as such, administrator action is not necessary at this point. Skomorokh 13:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I've rewritten a few of the Fair use Rationales...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:71.83.247.202 and User:202.111.188.125 reported by User:68.33.14.232 (Result: )

Page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
User being reported: 202.111.188.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 71.83.247.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

• 1st revert: 11:36, 11 June 2011
• 2nd revert: 09:36, 12 June 2011
• 3rd revert: 13:05, 12 June 2011
• 4th revert: 13:14, 12 June 2011
• 5th revert: 14:02, 12 June 2011

Note: the first two are by one IP and the last three by another. But based on the article's history I think it's clear there's one individual who's intent on preserving the romanticized tone of the article. (Edit) Also, I checked a few of the IPs that have reverted the article, and noticed that they were all listed on various web sites as available proxies.

• 122.224.79.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [64]
• 202.111.188.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [65]
• 71.83.247.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [66]
• 115.78.224.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:
Someone appears to have been protecting the over-the-top language in Drifter (person) for some time, reverting most attempts to improve the article's tone, often as 'vandalism', and telling the editors who make them to justify their edits on the talk page. There have been several comments on the talk page about how biased and unencyclopedic the language of the article is, and none justifying the romantic tone. Most recently I started the section ""A completely free, fulfilling life"?" (referring to some of the language I attempted to remove). The editor re-reverted me and once again ordered me to justify my edits on the talk page, apparently not even having checked it before they reverted me. Am I wrong here? Is this the kind of tone we're going for? (Note: I made my first edits to the article yesterday not realizing there was an ongoing dispute - if I had I probably would have been more careful to make sure I was logged in. Now that it's done I'm reluctant to log in to continue the discussion and link my IP address with my wikipedia account. Sorry.) -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Should this be considered an irony or a joke? The person who accused me of edit warring is the one who started it [69]. I would also advise anyone to read through this discussion before taking further action. The one thing he is right about is that this computer has an open proxy port that I've been working on, but am currently unable to close. I don't have much else to add, except to check through the article's edit history and judge for yourself.

Edit: Another thing this person likes to do is calling different IPs the same person, which we are not. However, I would suggest the administrators to check which account/s the IP reporting me here is linked to. I have a feeling it's someone who's been editing that article before, probably on the same day. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you could say I 'started it' in that I made a change you didn't like, removing silly romantic language about how drifters lead lives that are "completely free and fulfilling," and then had the audacity to object to your revert of my changes as 'vandalism'. But as you have reverted similar changes by other editors before, from a variety of proxies, it'd be more accurate to call this an ongoing pattern of disruption on your part. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Analyzer99 reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: 3 months)

Page: Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Analyzer99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

• 1st revert: [71]
• 2nd revert: [72]
• 3rd revert: [73]
• 4th revert: [74]

The above constitutes 4 RR in a 24 hour period on June 6th, but he continues with many more reverts up until the present (June 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:

This appears to be a serial edit warrior, going by all the block notices for 4RR already on his talkpage... Pity he hasn't learned anything from those blocks and still refuses to discuss whatsoever, only revert, revert, revert a section that had been previously hashed-out and agreed upon by multiple editors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove the citation needed tags without adding reliable sources. The rest is a simply reformat placing all hypothesis as a list. I didn't remove anything. Editors are free to edit changes to it.Analyzer99 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months Clearly edit warring against multiple editors, and already has a lengthy history of blocks for edit warring. Willing to lift block early if editor agrees to participate in discussion at the talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Kanetama reported by User:Rjanag (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [77]

• 1st revert: [78] (reverted [79])
• 2nd revert: [80] (reverted [81])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82] (after 1st revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments: User repeatedly restoring own edits without any comment or edit summary, never responded to edit warring warning left at talk page. I know it doesn't surpass 3RR, but user's unwillingness to engage in discussion and intentional restoration of edits that he knows are under dispute clearly constitute edit warring, which per WP:3RR is just as inappropriate as 3RR violations. User has a prior edit warring warning, although no block history. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)