Epicgenius (talk | contribs) |
→3RR warning: new section |
||
Line 574: | Line 574: | ||
::::::That source merely introduced Korail and had nothing to do with your claim of right-hand, left-hand track. You quoted Wikipedia articles as a source, which you shouldn't be doing as they're considered unreliable. [[User:Massyparcer|Massyparcer]] ([[User talk:Massyparcer|talk]]) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |
::::::That source merely introduced Korail and had nothing to do with your claim of right-hand, left-hand track. You quoted Wikipedia articles as a source, which you shouldn't be doing as they're considered unreliable. [[User:Massyparcer|Massyparcer]] ([[User talk:Massyparcer|talk]]) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Then how come it was on Korean Wikipedia? [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius#top|talk]]) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |
::::::::Then how come it was on Korean Wikipedia? [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius#top|talk]]) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
== 3RR warning == |
|||
== [[User:Srnec]] reported by [[User:EeuHP]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Pages:''' {{pagelinks|Petronilla of Aragon}} and {{pagelinks|Peter III of Aragon}}<br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Srnec}} |
|||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> |
|||
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] |
|||
The user Srnec violated the rule of three reversals. He started an edit war with me when he changed an image that had been there [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_III_of_Aragon&diff=590408669&oldid=437109044 since 2011] in the article [[Peter III of Aragon]]. In total, he made five changes. Nobody realized this. So I present this complaint. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_III_of_Aragon&diff=592363088&oldid=590408669] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_III_of_Aragon&diff=592367552&oldid=592366443] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_III_of_Aragon&diff=592378032&oldid=592369955] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_III_of_Aragon&diff=592587866&oldid=592489567] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_III_of_Aragon&diff=592741674&oldid=592637968] |
|||
But this wasn't the first time. In the article [[Petronilla of Aragon]], war started when I disapproved a change made by he a few months ago and Srnec also violated the rule. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petronilla_of_Aragon&diff=576031906&oldid=575997627] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petronilla_of_Aragon&diff=576045026&oldid=576044269] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petronilla_of_Aragon&diff=576050559&oldid=576049884] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petronilla_of_Aragon&diff=576081771&oldid=576051126] |
|||
And I'm not the only person who had a discussion with him for his idea of put only images or things made during the life of the person in the "image" section. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramon_Berenguer_III%2C_Count_of_Barcelona&diff=554659377&oldid=546670162][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramon_Berenguer_III%2C_Count_of_Barcelona&diff=587455586&oldid=587384240][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramon_Berenguer_III%2C_Count_of_Barcelona&diff=587465361&oldid=587460600].--[[User:EeuHP|EeuHP]] ([[User talk:EeuHP|talk]]) 21:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> |
Revision as of 21:19, 24 February 2014
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
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.
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. |
|
User:Farhoudk reported by User:Viewfinder (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.)
Page: Mount Damavand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farhoudk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] and several subsequent edits
Comments:
Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.
I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted after a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. JamesBWatson (talk)
User:Communist-USSR reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: )
- Page
- 2014 Venezuelan protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Communist-USSR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Venezuelan protests."
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Whitewashing */ new section"
- 19:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "comment"
Similar concerns have recently been expressed by other editors: [8], [9] etc.
- Comments:
In under 12 hours, we have:
:Zfigueroa do exactly the same.. And he won't discuss before edit, I have asked him multiple times.--Communist-USSR (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Zfigueroa has been a bit free with the revert button too, but is mostly adding new content, which you automatically revert. That is not good. I would have considered just letting this slide and trying to explain the concept of editwarring, but since you accused me of editwarring simply for making two edits reintroducing sourced content written by zfigueroa, whilst you continued to automatically revert everything - at least nine distinct reverts in under 12 hours, I may have missed a few - I think it's pretty clear that merely citing a policy again will not stop the disruptive editing. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- There are similar problems on other articles. For instance, over at RT (TV network): [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't automatically revert, he keeps adding the same information and won't discuss before add it. You are reverting my revert before discussing and you said you even didn't know what the problem was. About RT: I revert vandalising edits which keep reverting info. I am not the only one who has reverted these things. But the word "propaganda" keeps getting added. The source does not use the word "propaganda" with the indicated meaning; nascent RT as being such an outfit is disputed.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Zfigueroa here even said he won't discuss what wasn't discussed before.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- So you revert again. Even if we aggregate dozens of consecutive edits, you've made at least ten reverts in half a day on this article and more on other articles, despite multiple warnings, whilst arguing about it at the edit-warring noticeboard and accusing others of editwarrring. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Because he wouldn't discuss it despite 4 requests.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- It does appear that there is some editwarring going on with both sides of this dispute. At the heart seems to be largely dispute between sources of disputed reliability and primary sources that contradict them (notably a twitter account that does not contain a message reported in some media of disputed reliability). Considering that the ownership of most media by conservative supporters has been an ongoing dispute in Venezuela since the original assumption of power of the socialist government there is risk of unreliable media sources being used to insert violations of WP:NPOV I'd suggest admin attention, partial protection, and a referral to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard but would recommend against blocking parties from either side unless the decision is to block users from both sides. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Spreading blocks all round may not be the best approach. Zfigueroa didn't make any more reverts after I warned them, so blocking regardless would be rather bitey. but Communist-USSR kept on hammering the revert button after being warned. Protecting 2014 Venezuelan protests would make that article more stable (of course the Wrong Version will be protected :-), but Communist-USSR has edit-warred on other pages - and has previously been warned about that too. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- If nobody make anymore revert, how I can make them...--Communist-USSR (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Spreading blocks all round may not be the best approach. Zfigueroa didn't make any more reverts after I warned them, so blocking regardless would be rather bitey. but Communist-USSR kept on hammering the revert button after being warned. Protecting 2014 Venezuelan protests would make that article more stable (of course the Wrong Version will be protected :-), but Communist-USSR has edit-warred on other pages - and has previously been warned about that too. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- It does appear that there is some editwarring going on with both sides of this dispute. At the heart seems to be largely dispute between sources of disputed reliability and primary sources that contradict them (notably a twitter account that does not contain a message reported in some media of disputed reliability). Considering that the ownership of most media by conservative supporters has been an ongoing dispute in Venezuela since the original assumption of power of the socialist government there is risk of unreliable media sources being used to insert violations of WP:NPOV I'd suggest admin attention, partial protection, and a referral to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard but would recommend against blocking parties from either side unless the decision is to block users from both sides. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Because he wouldn't discuss it despite 4 requests.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- So you revert again. Even if we aggregate dozens of consecutive edits, you've made at least ten reverts in half a day on this article and more on other articles, despite multiple warnings, whilst arguing about it at the edit-warring noticeboard and accusing others of editwarrring. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Zfigueroa here even said he won't discuss what wasn't discussed before.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't automatically revert, he keeps adding the same information and won't discuss before add it. You are reverting my revert before discussing and you said you even didn't know what the problem was. About RT: I revert vandalising edits which keep reverting info. I am not the only one who has reverted these things. But the word "propaganda" keeps getting added. The source does not use the word "propaganda" with the indicated meaning; nascent RT as being such an outfit is disputed.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- There are similar problems on other articles. For instance, over at RT (TV network): [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Zfigueroa has been a bit free with the revert button too, but is mostly adding new content, which you automatically revert. That is not good. I would have considered just letting this slide and trying to explain the concept of editwarring, but since you accused me of editwarring simply for making two edits reintroducing sourced content written by zfigueroa, whilst you continued to automatically revert everything - at least nine distinct reverts in under 12 hours, I may have missed a few - I think it's pretty clear that merely citing a policy again will not stop the disruptive editing. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
In any case, I think that the user Communist-USSR should rename his account (in case anyone forgot it, USSR is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Cambalachero (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I hardly see how that is relevant. Or any of our business. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- It is a remark such as was made by Cambalachero that gives WIKI the image of being the domain of a few rather than the group. That user should apologize for the irrelevant and demeaning comment. If these types of comments are not addressed then just what civility is it to be expected?SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why is it demeaning? We have a username policy that forbids usernames that may be offensive to others, and there are many many others who may be offended by that username. Yes, the comment may be irrelevant to this noticeboard (WP:UAA is thataway), but to suggest that identifying a real problem is giving Wikipedia a "bad image" is useless rhetoric, and plain wrong. We usually get accused of avoiding real problems DP 09:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- You have taken it upon yourself to claim that the name is offensive. Why is it offensive to you. If someone has the user name Russia-Whites are you going to claim that this is as well offensive? It merely indicates some point in history. Just because the USSR was communistic is not offensive just as the US is not offensive if someone uses US-Confederation. Your words without support are just meant to inflame the situation. That is why they are demeaning. This action is not about the users name. Support your argument, the one that brought this issue to the fore, not by demeaning others. That is why an apology should be forthcoming.76.170.88.72 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen people with usernames that make specific reference to a pro-capitalist stance. That could just as easily be offensive to some members of our community. This isn't Conservapedia and it is supposed to be open and available to people regardless of their political inclinations.Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- You have taken it upon yourself to claim that the name is offensive. Why is it offensive to you. If someone has the user name Russia-Whites are you going to claim that this is as well offensive? It merely indicates some point in history. Just because the USSR was communistic is not offensive just as the US is not offensive if someone uses US-Confederation. Your words without support are just meant to inflame the situation. That is why they are demeaning. This action is not about the users name. Support your argument, the one that brought this issue to the fore, not by demeaning others. That is why an apology should be forthcoming.76.170.88.72 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why is it demeaning? We have a username policy that forbids usernames that may be offensive to others, and there are many many others who may be offended by that username. Yes, the comment may be irrelevant to this noticeboard (WP:UAA is thataway), but to suggest that identifying a real problem is giving Wikipedia a "bad image" is useless rhetoric, and plain wrong. We usually get accused of avoiding real problems DP 09:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Peace In Mississippi reported by User:Collect (Result: Blocked)
Page: Substantial (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peace In Mississippi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [28] 020 21 Feb using Peace account, removing AfD notice
- [29] 038 21 Feb, using his "TheKillingNoise" "secondary account" making same revert, but keeping AfD notice
- [30] 1:24 21 Feb, again restoring poorly sourced and unsourced material to a BLP]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]
Comments:
User used two separate accounts to make the reverts - and had been warned previously not to use two accounts on one article. User always blanks his talk page e.g. [33] after sock warning, [34] 3RR warning, [35] EW warning, [36] EW and blatant misuse of source warning, [37] EW warning, [38] EW
block notification, [39] AfD notification and noting use of an "old account" to appear as two editors warning. His response was thanks for pointing it out that I was on the wrong account, for some reason when I log into wikimedia I have to use TheKillingNoise and it transfers over.) which is not really all that reasonable as an excuse as logging into a "wrong account" has never been accepted for major edits. Collect (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Blocked. I blocked the old account indefinitely. I blocked Peace in Mississippi for two weeks for edit warring, removal of AfD tag, and sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
User:JankoNilovic reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Blocked indef)
Page: Holocaust denial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}
User being reported: JankoNilovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [40]
This is a report of cross-day edit warring and POV pushing (despite warnings and a talk page discussion) rather than a 3 RR violation per-se
Diffs of the user's reverts:
19/20 February
22 February
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion started at Talk:Holocaust denial#Standard term by JankoNilovic, but he's ignoring the total lack of support for his edit there and keeps on edit warring.
Comments:
This account was last active in 2011 (only briefly), and was warned for edit warring [46] and POV pushing [47] in the Holocaust denial article then. As such, this appears to be a POV-pushing only account. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was in the process of raising an AIV report when I saw this. I'm probably too involved with the article to block him myself but I think a block is warranted. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Same here. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC).
User:Ibrar72 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Blocked)
Page: Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ibrar72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 30 Aug 2013
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Imran Khan#Date of birth
Comments:
Persistently changing dob in a BLP article, that is already sourced from a reliable source. Ibrar72 was asked to participate in the discussion on talk page but he didn't. -- SMS Talk 15:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of one month. I suggest you look at some of the other articles this user has either changed or added a DOB with no supporting source. These edits are more serious than the slow edit war.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Mthinkcpp reported by User:84.127.80.114 (Result: IP warned)
Page: Debian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mthinkcpp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [48]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]
Comments:
The user claims to be the target of personal attacks. I do question the neutrality of this user and I pointed to a precedent where content was removed despite an ongoing discussion.
The user requests help from the administrators to block my edits. JamesBWatson has warned me to not edit war. I am not edit warring. I am trying to resolve a disagreement by discussion, as can be seen in the Debian talk page. Users that revert my edits refuse to talk. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Warned. There's no violation by Mthinkcpp. To the extent anyone has edit-warred, it is 84.127.80.114, and that was a few days ago, for which they were properly warned by James, who also went to the trouble of explaining at great length how the policy works. As far as I can tell, 84 has no consensus for the changes they wish to make to the article. If they persist in being disruptive in the article, they risk being blocked without any further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached for the last changes I did. Besides, I marked that the sections are disputed, which obviously are. Is Bbb23 stating that these sections are not disputed? Does Bbb23 find mthinkcpp's refusal to talk an acceptable behavior? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Bdell555 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)
Page: Edward Snowden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bdell555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [53]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [54] 15:08, February 20, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..." New addition. Not a revert.
- [55] 00:33, February 21, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."
- [56] 07:56, February 22, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."
- [57] 08:13, February 22, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."
- [58] 08:20, February 22, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."
- [59] 18:05, February 22, 2014. Adds "Kucherena had also expressed his concern for Snowden's safety the previous August." New addition. Not a revert.
- [60] 00:45, February 23, 2014. "Kucherena had also expressed his concern for Snowden's safety the previous August."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61] 01:40, February 21, 2014
[62] 08:28, February 22, 2014
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]
Comments:
Bdell555 is quite active at the Snowden biography; he has been reverting various editors steadily for months, along with adding new material. In the last month he made 50 edits. He discusses issues on the talk page, but he does not wait until consensus emerges before making more changes to the article. The series of four reversions shown above is preceded by two edits, one where Bdell555 creates new text, another where he reverts to his preferred version, then three more reversions to his preferred version. Another edit is shown where he adds new text, then the fourth reversion within 24 hours is his restoration of his preferred version. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, no it isn't, since what you call #4 is not in any part a reversion to or "restoration of" #1, #2, or #3. I'd add that nothing in edit #4 has ever been disputed on the Talk page, my justification for it just sitting there unresponded to while you revert it without any Talk page response to me. One could argue that the fact you have been edit warring over #4 implies your opposition to all elements of #4, but given your well chronicled habit of reverting me without even looking at the content you are reverting, it's entirely possible you have no objection to the elements of your reversion that your edit summaries never address. Now no doubt someone somehow will find a technical violation here regardless (I see now the possibility of my being prosecuted over a single letter: my removing an "s" from "Pentagon official" in accordance with the fact that the source cited never refers to more than one Pentagon official) and see fit to educate me as to the finer points of 3RR, to which I say in advance I stand corrected. I would just refer this admonisher to what I have to say about this attitude on my user page, and ask Binksternet why he can't find the time to engage on the article Talk page but can find the time to put this little presentation together (complete with a "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" that is conveniently left undated since it would predate no less than 10 Talk page comments that I have made since that time. On the rare occasion when you have made one of your fleeting appearances on the Talk page, Binksternet, you've been known to make a comment that reveals that you never bothered to read the thread! It was only after repeatedly requesting on your user Talk page your participation on the article Talk page that you were inclined to engage even on that cursory level! When I once replied to you, Binksternet, to say that "I'm seeing a refusal to engage here on this Talk page," recall that another editor promptly followed up my comment to say "I agree wholeheartedly with Brian in this case. This is an excellent example of WP:IDHT. We must be able to engage in our fellow editors' arguments if we are to edit productively on contentious subjects." Have you come here expecting an endorsement of this refusal to engage?--Brian Dell (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Le Grand Bleu reported by User:NeilN (Result:Blocked 31hr )
- Page
- Sami Jauhojärvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Le Grand Bleu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC) "Go to talk page if you want to explain your vandalism."
- 23:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism."
- 03:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Still waiting for explanations on talk page. Until then you two are vandals removing sourced info."
- 06:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Yet another vandal, removing sourced information without proper discussion."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sami Jauhojärvi. using TW"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* NPOV */ new section"
- Comments:
Multiple editors reverted NeilN talk to me 06:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've asked ALL participants to go to talk page and explain WHY they're reverting my perfectly legitimate edit. The edit war instigator was a Finnish administrator Prolog who is in a conflict of interest since the article is about a Finnish Olympic athlete. I've asked him in the edit summary, I asked him on his page to stop the war and go to the talk page. I got no response other than threats of blocking. Same from NeilN - without any explanation he reverted my edit and went to complain here. MAYBE I'm wrong but isn't it more productive (and less time consuming) to go to the article's talk page and have a... talk? When done by an administrator, say, Prolog, it might even set a positive trend. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are reverting three different editors, classifying them as vandals. Clear edit summaries were provided and talk page discussion was opened. --NeilN talk to me 06:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Edit summaries are not for discussing opinions. The talk page discussion was opened barely 20 minutes ago while the edit war started yesterday. People who remove legitimate information or add rubbish are called vandals. Even if there are three of them, they still are just that - vandals. Threats of blocking by an administrator to another user in a situation of conflict of interest is severe abuse of administrator's rights. Are you ready to call off the war and start talking now? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Get consensus for your addition as you don't have it so far. Until then, leave the contentious material out. You might want to cool off a bit more as your edits still echo of this. --NeilN talk to me 06:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- No. It's not contentious material. It's sourced information included in another article where it was not contended. It's bare facts, nothing else as explained on the talk page. If you don't like it, that's YOUR problem. So far I haven't seen ONE good reason why it shouldn't be included. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Get consensus for your addition as you don't have it so far. Until then, leave the contentious material out. You might want to cool off a bit more as your edits still echo of this. --NeilN talk to me 06:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Edit summaries are not for discussing opinions. The talk page discussion was opened barely 20 minutes ago while the edit war started yesterday. People who remove legitimate information or add rubbish are called vandals. Even if there are three of them, they still are just that - vandals. Threats of blocking by an administrator to another user in a situation of conflict of interest is severe abuse of administrator's rights. Are you ready to call off the war and start talking now? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are reverting three different editors, classifying them as vandals. Clear edit summaries were provided and talk page discussion was opened. --NeilN talk to me 06:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Fifth revert on a BLP. --NeilN talk to me 06:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- NeilN chose to continue the war instead of having a proper discussion and listening to the opponent. I'm leaving this up to the admins. I refuse to deal with bullies. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've protected the page due to the edit war, and recommend that all the involved editors discuss the article on the talk page in the intervening 4 days to reach a consensus. I would also like to remind everyone to stay Civil and avoid Personal Attacks, vandalism is by definition a deliberate attempt to undermine Wikipedia, good faith edits (even in an edit war) are generally not vandalism and accusations such as that undermine discussion and make reaching a productive consensus considerably harder. Best, Mifter (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose reverting good faith and sourced edits just because someone doesn't like it doesn't undermine the discussion? Not going to talk to these two. They are hostile, selfish, counter productive and generally detrimental to WP. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- One would think Le Grand Bleu is speaking of himself. He has been calling other editors vandals, and he is the one edit-warring (he's been reverted by four other editors), he is the one refusing to discuss (see above), nonetheless he calls for people stop making ad hominem attacks, stop edit-warring, and start discussing, he is hostile, selfish, etc. I welcome anyone that might stray here to check LGB's contributions, especially to this discussions. Black is white, and white is black, it seems. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Update: I checked LGB's alternative account, BadaBoom, and it appears that he is Russian. Considering that he has accused one of the reverting editors, User:Prolog (who is Finnish), for having a conflict of interest (Jauhojärvi is also Finnish), it's no big surprise to note that the silver medalist in the race involving the controversy, and who was also affected by Jauyhojärvi's infraction, is – you guessed it – Russian. Fits the pattern above: LGB accuses others of doing exactly what he does himself. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- One would think Le Grand Bleu is speaking of himself. He has been calling other editors vandals, and he is the one edit-warring (he's been reverted by four other editors), he is the one refusing to discuss (see above), nonetheless he calls for people stop making ad hominem attacks, stop edit-warring, and start discussing, he is hostile, selfish, etc. I welcome anyone that might stray here to check LGB's contributions, especially to this discussions. Black is white, and white is black, it seems. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Given that there was a 3-1 consensus that LGB's edits were inappropriate, I think it would have been preferable to just deal with the problem editor. Someone might want to properly expand the article now while cross-country skiing and the Olympics are still in the news, and it's unlikely that anyone will join LGB's cause as the competition in question happened four days ago. Prolog (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose reverting good faith and sourced edits just because someone doesn't like it doesn't undermine the discussion? Not going to talk to these two. They are hostile, selfish, counter productive and generally detrimental to WP. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've protected the page due to the edit war, and recommend that all the involved editors discuss the article on the talk page in the intervening 4 days to reach a consensus. I would also like to remind everyone to stay Civil and avoid Personal Attacks, vandalism is by definition a deliberate attempt to undermine Wikipedia, good faith edits (even in an edit war) are generally not vandalism and accusations such as that undermine discussion and make reaching a productive consensus considerably harder. Best, Mifter (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 31 hours As they have a history of undisclosed accounts, please let me know if any such accounts show up to make similar edits DP 12:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- It would probably be prudent to keep an eye on BadaBoom, to see if that account becomes active again. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- A request for information about other accounts from the guy who, when asked by Jimbo to give up his admin tools, starting multi accounting to evade that request and then obscured the relationship between his accounts to the maximum extent he could get away with.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Can't keep a good ursid down! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
User:139.193.101.49 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- List of Columbia Pictures films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 139.193.101.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Add Disney films to Columbia Pictures film library"
- 07:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Columbia Pictures released Disney films since 1937"
- 07:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Columbia Pictures is the first Disney Distributor"
- 07:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
- 07:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
- 06:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
- 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
- 06:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Warned by User:Geraldo Perez and User:Crboyer, this IP is linked to a known vandal as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is block evasion by 139.194.86.250 (talk · contribs), who is currently serving a 10-day block for the same sort of edits. Deor (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- We may want a range block, but it looks to my barely-trained eye like it would have to be a very big one. The IPs are Indonesian, but I don't know if that helps with finding any history on the person behind these. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 10 days for block evasion, as well as the underlying problems with the edits themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Mar4d reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )
- Page
- Taliban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 596772729 by Mar4d (talk): No, and use the talk page. And please do not abuse rollback. (TW)"
- 13:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 596772253 by Mar4d (talk): Wrong DS, there was long discussion on what constitutes WP:DUE for this article for months. Go through the archives, this is a violation. (TW)"
- 13:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 596618382 by Mar4d (talk): Revert, this was the original sentence; the new bit was added without consensus and is not factually correct. (TW)"
- 10:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC) "rmv distortion of old sentence and disputable fact"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 14:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 14:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Content removal */ new section"
- Comments:
Mar4d is removing a well sourced, and well known fact that the Taliban originated in Pakistan, the line itself has been in the article since at least 30 January 2014, as such that edit has consensus, and Mar4d is obviously not interested in using the talk page to get consensus Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW, see here for consensus on the whole Taliban/Pakistan mess. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:3RR, for a series of edits to be considered an edit war, there must be 3 reverts in 24 hours. This legitimate removal of unsourced info that was added without consensus is not related to the edit war nor made on the same date. The edit war was started by DS, as seen in his first revert here where legitimately-removed and unsourced content was reinserted without consensus. Darkness Shines made 2 more reverts here and [64] (where rollback was also abused) so he is on 3RR. A talk page warning was also given. I have not crossed 3RR, but if an admin deems it as such, I can make the necessary adjustment. Darkness Shines must use the talk page and bring consensus for the article as sanctions can be applied on contentious edits to this article per a lengthy WP:NPOV discussion and per WP:ARBIPA. His edits are liable to a block. Mar4d (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's a fascinating interpretation of the policy. First, a violation of 3RR requires at least four reverts in a 24-hour window. Second, the edit you pick on was a revert. There is no exemption for your removal. That said, ironically, you did not violate 3RR because the four reverts were not within 24 hours. The first ended at 10:58 on February 22, and the last was at 14:05 on February 23.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- My bad, typo there. Yes, there are to be 4 reverts within a 24 hour time-frame for it to be considered crossing 3rr. And as the time stamp shows, there are not 4 reverts in 24 hours hence no 3RR. My first edit is not related and as the diffs show, the edit war was started by DS, who incidentally is sitting on 3RR btw. Mar4d (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- The policy definition of a revert includes edits that are "unrelated". Both of you have edit warred. Your conduct, frankly, has been worse because you have made four reverts, regardless of the fact that the last occurred outside the 24-hour window. Nor do I think it's constructive to say that DS "started" the battle. I'm not delving into the previous discussions of the issue, but from what I can see, DS at least had a good-faith belief that your edit was against consensus. In any event, who "started" it sounds like something children say when they go to their parents for adjudication of a spat. One common parental response is, "I don't care who started it. I'm going to finish it." Think of me as the parent, although at this juncture I don't intend to take any action. I would just hope that content discussion will take the place of sniping.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- My bad, typo there. Yes, there are to be 4 reverts within a 24 hour time-frame for it to be considered crossing 3rr. And as the time stamp shows, there are not 4 reverts in 24 hours hence no 3RR. My first edit is not related and as the diffs show, the edit war was started by DS, who incidentally is sitting on 3RR btw. Mar4d (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Prasanthnnamboothiri reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Brahmin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverting as the administrators are deleting essential portions without reading or studying the content."
- 14:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Added citation needed tag as there is dispute."
- 13:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted as the essential part got deleted."
- 10:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala */ Other than Nampoothiris, there are so many Brahmin castes in Kerala. So many references are available. You may make a search. But, recent references will be practically difficult as now a days no body in Kerala writes about the Caste System."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 14:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Brahmin. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Reverted by 3 different editors Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:B. Fairbairn reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- User being reported
- B. Fairbairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User was blocked for removing images appropriate to international relations from multiple pages. Editor has returned to doing so again. Editor is also making policy or guideline decisions such as Image depicting violence inappropriate. This is a large-scale edit war across multiple articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- On several of the page edits made today, others objected immediately. I removed a few others to leave in a pre-edit state until this dispute is resolved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- See
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#User:B._Fairbairn
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#User:B._Fairbairn_again, possibly part of the reason blocked.
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive235#User:B._Fairbairn_reported_by_User:Walter_G.C3.B6rlitz_.28Result:_Blocked.29, which is where the editor was blocked for 48 hours.
- That was more than two weeks ago. The editor took a break, made the dozen or so edits reported here, and then came to my talk page and told me to try to get over it after they were completed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Wdcraven reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result:Blocked )
Page: Global warming conspiracy theory
User being reported: Wdcraven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Pre edit war stable diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- First Revert (Section blanking) 02:48, 23 February 2014
- Second revert 12:18 and 12:20, 23 February 2014
- Third revert 12:28 and 12:32, 23 February 2014
- Fourth revert 12:50 and 12:53, 23 February 2014
- >>>>> 3RR warning at user's talk page 13:37, 23 February 2014
- Fifth revert 13:53, 23 February 2014
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Haven't bothered, obvious POV vandalism
- Diff of notice about this complaint is here
Comments:
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, NewsAndEventsGuy, I like your report presentation, particularly the edit warring warning in the same list as the reverts. My only "complaint" is it would be better to use UTC.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- ThanksBbb23, I just set my pref to UTC; it used to be that way and I don't remember tweaking it. Oh well. Thanks again, carry on NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Turdunamaki reported by User:Mohsen1248 (Result: Indeffed)
Page: AVC Club Volleyball Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Turdunamaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
This user a sockpupput of User:پارسا آملی, I have already reported him here but it's a long process and I don't know when they will consider it. and I'm already in edit war with him. you just can find it by checking the page history, there is no doubt he is the same person as he accepted it in his talk page by his usual personal attacks. Mohsen1248 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: )
- Page
- Arya (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* As actor */ no source no matter how reliable can verify an event as happening in the future"
- Consecutive edits made from 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC) to 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596803697 by Editor 2050 (talk) WP:BURDEN"
- 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* As actor */ replacement of same sources that dont appropriately verify claims WP:BURDEN the subject cannot be the one verifying state of project due to COI"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
He keeps removing well-sourced content about upcoming events, due to his obsession with WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. He also keeps fighting with experienced editors. Evidence of his actions are available on his contributions page. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- No violation here - Consecutive edits count as one, and there's only three lots. Removing unreferenced/poorly referenced information from a BLP is also an exemption from 3RR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Luke, how do you explain his wars with users Krimuk90, Editor 2050, Sriram Vikram and all? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- If we're talking about this article, then there is no 3RR violation, or even close. Two of those three editors had no involvement with the article you've linked to. Editor 2050 has tried to add poorly sourced, partially sourced, or completely unsourced information, some of which is OR; neither Meagamann nor Purampokku are confirmed as 2014 films, and WP:COMMONSENSE does not make including guesses a valid thing to do, least of all in a BLP. TRPOD should be commended for their fight against BLP violations (which adding improperly sourced information into a BLP classifies as), not dragged to AN3 for a clearly invalid case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Luke, how do you explain his wars with users Krimuk90, Editor 2050, Sriram Vikram and all? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Atotalstranger reported by User:Cassianto (Result: )
Page: Skyfall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Atotalstranger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [66]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]
Comments:
This user is reverting, despite being invited into a discussion on the talk page. He has clearly breached 3rr now and has deleted my warning asking him not to revert any more. Cassianto (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll comment that this user has been blocked for edit warring before (Sept 2013). Those notifications and warnings were also deleted from his talk page at the time. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Massyparcer reported by User:IJBall (Result: )
Page: Seoul Metropolitan Subway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Massyparcer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 15:59, 23 February 2014
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Revision as of 22:17, 23 February 2014
- Revision as of 22:38, 23 February 2014
- Revision as of 23:24, 23 February 2014
- Revision as of 23:45, 24 February 2014
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: at 23:42, 23 February 2014
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]
Yes - User:BsBsBs did attempt to resolve this issue at the Talk page of Seoul Metropolitan Subway.
Note: That I am an interested third-party, not directly involved in this current Edit War.
Comments:
The edit at Seoul Metropolitan Subway was reverted a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot. The user is gaming the system, especially considering that, at 03:04, 24 February 2014, three hours after the third revert, the editor had declared his intent to continue the edit war.
Previous to this edit warring, the account
- Massyparcer received an edit warring warning by an admin a just 5 days into the account existence
- The user received a temporary block for edit warring at List of metro systems. (Please see: [74]).
- The account is a Single Purpose Account, dedicated to portray the Seoul Metropolitan Subway as the world's greatest. See: contribution log.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. --IJBall (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I was about to file a report against this user as well based on IJBall's and BsBsBs's evidence (also as an uninvolved editor). Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well Epicgenius is an involved editor who has just reverted without giving any edit summaries. User:BsBsBs has not attempted to resolve this issue - He only posted inappropriate content on the talk page which were irrelevant to the issue at hand. Admin User:BrownHairedGirl has already punished BsBsBs and me for edit warring to a 1RR rule on her talk page, so this is just recycled stuff. Also, I have no interest in portraying anything in any light and simply wish this encyclopedia to reflect the truth. If anything User:BsBsBs could be accused of the same trait if you look at that editor's contributions. Massyparcer (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The only way in which I was involved is in the sense that I was the text's original writer. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not true. You are the one who reverted it in the latest revert: [75] Massyparcer (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was reverting to the version beforehand because it had one source. Epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- That source merely introduced Korail and had nothing to do with your claim of right-hand, left-hand track. You quoted Wikipedia articles as a source, which you shouldn't be doing as they're considered unreliable. Massyparcer (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then how come it was on Korean Wikipedia? Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- That source merely introduced Korail and had nothing to do with your claim of right-hand, left-hand track. You quoted Wikipedia articles as a source, which you shouldn't be doing as they're considered unreliable. Massyparcer (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was reverting to the version beforehand because it had one source. Epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not true. You are the one who reverted it in the latest revert: [75] Massyparcer (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The only way in which I was involved is in the sense that I was the text's original writer. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well Epicgenius is an involved editor who has just reverted without giving any edit summaries. User:BsBsBs has not attempted to resolve this issue - He only posted inappropriate content on the talk page which were irrelevant to the issue at hand. Admin User:BrownHairedGirl has already punished BsBsBs and me for edit warring to a 1RR rule on her talk page, so this is just recycled stuff. Also, I have no interest in portraying anything in any light and simply wish this encyclopedia to reflect the truth. If anything User:BsBsBs could be accused of the same trait if you look at that editor's contributions. Massyparcer (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
3RR warning
User:Srnec reported by User:EeuHP (Result: )
Pages: Petronilla of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Peter III of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
The user Srnec violated the rule of three reversals. He started an edit war with me when he changed an image that had been there since 2011 in the article Peter III of Aragon. In total, he made five changes. Nobody realized this. So I present this complaint.
But this wasn't the first time. In the article Petronilla of Aragon, war started when I disapproved a change made by he a few months ago and Srnec also violated the rule.
And I'm not the only person who had a discussion with him for his idea of put only images or things made during the life of the person in the "image" section. [85][86][87].--EeuHP (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments: