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:Kurdo777 reported by User:Flatterworld

Page: Template:2010–2011 Arab world protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kurdo777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continued disruptive editing, ignoring consensus and discussions. Both the Template and the article it accompanies are current and discussions are ongoing as to what the title (Arab world, Middle East, global, whatever) should be. The consensus is to include Iran regardless, under 'Related' until and unless the title is changed. Kurdo insists on deleting it, leaving our readers unable to navigate directly to Iran from each article which currently uses the Template. (Added: Kurdo777 has additionally and repeatedly deleted my notice to the other Template editors of this warning, blocking that 'navigation path' as well.Flatterworld (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC))

Comment by Kurdo777: First of all, there has been no violation of 3RR by me, and contrary to Flatterworld's claims, there exists no consensus on this dispute, as at least three editors have opposed the inclusion of Iran on a template that deals with Arab world, since Iran is not an Arab country. Furthermore, Flatterworld has been making personal attacks against me [1], and when I warned him about it, he removed the warnings from his talk page. [2] He has also been in violation of WP:Talk, and keeps making comments about me on the article talk page, instead of focusing on the content. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment I've been involved in all of this, and I considered reporting Kurdo777 here for disruptive editing, but we have since been able to discuss the issues in constructive ways without edit warring. It's my hope that we can continue to do so until we reach a solution that we can all live with. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Ramanujamuni and User:Hari7478 reported by User:Asav (Result: Protected)

Page: Iyengar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

Ramanujamuni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and

Hari7478 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Ramanujamuni#Edit war and User talk:Hari7478#Edit war

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Iyengar#OTRS notice: Edit war

Comments:

This is a somewhat unusual situation, as I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject at hand, i.e. Iyengar, nor have I participated in any discussion, except the Edit war warning on the talk page.Also, I'm literally not sure whether this should have been filed on the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts page.

As an OTRS volunteers, I responded to a vandalism complaint regarding the article, and it turned out there had already been an edit war going on for some time. As I am eminently unqualified to make any judgments on the merits of the cases made by the contestants, I simply posted a message on the talk page (op. cit.), and I reverted an anonymous edit that did nothing more than delete a source. My second edit reverted a polemic statement inserted into the article proper. The latter edit was made after a message left on my talk page by User:Hari7478: User talk:Asav#Please help me out - In the Iyengar wiki page. Shortly thereafter, User:Ramanujamuni left an unsigned reply on the same page.

As far as I can see, the edit war has been going on for quite a while, first between an anonymous user and User:Hari7478, then mainly between User:Hari7478 and User:Ramanujamuni (which seems to be a one trick pony, as it has only been used to edit the Iyengar article) and to a certain extent User:Padmavasantha. It seems User:Hari7478, too, is mainly concerned with Hindu casts.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that some of the dispute concerns (a) certain term(s) that one part finds derogatory and that there seems to be a fair amount of ethnic discord involved, e.g. one of the edit comments reads "(...) provide factual data which has been suppressed and provided with the racial bias".

I would add the the majority of disagreements are completely incomprehensible to me, such as "factual data which proves the Thenkalai is the more prevelant sampradhya" and "Padmavasantha-unneccessarily swapping contents by moving thenkalai section ahead of vadakalai."

What does seem clear to me, is that all users blatantly disregard the principle Verifiability, not truth by removing each others' sources. For the record, I have obviously never claimed to have any administrative privileges on Wikipedia, nor given the impression that my two edits were made in any other capacity than an ordinary editor.

In short, I believe it's better that someone with content dispute/edit war experience handles this, as it certainly doesn't belong on my talk page. This is way outside the OTRS domain, and I have no practical suggestions or requests as how to resolve the matter. Asav (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This is me user:hari7478 to justify my point.
My user:id has also been mentioned in this report by user:Asav. I would like to justify my doing, by providing valid points.
1. [7].This was the original version of the Iyengar article before user:Padmavasantha and user:Ramanujamuni started making changes. The two users "user:Padmavasantha and user:Ramanujamuni" had been giving their own statements and POVs without any web source, since then. The dispute has arised mainly in this section of the page [8] This was the first vandalising change made by user:Padmavasantha - Diff [9]
2. Since then i had to revert their edits repeatedly. But all i did was only reverting vandalising edits. Here are my edits [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. All these edits of mine had only re-established the original article content, as the article was, before the edit warring started. All the references I had provided, are from authentic "online books authored by renowned authors".
3. These are the vandalising edits of user:Ramanujamuni - [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. In all these edits user:Ramanujamuni had repeatedly deleted "reference source materials" and tried to establish his own statements and POVs, without providing valid references.
4. user:Ramanujamuni had also been falsely accusing the integrity of the reference materials. user:ramanujamuni had accused me of misinterpreting references. But I never misinterpreted any reference content. All i did was only copy pasting of reference contents into wikipedia, which is obvious from all my edits, that i've provided in Point no.2.
5. I had adequately discussed justifying my point in user talk:Ramanujamuni talk page. But the user paid no heed to it. user:ramanujamuni rejects the authority of "reference sources" i had provided, and had been giving his own POVs repeatedly in the Iyengar page, by "removing references". I had also provided additional references for cross-checking.
6. user:ramanujamuni had also ,modified and tampered with my warning message on his talk page. See here [20].
7. I conclude saying that, all i did was re-establishment of the original article content before the edit war had started. Spare me, and punish the guilty please. Hari7478 (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected two weeks. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if you are deadlocked. Both of you have commented on talk pages, but what you have said is very hard to understand. You could try a brief posting at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and see if anyone can give advice about the article issues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu reported by User:Wayiran (Result: normal discussion and editing have resumed)

Page: 2011 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muboshgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments: He keeps re-introducing "2011 Arab Protests" into 2011 Iranian Protests, eventhough he's been told numerous times that Iran is not an Arab country. He made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours.

Resolved

 – Discussion at the usertalk pages and the template talk seem to be proceeding apace, so I see no need to block anyone or lock a developing article here. Please reopen this or file a new report if the edit warring resumes. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Jflaiz reported by User:Muhandes (Result: Blocked 72h)

Page: Tanglewood National Golf Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jflaiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32]
• At this point the user was reported and blocked, but as soon as the block was removed
• 5th revert: [33]
• 6th revert, as IP: [34]
• 7th revert: [35]
• 8th revert: [36]
• 9th revert, as IP: [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

• Second warning after returning from block [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:
As shown above, a repeat offense. Muhandes (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Blake1960 reported by User:Ebikeguy (Result: Blocked 72h)

Page: Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blake1960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

• 1st revert: [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]
• 3rd revert: [44]
• 4th revert: [45]
• 5th revert: [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Diff of an editor's very polite attempt to resolve dispute on Blake1960's talk page (Blake1960's 5th revert undid this editor's change): [49]

Comments:
This is Blake1960's second 3RR violation in the last two weeks. Multiple editors have asked him, politely and repeatedly, to stop posting OR and to limit his edits to content related to the article, but he has summarily refused to do so, frequently resorting to personal attacks in the process.

I dispute the above accusations most strongly. Complainant has reverted my contributions multiple times without any discussion or talk to resolve the issue. The reasons given for reverting my laborious contributions are not acceptable, the complainants' mere POV. Complainant along with two others editing the article seem to be ardent in prohibiting the 100% pertinent, well-sourced, with references, cited information I am trying to contribute. My source is the United States Department of Energy. The rest is simple math and citings from elsewhere in the article that were not authored by me.

Discussion has not included personal insult or attack of any kind that I can see. Ebike has not been helpful in resolving the issue. I request he be blocked from editing the page.

See our discussion at...

Talk:Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent#Controversy_about_EPA_form_of_MPGe_-_A_Cover-Up_in_Progress

Thank you.

Blake1960 (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. While the editor has engaged on the talk page, continued 3RR violation after a prior block suggests that Blake1960 hasn't gotten the message that revert-warring is unacceptable, even if you may be in the right. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Imacericg reported by Guanxi (Result: Semi)

Page: Winged football helmet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Imacericg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

74.235.160.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

174.96.172.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm pretty sure these are the same person. The comments in the reverts (see below) sound like they are coming from the same editor.

Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

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

Comments:

A simple case: Imacericg has a history of inappropriately linking to spartanjerseys.com despite warnings (see their talk page and contributions). In this case, Imacericg is citing it and I'm pretty sure it's not an RS. I've asked them three times to use RS or remove the material, including providing a link to WP:RS ([54], [55], [56]), but they don't seem very interested in learning the policy.

They also claim that spartanjerseys.com is acceptable because it cites other sources; I suggested Imacericg cite the sources directly if they are RS (but they aren't; spartanjersey's source for this material is: Constantine S. Demos and Steven S. Demos, M.D., The Tradition Continues: Spartan Football (Muskegon: Michigan State University Football Players Association, 2008)). I'm also accused of vandalism for removing the material, and of being a University of Michigan fan (I can't find the WP policy on that).

I haven't discussed it their talk page or on the article's talk page, but I'm really hoping to avoid wasting more time on it. They've ignored previous attempts by others to inform them and there is not more to discuss than what's in the edit comments; if they want to follow WP:RS, then they would have stopped using spartanjerseys.com by now. I can do it if you think it will help somehow ...

Unless someone else edits the page in the interim, I believe the proper version is: [57]

guanxi (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected winged football helmet, due to the use of multiple IPs to further an edit war in addition to a registered account. If Imagericg and the lookalike IPs continue to promote the addition of a link to spartanjerseys.com, I suggest filing a report at WT:WPSPAM. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks Ed. guanxi (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu reported by User:Wayiran (Result: Resolved)

Page: 2011 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muboshgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]
• 3rd revert: [61]
• 4th revert: [62]
• 5th revert: [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments: I reported him earllier, and I was told if he resumes edit-warring, I should report this. He has done just that, he is reverting again. 4 reverts in 23 hours, and now 5 reverts in just 29 hours. --Wayiran (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, time to step in. Let's try some mediation. m.o.p 05:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Addition: First contact with Muboshgu, notice on article's talk page. m.o.p 05:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I was not told that Wayiran placed a notice on this page previously, and Wayiran did not tell me of this second notice. The 3RR warning Wayiran refers to was placed by a different user (User:Kurdo777) in regards to a different page (the template related to the article) and I may be wrong but I believe it was applied inappropriately. We've since been talking it out on talk pages. I want to settle this on the talk pages of the relevant articles like everyone else, not with reporting users. I lost track of the number of edits I made on that page when things got heated, but they have cooled and I will stay cool. I apologize for my part in this. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll follow up on Wayiran in terms of notifying those who he reports of his actions. As for this, please don't edit war further. You broke the 3-revert-rule, and any further reversions will bring about a block. I appreciate that you'd like to use the talk page; just please don't edit war. I'll keep floating around if anybody needs me. Cheers, m.o.p 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Tentontunic reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: not blocked... yet)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:I am now on four reverts on the aforementioned article. I am claiming a BLP exemption. This report is to save others the bother of filing one.

• Declined Since it's merely quoting his own provocative words, this is not BLP protection. However, since you believed in good faith that it was, I won't block at this time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Remark: This report made me laugh, even if it was sinister. Sorry, it has its own dry humor, whether intentional or not! Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  See a few sections down, for moar... Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:70.105.119.190 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Two articles semiprotected)

Pages: Atlantic slave trade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and History of slavery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.105.119.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Atlantic slave trade Previous version reverted to: [66]

• 1st revert: [67]
• 2nd revert: [68]

History of slavery Previous version reverted to: [69]

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:70.105.119.190

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Atlantic slave trade#Jews in the netherlands

Comments:
No 3RR violation, but clearly edit-warring. Possibly the same editor as 70.105.113.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made the same edits to these articles earlier in the day. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Both articles semiprotected one month. An IP-hopping editor is warring about the role of Jews in the slave trade. Protection may be lifted if consensus is reached on the talk page. The IP may be rangeblocked if he won't follow policy. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Verygentle1969 reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: 1 month)

Page: Chicago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Verygentle1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

• 1st revert: [73]
• 2nd revert: [74]
• 3rd revert: [75]

Compare to edits by 204.140.189.253 (talk · contribs): [76], [77], [78] and [79] which took place after VeryGentle1969's edits of [80], [81] and [82].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page discussion in which the reported editor did not participate despite being informed of the disussion.

Comments:

This editor has never contributed to any discussion on the article talk page nor responded to any message on their user talk. Additionally, they were not moved to comment after being informed of this discussion. I believe they will continue to disrupt this article against consensus and without discussion. Tiderolls 03:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I also filled SPI yesterday. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verygentle1969. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked one month for long-term edit warring. He has previously been reported here and at ANI. He desires to add an unsourced claim that Chicago is the world's largest inland city which is not a national or provincial capital. People have argued that this is not correct, offering Ahmedabad as a counterexample. Since he has been doing this since December, and never participates in discussion, a block appears necessary. The IP pushing the same viewpoint has already been blocked one month by a different admin. His usage of an IP seems to be an effort to avoid scrutiny. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sundostund reported by User:Jack Merridew (Currently: Mediating)

Page: List of Presidents of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sundostund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: oldid

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

• Talk:List of Presidents of Egypt#Format

Comments:

Sundostund is just a day off a prior block for edit waring with another user over this same article. He also flipped-out Will's 'Acting President' change. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If I'll be blocked, then Jack should also be, because he also breached 3RR rule and engaged in edit war - [84]. Cheers, --Sundostund (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Phew, the animosity here is thick enough to cut with a 48-hour block.

Looks like you guys could use some mediation, anyway. Sundostund, you were literally just blocked for edit-warring here - why start again? Why not focus on discussing this on the talk page instead of edit war? Yes, Jack did his part and he shouldn't have, but he didn't just come off a block.

Anyway, consider this a final warning. Take it to the talk page, lose the spite, and be civil. m.o.p 15:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing here would be page protection? Indefinitely, if possible. --Sundostund (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You, the person who has edit warred the article with two different users, and been blocked for it too, is requesting a full protection? Do I sense ownership issues? Nymf _hideliho! 17:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

---

I think someone also should look this - Jack admits here that he's a sockpuppet master - [85]. --Sundostund (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty widely known. Jack Merridew 12:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you should be blocked indefinitely, like any other sockpuppet master who is caught. --Sundostund (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I was. Jack Merridew 12:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack, you don't understand. If you are a sockpuppet master, your present user account (User:Jack Merridew), and all other user accounts you started as a sockpuppet master must be wiped out and you must be blocked from editing indefinitely. That's what I'm saying. Understand now? If you was blocked indefinitely earlier, and you opened a new user account after that, it's also against rules. --Sundostund (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ya, I understand. You're confused. What were you thinking when you went right back to reverting that article after your last block? Rolling right over attempts at talk? Goodbye, Jack Merridew 13:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you're the one who is confused, because you forget that beign a sockpuppet master is the greatest breach of WP rules, far more great than breaching 3RR. You should be prepared to get blocked indefinitely for what you done with your sockpuppets. Goodbye, --Sundostund (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Do I seem concerned? Jack Merridew 13:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If I'm in your place, I should be. Every sockpuppet master must be blocked indefinitely. So, these are your last hours on Wikipedia, at least under the name "Jack Merridew". --Sundostund (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not concerned, and you should see Jack Merridew ); Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Concerned or not, prepare yourself to get blocked indefinitely for being a sock master :)) Cheers, --Sundostund (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be taking up an inordinate amount of bytes, entertaining though it is. Sundostund, the situation is this. Jack was indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet, then later he was unblocked per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion. This isn't relevant to this 3RR report unless he breaks one of the conditions listed there and still in force. (And probably not directly relevant here, even then.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I left him links to that stuff on his talk page ;) Jack Merridew 13:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, If you think it's OK to have on WP someone who brags around that he's a sockpuppet master, maybe someone else shouldn't think that. It's obvious that decision to lift block on Jack Merridew was bad. Instead to be sorry because of his past behaviour, he brags with that. --Sundostund (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

all very old stuff, and you brought up my block log ;) Jack Merridew 13:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not my fault because you had 8 blocks so far! It's just an evidence of your continuing unacceptable behavior on WP. --Sundostund (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

try reading it more carefully. Jack Merridew 14:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Administrators should look better into both your behavior and your block log, not me. --Sundostund (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

you should AGF that they have ;) Jack Merridew 14:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please focus on the 3RR report. Jack Merridew 14:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Why me? You started this nonsense, you should focus on this yourself. By the way, you also breached 3RR, so if I ended up blocked you will be blocked also. --Sundostund (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  why you? you're the one who reverts everyone on that article. and, no, I didn't and won't be. Jack Merridew 14:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  No, you're the one who started with edit war over some stupid graphic things on that page. Again, if I'm blocked, you'll also be. --Sundostund (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

moving archive notice to bottom. can you both stop the slap fight here? or if you'd like I can block you both for disruptive editing regardless of the 3rr. Syrthiss (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: no violation)

Page: Lara Logan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

• 1st revert: [87] 03:57, 17 February 2011

• 2nd revert: [88] 04:22, 17 February 2011

• 3rd revert: [89] 05:55, 17 February 2011

• 4th revert: [90] 19:33, 17 February 2011

• 5th revert: [91] 19:50, 17 February 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user notified[92]

Comments:
Five reverts in 16hrs! Sheesh!

• - A lot of editors are objecting to this content, there is a thread at theBLPN here there is a lot of discussion on the article talkpage here there is a thread at the ANI here - there is no consensus at all to include this unnamed allegations and I have on reversal notified the users of the discussion and requested they wait for consensus to include - I also note the user making this report did not give me the opportunity of any warning as is usual or any chance to self revert either. I also note that the user making the report has not joined in any of the discussions at any location. If it helps, I will happily accept an edit restriction to not edit the article for the next week. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• And you're the only one whose reverted 5 times and you've reverted a number of different editors. 3R is a brightline rule--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Clear BLP issues are involved - such as mentioning a person "is not Jewish" etc. which requires exceedingly strong sourcing. WP:BLP is a specific exception to the assertion of "bright line violation" and is applicable here. Collect (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because BLP issues are involved, doesn't mean that there are actually any BLP violations. Is there a specific BLP violation involved? If so, what is it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• No violation - My initial inclination was to hit the block button. But then I opted to RTFM and I took a look at the exact wording of WP:BLP, which says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In other words, it doesn't matter if the material is libelous or defamatory in any way - if it is contentious, it must be well-sourced. An anonymous source is not well-sourced and, while the New York Post is not inherently unreliable, I don't think that this qualifies as "well-sourced". Accordingly, I am not going to block the user. Some other admin may disagree — and, of course, any admin who does disagree is free to override this decision — so I would caution the user to read on in the BLP policy, which says:

  Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

  In other words, I would suggest not pushing it and not continuing to revert. --B (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  Hold up. In addition to the NY Post, it was reported by Fox News, The Huffington Post and the Boston Herald.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide those links?TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) ... which were only quoting the NY Post piece, which in turn was quoting an anonymous source. --B (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

NYPost[93] FOX News[94] Yahoo News[95] Boston Herald[96] Daily Mail[97] I am asking that another admin review this decision--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is NOT FoxNews - it is "FoxNation" and all they are doing is linking to the NY Post story. The others are all quoting the NY Post. It comes down to a claim from one anonymous source. --B (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

These are good sources that are vetted. We're not talking about the Iran Times. This is a respectable NY metropolitan daily. Moreover, The assault against Ms. Logan was accompanied by anti-Semitic vitriol. How is that BLP violation? Can another admin way in on this please?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It was reported by Fox News on Sean Hannity show transcript. Of course they repeated what was reported by NY Post, but they explained that no other media has reported it because they "whitewashing" the news, and it is exactly what User:Off2riorob has done with wikipedia article. Besides, if the words "is not Jewish" could be BLP, they could have been removed from the article, while the piece of antisemitic mob of 200 men attacking a single, powerless woman should have stayed in the article, and User:Off2riorob should have been blocked for edit warring, and removing sourced info.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

When became Hannity a RS???TMCk (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Doesn't look like a violation here. O2RR was working in good faith under BLP, and whether or not we can find more sources now, at the time there was a legitimate concern over the addition of the sourcing of the material. There were threads about it ongoing, and he's stopped reverting. Dayewalker (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Iqinn reported by User:V7-sport (Result: )

Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard
User being reported: Iqinn

Previous version reverted to: [98]

• 1st revert: [99]
• 2nd revert: [100]
• 3rd revert: [101]
• 4th revert: [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]

Comments: Notice the edit summery here[105]

I have acquiesced to Iqinn's insistence, flimsy as it is, after 5 days of bickering and he still wont let the damn thing drop. V7-sport (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well i am actively working on the articles talk page and on the noticeboard in solving the content problems and to work towards consensus. During this process user V7-sport keeps adding and reverting the Resolved tag to the thread of the content dispute that involves him and refuses to engage in consensus forming. He as an involved editor keeps adding an resolved tag to an unresolved content issue what is highly disruptive and almost vandalism. Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Suggested_solution_and_changes (copy for archive). And than he as an involved editor comes out plastering my talk page with this warning template. While there where more than 3 reverts this is not edit warring. IQinn (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's edit warring. There is no need to engage in "consensus forming" as I am endeavoring to walk away from the dispute. The dispute, over whether or not it's "3 separate attacks", the one I brought to the noticeboard was over. Even though the best you could come up with a synthesis argument with a SriLankan paper saying "second incident" and a German citation that says "Der einzige, der den ersten Angriff überlebt hat", I had resolved to just let it the blasted thing go. Really, after 5 days of arguing on 3 different noticeboards and an ANI to get "3 separate attacks" on that article I would have thought you would be popping the champagne corks but you just can't seem to stop being a pain for the sake of being a pain. I think you just can't help but to revert what I write. V7-sport (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider a resolved tag as something you have written. The content issue involves more that you have just described. I am actively engaging in consensus forming:Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Suggested_solution_and_changes It seems to me that you just do not like the suggested solution and instead just runs away and performs edits on the article that are part of this dispute. As said you are either welcome to agree to perform the edits as proposed or just tell us what you think is wrong with it so we can change it. IQinn (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, I wrote it, a bunch of times. There is no consensus to be had, take yes for an answer. V7-sport (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You wrote the word "Resolved" a bunch of times if we add all the instances together where you added the Resolved tag to an unresolved thread about an contend dispute while rejecting to work with the community to resolve this issue. "Trust me" Please do work with the community Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Suggested_solution_and_changes (copy for archive) and do not just reject a proposed solution only because you might not like them. As said we can still work out some details if you tell us what is wrong with it. IQinn (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is why I endeavored to walk away from the issue, there is no communicating with you. I'm left to repeating the same thing over and over. The issue that I brought to the Original research notice board was resolved when I decided to let it drop. OK? It's an original research noticeboard, not a look at Iqinn noticeboard. If you think that something I am doing is original research then start your own thread. I'm not trying to "reject the work of the community" thanks for mischaracterizing, again, what I have written. If you want to work on the article take it to the talk page. Stop edit warring. V7-sport (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't i say i think you are "rejecting to work with the community". It is the noticeboard of the community where things are under discussion and where thinks have been laid out and where solutions have been suggested. So either agree to the suggested solutions or tell us what is wrong with them so that we can bring this to an end. IQinn (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's open and shut, 4 reverts, and you need a break. For discussion on the article I'll check the articles talk page. V7-sport (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. When one party adds the disputed material, then reverts to their version three times and the other party removes the disputed material four times, we normally block both. --B (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

@V7-sport It seems to me that you need a break as someone who repeatedly reverts the resolved TAG to an unresolved noticeboard discussion about a contented dispute that is not resolved and where you are involved and at the same time performs edits on the concerning article that are against that was has been suggested as a conflict resolution. That is a great disturbance to all of us. Stop making edits that are disputed not resolved and where clear conflict resolution has been already worked out.Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Suggested_solution_and_changes (copy for archive) IQinn (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

@B that seem fair to me as a general rule. But as this is actually just about a tag on a thread about an unresolved content dispute i suggest to block him or to let us both go back to that thread and finish up on the almost done conflict resolution. IQinn (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:asad112 (Result: )

Page: International law and Israeli settlements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Chesdovi has once again violated the 1RR set fourth by articles relating to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies

The two reverts:

• 1st revert: [106]
• 2nd revert: [107]
  
  

The user also seemingly dimissed the claim after being notified and asked to self-revert. See here.

The user did not "seemingly dismiss" anything. He responded that he (correctly) believed that this was one revert. Remember AGF.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It has not even been one month since the user's last banned expired for violation of the 1RR. And it is neither the first or the second ban for the same reason. See here.

-asad (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a violation. The first diff is an edit. There's only one genuine revert here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the diffs again. The first diff shows that Chesdovi removed a large swath of information that was present during this revision. It was than reverted and the information added again here. The second diff shows that Chesdovi again removed it. -asad (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And again, his first action constitutes an edit. The second action and only the second action, is a revert. Therefore, there is only one revert and consequently, no violation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Asad,I think you meant this one. I'm not sure what Chesdovi is doing, he knows better. It's such a minor incident that I didn't think it was worth filing; it's not like he just got off a topic ban and started re-inserting edit war fodder against talk page consensus. Sol (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:193.35.132.25 reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: page semi-protected)

Page: Christian terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 193.35.132.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [108]
• 2nd revert: [109]
• 3rd revert: [110]
• 4th revert: [111]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112] [113]

Comments:A dynamic IP editor, given the same edit summaries of vandalism accusations every time i`m guessing it is the same user.

• Page protected I was considering a range-block, but there's some useful content coming from that range.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Atomaton reported by User:Jayen466

Atomaton (talk · contribs) has four times reverted a second bukkake drawing into the Bukkake article:

• diff 02:17, 17 February 2011
• diff 03:05, 17 February 2011
• diff 16:47, 17 February 2011
• diff 20:18, 18 February 2011

The background:

• Discussion on removing one of the two bukkake drawings (see earlier status of article) began on 16 February at 07:15, at Talk:Bukkake#Images_2, i.e. 2.5 days ago.
• Since the discussion began, 8 people have said they are in favour of removing one or both of these drawings. They are
  1. Kaldari (talk · contribs)
  2. Enric Naval (talk · contribs)
  3. Genevieve2 (talk · contribs)
  4. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs)
  5. Crossmr (talk · contribs)
  6. Oda Mari (talk · contribs)
  7. Herostratus (talk · contribs)
  8. Jayen466 (talk · contribs)
• Two of these editors, Genevieve and Herostratus, have said they would prefer having none of these pictures. Genevieve in particular took strong exception.
• Only one editor (Cptnono (talk · contribs)) has said they would prefer both pictures to remain.
• Atomaton has commented "Personally, I have not formed an opinion as to whether a second image adds to the article or not. I am leaning towards that it is not." Yet he has reverted the second, additional image back in against talk page consensus four times, which is odd.

Atomaton has not exceeded 3RR within any one 24-hour period. But he is clearly being disruptive, and edit-warring against what is at this time overwhelming talk page consensus against him. His article version currently stands. --JN466 20:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The above statement is a complete mischaracterization of the situation. I have been patient and quite civil in this matter. The reason for this complaint, in my view, is because I said to Jayen on hhis talk page: "I'm going to change the article back to what it has looked like for months or years, then we can have the discussion within the RfC, and then we will all abide by the consensus generated from that. If you can't let that happen properly, I will need to ask others to sanction you." The complete conversation with me warning him that I would take action to sanction him is [114] He is, essentially, trying to defend himself from being sanctioned by attacking.

Firstly, as explained in detail on the talk page of the article, the first three edits were not related to one another. [115]

My first edit[116] was to restore the article back to the consensus after you removed the second image. Your removal of that images was commented "per talk". The talk page essentially was only the beginning of a discussion where you proposed changing it, one editor said that they did not agree, and another editors said that they did. With only three hours in the interim, not really enough time for other interested editors to participate. You made a change, well within the BRD policy, and it was reverted, which again, indicated it was time to talk.

My second edit[117]to restore the article back to consensus, was after editor CarolmooreDC mistook an image in the article for the image in another article, the snowballing article. Her edit summary was "WP;RS say Only Men&men or Men&Women do this; get appropriate graphic" On the talk page she said "Actually, I did get this article confused with another one and it didn't occur to me to revert since I rarely make mistakes like that". An honest mistake. As it was, she was confused about the image in the snowballing article too, as that image did have a source supporting it. I note that at that time there was some discussion on the talk page, but no consensus and no comment by that editor regarding the images on this article. This edit was completely independent of the first edit. And in both cases, I did not assert my opinion, but only asked for us to talk and reach consensus before changing anything. I am a big fan of consensus.

My third edit[118] was when one image was replaced by another image, the issue apparently being that someone had a concern that with the womans hands behind her back, they could have been tied. I am not sure why her hands being tied, or not tied was pertinent, but that was the issue. A different issue than the first edit, and a different issue than the second. Note that I did not argue whether such a change was appropriate or not, or if I would be for it or not, only that we should discuss it on the talk page and work towards consensus.

Three edits all independent of one another, and all calling for talk and discussion before changing the article consensus.

The last edit, after I asked for an RfC in the article to get a wider viewpoint rather than argue.

I have not taken a position on the controversial issue, I've only asked for the article to remain stable until we can get editors to contribute and give their opinion.

He misreperesents the situation again when he has said that "8 people have said they are in favour of removing one or both of these drawings" This is not true, as per the edits I stated above, several of those were people who removed an image because they mistook it for on in a completely different article, and apologized for it, not what I would call support, and on who is discussing a completely different image, and one who was discussing that they felt the women in the iamge had her hands tied, a completely differet discussion and topic than they were having. Even if there had been refent opinions in support and he had two people for and one against, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Working to gain consensus takes more than 36 hours, and him trying to force his personal view on the basis that within the last 24 hours on the basis that there is there are more people for than against is ludicrous.

All of the recent changes have happen within a roughly 36 hour period. Jayen466 has tried to force his desired changes in tha article, and in the process been incivil, and lacking in AGF. He accused me of incivility, saying to me "Genevieve has stated her opinion. No one is interested in what you think about what she thinks. Her voice counts just as much here as yours. Just knock it off." When I merely stated my opinion that the image did not seem to have a woman with her hands tied.

Please read the full talk page at talk:bukkake before forming an opinion. The primary complaint that Jayen466 has made as that my edits were "disruptive" to the process. As I was restoring the consensus state of the article (where it has been for years) while editors worked it out, I don't call that disruptive.

Is there some reason that Jayen466 cannot participate in the RfC? Is there some reason that the article absolutely must change, and must change right now? Would asking and getting participation from a wider set of editors really cause a problem? If the images are in the article, or not in the article, with this topic, is there really any need for urgency in working to gain consensus? The issue here is that Jayen466 is the disruptive editor, and he has no desire for taking the time to achieve a real consensus.

In summary, I have not sided with either of the views in the article of removing one of two images, or of not doing so. I have only put the article back to the way that it has been for several years, until we can discuss the issue within the context of the RfC in the article, and come to some real consensus. In many of the articles that I participate in, discussion of an image in an article (whether to add or remove) can take weeks or months. This editor trying to force a change in a few hours is not appropriate. After the RfC is complete, whatever the outcome (as always) I will support (and defend) the consensus. Atom (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I will be away for the next three days, camping. So, I won't be able to "defend" myself. I feel comfortable that the facts speakfor themselves. I ask participants to review the history of the article and the talk before making any judgement. Also, consider that letting more people participate in the discussion is better than forcing one view, as user Jayen466 has been trying to do. Atom (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)