Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive151

User:Winston786 reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Sardarji jokes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winston786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] where I added quotation from article that related to the disputed word and discussion here

Comments:

The user has returned from a one week ban for similar behavior and is also the subject of a WP:AN/I and see 1 week block log here where he was blocked for warring with an editor.

I must point out that first two are not "reverts" but just edits on the basis of the source already mentioned. Winston786 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

18:04, 13:19, 12:18, and 06:53 are clear reverts. I'm sorry you're still confused about what a revert is. Kuru (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history reported by User:Winston786 (Result: no violation)

Page: Sardarji jokes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ranbir Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sikh-history (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Sikh-history is engagin in an unnecessary edit war to add the word "Hindu" on the page, there is no mention of it on the source. Winston786 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC), to do this he reverted my edits

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]

This is one more case of the same user engaging in another edit war with me, adding info without any source, it must be noted the user is stalking my edits, his edit follows my edit in many cases hence I don't think its a co-incidence, user is showing a personal animosity towards me. Winston786 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

More examples of stalking my edits and engaging in an edit war.

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]
6. [16]

It must be noted that the user started editing these only after I edited them, clearly reflecting his obsession with me. Winston786 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has previously been banned multiple times for edit war, his/her block log. Winston786 (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a clear 3RR here; just two reverts at that. The interaction between you two is problematic and will likely lead to problems if you can't learn to interact. Kuru (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Babasalichai reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: protected)

Page: Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Babasalichai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This edit warring actually has been going on since before the current 3RR violation; I am not familiar enough with either the subject or the article to know what to go back to.

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not actually involved in editing this article; I saw it based on stalking a third editor's talk page. Neither side has thus far seriously attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page.

Comments: I warned both users involved in the edit war. The other user is User:Beobjectiveplease. This user is clearly edit warring as well, but did stop short of breaking 3RR (at least after being warned). The second user does appear to be new, and has only edited this article, so I understand where the frustration may be coming from for Babasalichai, but Babasalichai appears to be assuming ownership over this article. My feeling is that the other editor should not currently be blocked, as they did stop reverting after being warned, but I leave that to the discretion of admins. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but the edit warring appears to be ongoing; it may be necessary to block the other user as well.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Babasalichai has a history of adding unsourced and poorly sourced negative information to this BLP; it is almost exclusively his only activity on this wiki. I am monitoring but would like an uninvolved admin to assess the situation please. Qwyrxian has also filed a page protection request. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I wrote above, I am now involved in editing the article. I am attempting to get both editors to start talking on the talk page, but both editors continue to make changes, essentially just repeating the same things in edit summaries back and forth. I've issued User:Beobjectiveplease a final warning for edit warring; I haven't issued Babasalichai any more because I've been waiting for this one to be resolved. I am now at 3 reverts (although one was an attempt to enforce WP:BLP regarding a contentious, poorly sourced statement) in 24 hours on the article; no more from me, as I'm not going to break 3RR trying to get other editors to stop edit warring... Qwyrxian (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I hadnt seen the warnings and now have and will make all comments on talk page prior to edits. I had attempted to contact other user and continue to attempt to he simply doesnt respond. I apologize for not responding earlier hadnt seen the edits but have been complying last few hours as am sure you have both noticed and wont edit again w/o consensus, but need the other person as well to follow rules. Babasalichai (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 1 week by Dabomb87 (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Kopimama reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Blocked indefinitely as a suspected sockpuppet of Wkiwoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). T. Canens (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:98.247.58.102 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: protected)

Page: Miracle Mineral Supplement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.247.58.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]

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

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

Comments:

I can see little point in discussing with an editor who seems to think that selling a highly-toxic chemical solution (basically bleach) as a cure for "HIV, malaria, hepatitis viruses, the H1N1 flu virus, common colds, acne, against cancer" etc isn't fraudulent - they have threatened to report me, so it seemed better to come here rather than reverting again. They are presumably aware of the 3RR rule, from their last edit summary.

I will of course notify them of this complaint. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I encourage the administrator to evaluate AndyTheGrump's three prior revisions to mine along with his comments that he is NOT willing to discuss the edit, as evidence that his insistence upon the inclusion of a negative connotative and legal term such as "fraudulent" to describe this heavily debated subject, and to do so without valid citation, is clear evidence of opinion pushing. I claim nothing and represent nothing. I merely request fellow editors and admins to honor Wiki policy. An encyclopedia is not a place to advance opinion. If AndyTheGrump wants to use the word "fraudulent" to describe MMS, he must cite a legal determination for this legal term. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.58.102 (talk)

"An encyclopedia is not a place to advance opinion". Well, in the opinion of the quacks pushing this substance (or at least in their stated opinion - whether they believe it I've no idea), MMS cures AIDS etc. On the other hand, that MMS is a toxic substance is fact, not opinion. To describe it as 'alternative medicine' without adding the clear proviso that it is fraudulent would be grossly negligent - and possibly an illegal promotion of an unlicensed medicine. So cut out the bogus lawyering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You cannot use an accusational legal term without citation. Period. Quit removing my comments so administrators do not readily see them. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of removing any comment of yours - can you provide a diff? And can you explain why Wikipedia should be including the opinion that a toxic substance is an 'alternative medicine'. And yes I can use the term 'fraudulent' because (a) I didn't say it was a 'legal term' - that is your opinion, and (b) it is true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The word fraudulent is an adjective used to describe "a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". For you to use this word to describe the subject of this article without a citation is improper and merely opinion. Strong opinion based upon your off-topic comments regarding the subject itself. This article is about MMS. You may start a sub section regarding the ongoing debate of MMS being fraudulent, this cannot be argued, but you must not state that is is defacto fraudulent without an authoritative citation. The FDA does not state it is fraudulent, that is merely your opinion. This isn't about what people think about MMS, which is obviously heavily debated. Content of Wiki does not require citation so long as is is not debated. The use of the term fraudulent is, in fact, debated so you must find a proper citation for it, or drop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.58.102 (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY -"This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I can provide a "reliable, published source" that MMS is toxic. Can you provide a "reliable, published source" that it cures anything? That it is a "medicine", alternative or otherwise? AS for MMS being 'heavily debated', I'd like to see evidence that anyone other than the snake-oil salesmen selling it, and the suckers they've taken in, are debating anything. And by the way, can you confirm one way or another whether you are connected in any way with User:DataBishop, who has stated that he is 'Jim Humble' and thus has a clear conflict of interest in this topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, let us not lose our objectivity. I am not claiming anything regarding the subject of this article. If I did, I would be subject to the same policies of neutrality and verifiability as yourself. In keeping with the topic, I have merely removed the word "fraudulent" from the first sentence of this Wiki entry because it is being used to describe the subject of this article without citation and remains challenged. The mere fact that you are arguing, is evidence that it is disputed. I will entertain your off-topic query as much to say, how would I have any clue who DataBishop is or if he is who he claims? If he is who he claims, I'm not so certain it is a conflict of interest since he's evidently spent more years researching this subject than you or I. Let's stay on topic here instead of trying to make this about anything else. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Now there's an interesting way not to answer a question. First you say you are "not claiming anything regarding the subject of this article", and then you say that DataBishop/'Jim Humble has "evidently spent more years researching this subject than you or I". Which is it? How do you know how long Humble has spent 'researching' anything? You don't (or you say you don't). And yet you take his claim that MMS is 'alternative therapy' that cures AIDS as somehow something other than a way to make a quick buck out of the gullible. Do you really think that a bogus pseudo-neutrality (based on nothing more than amateur lawyering) is more important than protecting people from the unverified and dangerous claims of snake-oil salesmen? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, from the US FDA: "Health fraud is the deceptive sale or advertising of products that claim to be effective against medical conditions or otherwise beneficial to health, but which have not been proven safe and effective for those purposes" [31]. I'd say that was a clear enough description of the situation. Making a medical claim without proving it is safe or effective (as in the MMS case) is fraud. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You are quite the master at twisting words. No, I'm not making claims. Yes, I have done more research on the topic than you, evidently. The Wiki itself says Jim Humble published his book in 2006. Were you guarding your WIKI opinion edits for that long? Did you even know what MMS was in 2006? I rest my case. I can clearly say Mr Humble has researched this longer than you or I and not be in conflict with any other statement. Your final statement regarding the FDA is derivative it is not a citation. This is my last communication with you in this matter so you can have the last work you so relish. To argue with a fool is foolishness itself. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• {{AN3|I'll leave it to another Admin to sort out any blocks, but I've protected the page for a month. I note that DataBishop (talk · contribs) and the IP are making the same edits. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll gladly admit to having broken the 3RR rule, but consider under the circumstances it was necessary. The idea that Wikipedia should somehow be 'neutral' about unverified and dangerous claims regarding 'cures' for fatal diseases seems so utterly detached from the core principles of this project that it seemed best to get the point across - and frankly, I'd rather be blocked than let this sort of nonsense go unnoticed. Wikipedia is big enough now to make arguments about abstract 'policy' issues less important than the effect we can have on the outside world. If we aren't prepared to accept this responsibility, we should abandon the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, there is no relation whatsoever between my edit and the edit(s) of DataBishop (talk · contribs). An honest look at the edit page will reveal this to be so. To be clear, the issue at hand is AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) wants to make a legal determination about the subject without proper citation. Turning back the edit and locking the article is not congruent with Wiki policy (see Wikipedia:CHALLENGE and WP:BOP) of which administrators are tasked to uphold. AndyTheGrump, your reply outright says Wiki should not be neutral, making your agenda to opinion push clear. This isn't about health claims, its about the inclusion of your opinion without citation. That is all its about. Dougweller, I implore you to see this for what it is and unlock the article. 98.247.58.102 (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

...Which is another way of saying that Wikilawyering is more important than the effects that articles can have on the outside world. Implore all you like, and let us see exactly why you are so concerned about promoting this quackery. If you actually think that 'policy' is so important that flogging toxins to the gullible should be permitted in order to maintain it (and you claim to have no opinion either way about MMS, so you presumably don't deny that this could be a result of your edits), you have no business participating in this project, given that you consider 'rules' more important than the consequences they have for real people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected by Dougweller (talk · contribs). Please discuss this on the talkpage, use {{editprotected}} for any non-controversial edits while the article is locked, and request unprotection if the issues are resolved before the protection expires. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Tentontunic reported by TFD (talk) (Result: 24 h)

Page: Left-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 02:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]
5. [36] (made after report filed)

• Diff of warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:
I have done but three reverts, the last one I was compelled to do due to the fact the The Four Dueces not only reinserted uncited content but also managed to mess up two merger discussion templates at the same time. [39] I am unsure as to why a person who inserts obviously false content intent into an article in violation of WP:RS and uncited content in violation of W:V is bringing me here for violation of 3R when it has nor been broken is in fact beyond me Tentontunic (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

While you restored a merger template that I inadvertently removed, you also deleted material in your fourth revert. TFD (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst you are here, might you explain why you reinserted uncited content into an article in violation of WP:V? Tentontunic (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And now User:Paul Siebert has managed the same, three reverts (I assume TFD shall soon report him) and removed the merger discussion templates. I assume I am not allowed to restore them? Ans yes TFD uncited material.Tentontunic (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebet's three consecutive edits count as one revert for 3RR. TFD (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Consecutive must be different were you live. One Two (reverts a bot but was obviously meaning to revert me going on edit summary) Three restores the RAF uncited content which I had removed. Tentontunic (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

An edit following an edit by the same editor is considered to be a consecutive edit. Edit 3 by Paul Siebert is consecutive to his previous edit. TFD (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As are mine. Shall you ever explain why you reinserted uncited content I wonder? Tentontunic (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

They are not consecutive if there were intervening edits. While you have made 26 edits today, they are considered to be five reverts. TFD (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

So you think the merger discussions ought to not have been restored? Tentontunic (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked. That article may need to be protected in the near future anyway, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by 119.236.250.80 (talk) (Result: no vio/reporter range blocked)

Page: List of national supreme courts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• 4th revert: [43]

Comments:

Overall revert with whatever edits performed by User:SchmuckyTheCat, with the excuse of reverting POV edits. 119.236.250.80 (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a well-known banned sockpuppeteer who stalks my edits. WP:RBI, please don't feed the troll. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

A rangeblock would be feasible on the most recent few IP addresses that I found, but WhoIS says they are editing from a /15, which would give us too much collateral damage. Nothing looks to me worth semi-protecting at the moment, but I am leaving this open in case anyone else has a viable solution. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No violation Also, 119.236.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked 1 week; sometimes despite the WHOIS the ISP does not actually assign all possible IP addresses to a user. Besides, a /15 is but 2 /16s.... T. Canens (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:71.84.3.109 reported by User:Wolftengu (Result: semi'd and warned)

Page: Yamaha DX1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Globalstatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.84.3.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.95.140.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editing/reversion has been going on since the June 2009.

• Initial edit: [44]

• 1st revert: [45] (by myself)
• 2nd revert: [46] (by myself)
• 3rd revert: [47] (by Master Bigode)
• 4th revert: [48] (by Master Bigode)
• 5th revert: [49] (by myself)

Article talk page: Talk:Yamaha_DX1

Comments:
The three sources of the edits (who could possibly be the same person, not sure) are both copying content directly from an external site here, which reads like a review and is full of peacock terms. Globalstatus seems to be the author of the article on the external site. Master Bigode and I have tried discussing the content posted on the article on the talk page, pointing to the various article/image guidelines, but the editors hotly disagree with anything we say and continue to re-load the text into the article. They've also tried numerous times to load external images and Youtube videos into the article body. The reversions listed above are just the major changes, it doesn't include all of the small incremental additions and reversions done on the page over the last 8 months. I reverted the article one final time on Feb. 11th, to have it re-reverted. I'll refrain from editing the article until this is resolved. Sorry the report is disorganized, but it's a long and messy situation. Wolftengu (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for a period of 6 months by 2over0 (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Further notes:

• the two IPs are on different large blocks of the same provider, so a range block would not be feasible.
• the last one was stable for several months, so I warned this one
• the IPs and the account are almost certainly the same person, and I have warned Globalstatus regarding edit warring and avoiding scrutiny
• the website in question is not covered by the Wayback Machine, but the history of the material in the article strongly suggests that this is not a case of reverse-copyvio
• I chose 6 months to reflect the long period over which the copyvio material has been re-inserted
• Wolftengu, please remember to notify all users when making a report such as this. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mythbuster2010 reported by User:Lachrie (Result: protected)

Page: Special Relationship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mythbuster2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]
• 5th revert: [55]
• 6th revert: [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:

Began by vandalising the page [59] and moved on to heavy POV pushing, poorly sourced and argumentative alterations, and picking out tendentious material from newspapers in order to denigrate the UK. When I warned him about edit-warring he responded in a copycat manner on my talk page [60] and reverted yet again. [61] Lachrie (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 1 week by Nev1 (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:98.227.173.227 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 31h)

Page: Radley Balko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.227.173.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]
• 4th revert: [66]
• 5th revert: [67]

3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments:
The IP has been reverted by me and by another editor. He has been warned on his Talk page. I started a new discussion on the article Talk page and put a TB template on the IP's Talk page, but he didn't contribute to the discussion. There was a much earlier discussion about similar material being added to the article. Although the IP has partly sourced the material, he has still not fully sourced it, but, more important, the material is simply not relevant or notable and doesn't warrant inclusion in the article.

The IP has made no other edits of any Wikipedia articles.

Please note I have reached my max of reverts (my change adding a reference tag to the article as a whole does not count as a revert as I read the rules).

This is my first 3RR report. I hope I did it right.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:R3ap3R.inc reported by User:C.Fred (Result: 48h)

Page: CAPTCHA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: R3ap3R.inc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70] (specifically, the addition of the Inglip section)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User acknowledges 3RR both by leaving a message about it in the edit summary of his third revert [75] and in warning me about 3RR before he committed his fourth revert! [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the Talk:CAPTCHA#Inglip section.

Comments:
The tone of R3ap3R.inc's edit summaries, such as "Take it ARBCOM", suggest that he has no intent of trying to compromise on the issue. I would rather discuss the matter and try to find middle ground or consensus on the talk page. The warning to me for 3RR just before he committed a fourth revert, as well as his request for page protection right after his first addition of the text,[77] call into question whether he's editing in good faith or trying to game the system into getting the text about the Inglip meme added to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours T. Canens (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Immortale reported by User:2over0 (Result: 24 hours )

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

Previous version reverted to: This is a perennially controversial article; the latest flare-up started about a week and a half ago. If some poor soul can put a rein on the talk page violations (from several users, as well as an overly combative atmosphere in general) while you are investigating this anyway, that would also be appreciated.

• 1st revert: 18:56 02-12
• 2nd revert: 22:12 02-12
• 3rd revert: 22:17 02-12
• 4th revert: 22:24 02-12
• 5th revert: 16:50 02-13

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is fully aware of WP:EW; anyway, mentions this board in link the third, above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is, obviously, a controversial article. It is also covered under the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions should anyone want to get involved more deeply. I do not think that this is worth AE at the moment, but it is a factor that might be considered in closing this report. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety ^talk`

User:Splinterr reported by User:Gruen (Result: Article semi-protected)

Page: Jean-François Larios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Splinterr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: User is apparently determined to remove the part of the article which refers to Larios being excluded from the 1982 Football World Cup squad. He has removed sourced content multiple times since February 8th and replacing it with some French content, using multiple IPs besides the username Splinterr. Myself and others kept reverting his edits for a while and warned him in the edit summaries not to remove sourced content from the page but he seems to be very enduring. Might need administration intervention.

Due to multiple IP disruption, the article is Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Reisio reported by User:Ronz (Result: blocked 55h)

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

• 1st revert: 06:59, 26 January 2011
• 2nd revert: 19:04, 27 January 2011
• 3rd revert: 00:54, 28 January 2011
• 4th revert: 21:41, 28 January 2011
• Revert 5: 14:29, 29 January 2011
• Revert 6: 20:49, 29 January 2011
• Revert 7: 04:11, 30 January 2011
• Revert 8: 18:57, 30 January 2011
• Revert 9: 23:28, 31 January 2011
• Revert 10: 20:30, 1 February 2011
• Revert 11: 20:49, 1 February 2011
• Revert 12: 19:38, 2 February 2011
• Revert 13: 20:33, 3 February 2011
• Revert 14: 03:18, 5 February 2011
• Revert 15: 23:05, 5 February 2011
• Revert 16: 15:23, 6 February 2011
• Revert 17: 06:45, 7 February 2011
• Revert 18: 10:57, 7 February 2011
• Revert 19: 02:37, 8 February 2011
• Revert 20: 01:54, 9 February 2011
• Revert 21: 10:47, 11 February 2011
• Revert 22: 05:41, 14 February 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:28, 13 February 2011

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 23:31, 13 February 2011 23:32, 13 February 2011 at External Links Noticeboard

Comments:
Soetermans (talk · contribs) is the primary editor involved in the edit-warring against Reisio. He was warned Feb 10th for edit-warring and WP:POINT violations, and had stopped edit-warring two days earlier. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I also left Snoop God (talk · contribs) a note [78] on his portion of the edit-warring. He had stopped 14:49, 29 January 2011. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reisio is currently failing to win friends and influence people by claiming that WP:ELBURDEN is "ridiculous", that the (apparently) uniform opposition to the blogspot link are only due to editors "applying guidelines blindly", that the guideline is "self-contradictory", and that he is obliged to ignore the consensus because he personally does not believe any of the (six?) editors opposing it have put forward a good enough reason to justify its removal.

This situation concerns me. ELN commonly sees problems—indeed, its whole purpose is to deal with problems—but we rarely see such poorly disguised contempt for other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 55 hours. Considering the editor's block log, 24 hours seems inadequate. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:MFIreland reported by User:Lloydelliot10 (Result: Article protected)

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

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

• 1st revert: [79]
• 2nd revert: [80]
• 3rd revert: [81]
• 4th revert: [82]

             [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84] [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:British Army#User:MFIreland keeps adding bogus "Citation Needed" tags to recruitment

and

[86]

Comments:

Because nearly everyone in the recent page history seems to have violated 3RR, the article is Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:76.66.133.76 reported by McGeddon (talk) (Result: Stale)

Page: Radiohead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 76.66.133.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 06:10, 10 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 412921994 by 72.37.128.50 (talk)")
2. 05:22, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 412925515 by 72.37.128.50 (talk)")
3. 13:50, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 413275293 by 137.222.216.63 (talk)")
4. 14:29, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 413061062 by 76.66.133.76 (talk)")
5. 14:31, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 413275293 by 137.222.216.63 (talk)")
6. 06:43, 12 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—McGeddon (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• If they come back without sources, please re-open this report. The IP appears to have been stable for the last few days, but it is probably dynamic and may change without notice. It may be worth considering requesting semi-protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Reopened; he's now deleting sourced information about the new album (!) in order to restore his little theory about something he saw on the website last week. He's reverted it twice more since. --McGeddon (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Stale Closing it again; given that other editors were reverting him (this is about an album that's out today, and he was blanking that information to make his own point), I ended up just warning him up to level four and going through other vandalism channels. --McGeddon (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:JackhammerSwirl reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [87]

• 1st revert:[88] @ 11:13, 14 February 2011
• 2nd revert:[89] @ 16:52, 14 February 2011

• Comment: The Gaza War is currently under a 1r restriction

User warned [90]

• Blocked by Timotheus Canens. Minimac (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Eusebeus reported by User:Lost Josephine Minor (Result:no violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [91]

• 1st revert: [92]
• 2nd revert: [93]
• 3rd revert: [94]
• 4th revert: [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Comments:

I am new to writing on Wikipedia, so if my formatting is incorrect, please bear with me. The editor gives no reason for his reverts, has been unwilling to negotiate. On my first article I have very carefully sourced all of the information that I included. However, very relevant information has been continually deleted by a couple of editors. Initial concerns by those editors have been addressed, yet Eusebeus continues to revert. I have attempted to engage Eusebeus in constructive dialog, have attempted to adjust the wording of the article to make it more comfortable to others, however, he continues to make reverts to remove information which is quite clearly correct. Lost Josephine Minor (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• One editor versus a number of other editors (myself included) who are asking for WP:RS to substantiate claims. I can ask other editors to revert to avoid 3RR, but this is, in essence, a source dispute and the page should be protected against LJM's edit-warring in the face of multiple editor requests for substantiation. Eusebeus (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• As Eusebus points out, this is a content dispute; Lost Josephine Minor attempts to introduce material which is not supported by reliable sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• No 3RR violation, as these are spread out over a few days, but it is clearly edit warring between Eusebeus and Lost Josephine Minor, and any more reverts from either is likely to result in blocks. Also, Eusebeus needs to stop using rollback on non-vandal edits or his rollback permissions are likely to be revoked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• This shouldn't be characterized as edit warring between two editors. As Michael Bednarek has pointed out the SPA Lost Josephine Minor has repeatedly introduced questionable content. About six or seven different editors have been involved in one way or another (see Talk:Alex_Gregory). --Kleinzach 09:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Regardless, Eusebeus had been doing way too much reverting for me to ignore in my closing comments. I mention those two not an exclusive list but as the ones doing enough reverting to be worth mentioning. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Heimstern Läufer: Leaving aside the details of this particular case, the implication of your view is that any repeated reversions of content, even spaced out over time, are more egregious than including poor content in the encyclopedia. . . . I've recently been involved in a more significant problem elsewhere. Another editor (not involved here) reverted my contributions to two articles. (This involved the other editor removing/changing references to the main reliable source.) I completely abandoned my work on those articles (and on related articles). Judging by the approach here, I must have done the right thing. Social harmony is the most important thing, right? If I had insisted on article accuracy and slowly and judiciously reverted bad content, I would have been reported here and got the usual 'you are equally to blame' treatment, just like Eusebeus. Hmm. --Kleinzach 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Please stop twisting my words. I did not say they were equally to blame. I said both were edit warring. I'm quite willing to say that the one doing the most reverting, which is to say Lost Josephine Minor, is more to blame, but that doesn't mean the other side was guiltless. As for content issues, I am required to maintain neutrality or else I can't be considered an uninvolved editor, so I won't comment on them. Yes, absolutely, content is most important, social harmony is a distant second. If you don't think I know that, ask Future Perfect at Sunrise or Horologium how I railed at ArbCom over their misprioritizing social harmony in ARBMAC2. And I haven't blocked anyone, just given a warning that future activity is likely to result in blocks, though I don't really plan to dish any out. Taking away rollback permissions, that I might do. There's really no excuse for using rollback on non-vandal edits. That's all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • OK, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. --Kleinzach 06:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:208.233.32.44, User:65.175.251.7 and User:Gabrielkat reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: protected 10 days)

Page: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.233.32.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 65.175.251.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gabrielkat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Last known good version, before this started ...

208.233.32.44 reverting ...

• 1st revert: [98]
• 2nd revert: [99]
• 3rd revert: [100]

65.175.251.7 reverting ...

• 1st revert: [101]
• 2nd revert: [102]

Gabrielkat reverting ...

• 1st revert: [103]
• 2nd revert: [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for 208.233.32.44, for 65.175.251.7 and for Gabrielkat

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Starts here, but then there's this and then this and this and finally this. Not much talking apparently.

Comments:

Most likely a battle between two users, with one apparently using two IPs (although I don't believe this is intended as sockpuppetry and may simply be the same person editing from two different locations). Edits appear to be focused on a single date, a release date for a particular movie. These two/three editors have been just about the only source of activity in this article recently, and it's getting ugly. I haven't made any changes simply because I'm not sure who's right and who's wrong, but disruptive is disruptive, and this has got to stop. I'm going to request page protection as well until this gets resolved. --McDoobAU93 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 10 days Honestly I would have just blocked both of them, but neither editor has reverted since being warned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:WikiManOne reported by User:Haymaker (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [105]

• 1st revert: [106] straight revert at 21:12
• 2nd revert: [107] straight revert at 10:32
• 3rd revert: [108] straight revert at 11:37
• 4th revert: [109] at 13:25 is a revert of this edit 25 minutes earlier
• 5th revert: [110] straight revert at 14:30
• 6th revert: [111] was a straight revert at 19:09, a self revert was made at 19:11 but then WMO went ahead a made the exact same edit with a few of the words rearranged 45 minutes later at 19:57

WMO has been warned about edit warring many times by many editors over the last few days [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]

These edits have been talked over on the talk page

Comments:
This is 6 reverts inside 23 hours. It is also worth noting that the user was reported for edit warring on the page Lila Rose 4 days ago. He was let off with a stern warning after declaring his retirement from that page. He has since resumed making reverts on that page.

This is amusing coming from someone who has been blocked for edit warring four times previously, complaining that I undid their edits. The first revert was a revert of actions disruptive to wikipedia, as was the fifth revert. As the notice on the talk page states "Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before." Those were edits made in an area that had substantial discussion over the course of weeks. I was justified in reverting their edits that went against clearly established consensus and therefore disruptive.

The fourth "revert" is not a revert at all, it reworded the whole thing and was not reverting to a previous version.

The sixth revert was a revert that I promtply self reverted, even though not counting reverting disruptive actions, that would have been my third revert against 3RR. As such, even if it wasn't self-reverted, it would have not been a fourth revert. Furthermore, it was not the same edit, I went back to the source and addressed the concerns made.

Is this the fourth or fifth report you've brought against me Haymaker? Last I checked, only one was successful and that one resulted in a block for you as well. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been made aware of the dispute resolution process, you have been warned ad nauseum not to edit war even if you think you are right. And since you asked, I have reported you twice in the past for disruptive editing. - Haymaker (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought: how about both of you stop it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I also want to add, the two actual reverts I did not discuss above, were reverting unilateral changes to the lead which were, in fact, violations of this notice on the talk page: "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information." The changes were not discussed before being made and a different editor previously removed the editor's attempt to add this information to the lead. Instead of beginning a discussion on its inclusion on the talk page, the user chose to repeatedly insert it, leaving those involved with little choice but to revert it. I think my actions were all completely justifiable, and I'm tired of Haymaker making frivolous reports. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Never mind both of them stop it - the reported user is continuing along the same lines and if he is again warring he has had plenty of warning and a three day restriction is required, and of course if the reporter is also in violation then the same goes for them - there is a lot of disruption presently in this topic area and violations require edit restrictions of some kind - a topic ban or a WP:1RR one revert restriction will also help reduce the disruption.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours - the 3RR does have exclusions, they are listed here. There was no vandalism here, just a difference in opinion (any interested parties can read up on the definition at WP:VAND#NOT, and the essay I personally wrote: WP:Hitler). Haymaker's changes were generally not reversions, they were changes to the existing text. Neither were WikiManOne's changes in the spirit of WP:BRD, as Haymaker's changes were in fact an alteration of the text as WikiManOne wrote it (not a reversion). This does not excuse edit warring on anyone's behalf, and WikiManOne is still welcome to edit this article in the future as a valuable editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Niallo301 reported by User:Erikeltic (Result: blocked 1 month)

Page: Slieve League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Croaghaun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niallo301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• There have been enough 3RRs on this problem. I am reporting it as an edit war.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117] [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes. The editor's talk page is full of warnings, blocks, etc. over his continued edit warring and refusal to provide sources. [119]

Comments: This editor has repeatedly vandalised Slieve League with non-cited materials, Youtube links, and misc other statements. The editor has now moved over into Croaghaun and is doing the same thing there. Already the editor has been blocked for this behavior and yet he/she continues to do it. I have encouraged the editor to learn Wikipedia rules and I have even offered to help put some reliable sources together for the article. Thus far the editor has ignored all attempts at communication and yet he continues to edit the article indiscriminately.

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:McGlockin reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: 24 hr block)

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

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

• 1st revert: [120]
• 2nd revert: [121]
• 3rd revert: [122]
• 4th revert: [123]
• 5th revert: [124]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments:Although the user has only three reverts he has been reinserting uncited content, and making personal attacks in calling me a vandal. He is now on four reverts.

He has also made personal attacks on my talk page [126] In again calling me a vandal and accusations of an agenda. Tentontunic (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He has attacked me as well. User seems to have a battleground mentality, a little mentoring might help rather than a block. Soxwon (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring and characterizing disagreement as vandalism. Acroterion _(talk) 22:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Moni3 reported by User:Zarcadia (Result: Protected)

Please continue this discussion at Talk:Everglades National Park#Linking "U.S. state" or another appropriate venue. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had a perfectly valid edit reverted 3 times as well as 2 messages sent to my talk page. I contest my edits were valid and had no valid reasons for reversion. The history can be seen here [[127]] Zarcadia (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Well, hey. I was going to report Zarcadia for doing something very stupid in an FA. I was going to format my report properly too, but let's see where this goes. --Moni3 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Page protected - Vsmith has protected Everglades National Park. --B (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC) And how long before I change it back under protection if Zarcadia refuses to engage? Shall I just use my own judgment on that? --Moni3 (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Burn the witch Sorry, I mean ban the bitch. There's far too much of this looking after articles you've written going on here. All articles should only be edited by those who are completely ignorant of the subject but have an opinion nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Moni3 - Why is it so hard for you to understand that U. S. State is linked to on numerous articles, why are you so threatened by this encyclopaedic link?! Why do you insist that I don’t engage? Can you give me a reason why we shouldn’t link to U. S. State? Zarcadia (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I'm threatened by your virility, not the link. There, it just looks very stupid and is completely unnecessary. The number of articles a particular article is linked to--this makes no sense. The only factor in why an article is linked in another article is how relevant that topic is. There is nothing in U.S. state that has any bearing on Everglades National Park and vice versa. We don't link simply because an article is there. --Moni3 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC) All this fuss about a wikilink. Lucky for you Vsmith protected the article, locking the entire world out from editing it. I would have blocked you both for edit warring, and let others edit. By the way, see WP:OVERLINKING, specifically the part that says "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations...." ~Amatulić (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC) ... and you would have been the typical heavy-handed administrator, with no idea at all about how to deal with even the slightest of content disputes, such as this one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I hardly think a block of a couple hours is heavy handed during an edit war. As a frequent contributor of Wikipedia:Third opinion, I'm disappointed that these two didn't take the dispute there rather than here. Simply making them aware of WP:OVERLINKING would have solved it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Then you're wrong. Are you seriously suggesting that Moni3 was unaware of WP:OVERLINKING? (Thanks for the link BTW, I'd never seen that before myself</sarcasm>). Seriously? The admin way is to find reasons to blame both sides, not to address the problem, which is that one side was unaware of the guidelines. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Malleus, your perception of "the admin way" is wrong, sorry. At least, that isn't my way. Protecting an article from disruption can be accomplished several ways: mediation (like 3rd opinion), article protection, blocking. The editors here elected to go down a path that led to protection, that's all. Moni3 seemed aware of WP:OVERLINKING, Zarcadia did not. It's that simple. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I can only assume that you haven't been keeping up, or perhaps you need to go and lie down. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Amatulic, you are wrong. The fuss is not about a wikilink. It's about a featured article. If you do not understand what it is about, write one. Write quite a few, then see how many times you are here. One of these days I'm going to get blocked for stewarding an article I wrote. So be it and amen. --Moni3 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Edit to add: Zarcadia was made aware of Overlinking by another editor on Zarcadia's talk page. He continued to revert. You didn't check that talk page, did you? --Moni3 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Would you please link to that? You'll see I will happily concede if an editor puts forward a good case. You did not. Zarcadia (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC) OK, the fuss is about a wikilink in a featured article. I knew that already. You should know better than to engage in an edit war when other dispute resolutions methods are available. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) You should know that any FA editor worth his salt will gladly take a block to protect the integrity of content in an article s/he spent weeks or months writing and two more years maintaining. You may think a wikilink is a small thing. If you do, write an FA and see how small it is. --Moni3 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I think I hold the record there. I was blocked twice within 24 hours for 3RR one TFA day, but I wouldn't do anything differently given my time again. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC) (ec) Moni, I am aware of FA criteria, sorry to belittle the issue over a Wikilink. I am in agreement with your position. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) What does that link add to our knowledge of the Everglades National Park? How many people in the world do you think are unaware that the United States is made up of a federation of states in any event? Malleus Fatuorum AN3 is not a discussion forum. I suggest taking the disputed article content to the article talk page ... which is what protecting it is designed to do. --B (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC) So, by your reasoning, we shouldn't link U.S. States in the thousand or so articles that do so already? Good luck with that. "How many people in the world do you think are unaware that the United States is made up of a federation of states in any event?" Possibly the 90% of English speakers who aren't American, Please remember this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia, thank you. Zarcadia (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I don't know whose reasoning you're referring to, but U.S. state should be linked in each U.S. state and all related articles to the formation, government, acquisition, and history of each U.S. state, as well as, I think, the U.S. Constitution. I keep pointing out that Everglades National Park is an FA, where the standards for everything: citations, writing, style, grammar, images, and linking, are very, very high. Lower class articles on Naruto or Gone With the Wind, if not FA, may link to U.S. state or other topics that have nothing to do with the subject. They're not FAs. --Moni3 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Silly me, for thinking that the name "United States" meant a federation of states. So what does it mean then? Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I've started a discussion at Talk:Everglades National Park#Linking "U.S. state". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Aside: It really does treat our readers as fools to think it's likely they'd want to click on a list of "U.S. states" while reading that article. The presumption that wikilinking should be used to facilitate aimless wandering through the site went down the sink a few years ago. Please let's focus on selecting the valuable links for our readers. Tony (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:BillyGambela reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 h)

Page: African American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: BillyGambela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 06:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 05:16, 16 February 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 05:32, 16 February 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 05:44, 16 February 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 06:02, 16 February 2011 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here —Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked - 2/0 (cont.) 06:35, 16 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: [128]
• 2nd revert: [129]
• 3rd revert: [130]
• 4th revert: [131]

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. [132].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 [133] This was the first vandalising change made by user:Padmavasantha - Diff [134]
2. Since then i had to revert their edits repeatedly. But all i did was only reverting vandalising edits. Here are my edits [135], [136], [137], [138], [139]. 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 - [140], [141], [142], [143], [144]. 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 [145].
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: [146]

• 1st revert: [147]
• 2nd revert: [148]
• 3rd revert: [149]
• 4th revert: [150]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [151]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [152]

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: [153]

• 1st revert: [154]
• 2nd revert: [155]
• 3rd revert: [156]
• 4th revert: [157]
• At this point the user was reported and blocked, but as soon as the block was removed
• 5th revert: [158]
• 6th revert, as IP: [159]
• 7th revert: [160]
• 8th revert: [161]
• 9th revert, as IP: [162]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

• Second warning after returning from block [164]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [165]

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: [166]

• 1st revert: [167]
• 2nd revert: [168]
• 3rd revert: [169]
• 4th revert: [170]
• 5th revert: [171]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [173]

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): [174]

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: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 [175], and when I warned him about it, he removed the warnings from his talk page. [176] 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: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: [177]

• 1st revert: [178]
• 2nd revert: [179]
• 3rd revert: [180]
• 4th revert: [181]
• 5th revert: [182]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184]

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: [185]

• 1st revert: [186]
• 2nd revert: [187]

History of slavery Previous version reverted to: [188]

• 1st revert: [189]
• 2nd revert: [190]

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: [191]

• 1st revert: [192]
• 2nd revert: [193]
• 3rd revert: [194]

Compare to edits by 204.140.189.253 (talk · contribs): [195], [196], [197] and [198] which took place after VeryGentle1969's edits of [199], [200] and [201].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202]

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: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: [203]

• 1st revert: [204] 03:57, 17 February 2011

• 2nd revert: [205] 04:22, 17 February 2011

• 3rd revert: [206] 05:55, 17 February 2011

• 4th revert: [207] 19:33, 17 February 2011

• 5th revert: [208] 19:50, 17 February 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user notified[209]

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[210] FOX News[211] Yahoo News[212] Boston Herald[213] Daily Mail[214] 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: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: [215]

• 1st revert: [216]
• 2nd revert: [217]
• 3rd revert: [218]
• 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 ([219], [220], [221]), 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: [222]

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)

Let me defend myself here. I have nothing against Guanxi. He keeps removing any references to Michigan State wearing the winged helmets when he leaves in all the references to Michigan, which makes me belive he is a Michigan fan trying to protect their history of the winged helmet.

If you want to see reliable sources, here are 6 including published books, both Michigan and Michigan State archives and ESPN.com:

1. Constantine S. Demos and Steven S. Demos, M.D., The Tradition Continues: Spartan Football (Muskegon: Michigan State University Football Players Association, 2008) 515.
2. Michigan State Football: They Are Spartans (Arcadia Publishing (January 11, 2004)
3. Bentley Historical Library: University of Michigan Athletics History. “University of Michigan Football: Michigan’s Winged Helmet.” The Regents of the University of Michigan. Apr. 2006, 26 Mar. 2010
4. http://www.uniwatchblog.com/2010/12/29/winging-it-helmet-history-reconsidered/
5. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/110113_bulwark_football_helmets
6. MSU Archives: http://www.flickr.com/photos/msuarchives/4524022374/in/set-72157623632171779/

And that doesn't include SpartanJerseys.com.

BTW, those other IP addresses aren't mine, but other MSU fans could be trying to protect the page. Imacericg (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• None of those sources were cited in the article (and many aren't RS). I don't see the relevance here. guanxi (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Imacericg is the/an author of spartanjerseys.com. I just found a post to this | Flickr page by a "Imacericg" saying, During my research for the History of the Winged Helmet page of Spartan Jerseys, the only time Wy Davis, Paul Griffith and Bob Sherman played together was in 1940. Hopefully, this is the end of the issue, but I wanted to put that on the record. guanxi (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• There is confusion between Spartan Jerseys and the reliable source debate that that is going back and forth in the article. I agree that the Spartan Jerseys uses the sources above, but what the matter at hand is, why can't the information from the sources be included in this article? For example, this line was just removed by Guanxi:

"The winged helmet debuted in 1934, with Michigan State College football wearing a gold helmet with black wings" and was cited: Michigan State Football: They Are Spartans (Arcadia Publishing (January 11, 2004)) 31 The above line has nothing to do with the above accusations and everything to do with the article: Winged Helmets. I thought published books were reliable?

Imacericg (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know why Imacericg is discussing that here. I wanted to add one more thing that is pertinent to the record: In an interview on a blog, someone named Eric G. says he runs spartanjerseys.com and pushes the same story about the helmets. I think we can assume that's our "Imacericg". He says, effectively, that this is his personal crusade:

... I haven’t had the budget to broadcast it as loudly as it deserves. My intention is to set the record straight. We constantly see the winged helmets on the field in Ann Arbor. Being a diehard MSU fan, I wanted to create a page explaining the facts and the history behind the winged helmet, proving that MSU was wearing that style before our friends in Ann Arbor.

guanxi (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Again, there seems to be confusion between the reliable sources that should be included in the article and the Spartan Jerseys Website. Since today's result, if you look at Guanxi's talk page, the article's discussion page I have tried to work with Guanxi to add this information to the page and I have never tried to plug SpartanJerseys. I will continue to work with Guanxi as I have nothing against him.Imacericg (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sundostund reported by User:Jack Merridew (Result: Resolved)

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 - [223]. 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)

Things have calmed down and discussion is the name of the game again. m.o.p 21:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

I think someone also should look this - Jack admits here that he's a sockpuppet master - [224]. --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)

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:Iqinn reported by User:V7-sport (Result: Not blocked for now)

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

Previous version reverted to: [225]

• 1st revert: [226]
• 2nd revert: [227]
• 3rd revert: [228]
• 4th revert: [229]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [230]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [231]

Comments: Notice the edit summery here[232]

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)

• Not blocked as moot. Neither party has edited the page in over 12 hours. If the reverting resumes, please make another report and we can opt for the "block both" option instead. --B (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:asad112 (Result: No violation)

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: [233]
• 2nd revert: [234]
  
  

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)

No violation ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 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: [235]
• 2nd revert: [236]
• 3rd revert: [237]
• 4th revert: [238]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [239] [240]

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:AndresHerutJaim reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Template:Arab-Israeli conflict engagements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [241]

• 1st revert: [242]
• 2nd revert: [243]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [244]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:
This template, like all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Atomaton reported by User:Jayen466 (Result: No violation)

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 [245] 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. [246]

My first edit[247] 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[248]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[249] 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)

The article has not been in this state "for years", but since September 2010. Atomaton states that not all 8 people have stated their support for removing one of these images. This is untrue. Here are the verbatim talk page comments from each of the editors listed, with diffs:

• Kaldari: "Agree with JN. 2nd image is redundant" diff
• Enric Naval: "Both images show the same thing in almost the same way, so we would only need one of them." diff
• Genevieve2: "the Illustration depicting the act of bukkake seems to me inappropriate for a site serious as Wikipedia ... This image must be removed, thanks, merci" diff
• Carolmooredc: "One is enough." diff
• Crossmr: "I agree with the removal of the second image due to article length and a bit of redundancy." diff
• Oda Mari: "I agree with OP, CaroMooreDC and others. I find no reason that the two similar images should be needed in the article. One is enough." diff
• Herostratus: "I would support this per WP:HARDCORE." (expressing preference for not using either of the explicit drawings). diff
• Jayen466: "I propose removing one of the drawings. The two drawings are very similar, and the second one is redundant." diff --JN466 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No violation. Also TLDR. I don't see anything actionable here. From the conversations and edit summary history, it seems that Atomaton's interest is only in keeping the images in the article for the purpose of an RFC to play out. There is no hurry. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Three of the reverts occurred before Atomaton initiated the RfC. The fourth occurred a few hours after Atomaton initiated it. Each and every revert was against talk page consensus. --JN466 21:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And since Atomaton will be offline for a while, a 24-hour or 48-hour block will accomplish what, exactly? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I would welcome a little more discussion of this. What would it accomplish? Less reverts against talk page consensus next time round. His edits are either disruptive or not; whether he goes camping or not has nothing to do with it. --JN466 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No... Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors are not punishment. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. A 48 hour block, in this case, would have no effect, since he has effectively and voluntarily banned himself for 3 days. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please consider that neither of us can know whether the editor actually is going camping or not. We would not want to suggest that any editor accused of edit-warring at this board can get off simply by saying -- "I'm just about to go camping for 48 hours."
• Secondly, I did not ask for a block. I left it to this board to decide what action, if any, was appropriate. A friendly word on the editor's talk page, and a look at the article situation, might have done just as well.
• Lastly, your case summary ("it seems that Atomaton's interest is only in keeping the images in the article for the purpose of an RFC to play out") is inaccurate, and your TLDR comment does not help inspire confidence. This is what happened: For the first three reverts (on 17 Feb), there was no RfC in place. There was simply a discussion to which nine editors contributed. Seven of these editors were agreed that the second image should go. Diffs above. Yet Atomaton reverted the image back into the article three times. Then he filed an RfC, at 17.07, 18 February. The first (and so far only) editor to comment at the RfC, User:Enric Naval, also said only one image should be used. Yet, two hours later, at 20:18, 18 February, Atomaton reverted the second image back in for a fourth time, with an edit summary saying, Return image, for sake of existing consensus, and RfC on images to complete to establish new consensus, please give the RfC a few weeks. For sake of existing consensus? This assumes that a new consensus can only be established by an RfC, which is not the case. For what it's worth, two of the other editors have since commented on the article's talk page to say that there already is consensus, and an RfC is unnecessary. One of them is User:Kaldari, an admin and Wikimedia Foundation employee. Please consider the situation: at the time of Atomaton's fourth revert, eight editors had expressed the view that there should only be one image, and that the second image should remain out. Only one editor was in favour of having both images. Yet Atomaton put the second image back in. In doing so, he went against eight of the ten editors who had commented, yet claimed in his edit summary that there was a consensus to do what he was doing. I'll leave this now, but as far as I am concerned, you haven't really understood what happened here, nor made any great effort to understand, and that is dispiriting. --JN466 02:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. TLDR means "I did not read the complaint". This invalidates the decision, so it needs to be reopened so that another person, who is wiling to read the complaint can consider it. Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• No need — in this case, Amatulic read enough of it to see that there was no 3RR violation and decided that a block for any other reason was unneeded. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Pensionero reported by User:Maunus (Result: protected, warned)

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

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

• initial change [250]
• 1st revert[251]
• 2. revert[252]
• 3rd revert: [253]
• 4th revert: [254]
• 5th revert: [255]
• 6th revert: [256]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [257]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Dilma_Rousseff#Ethnicity

Comments: This is a case of blatant editwarring whether or not it technically counts as a 3rr violation. I have myself reverted twice today and have refrained from reverting Pensionero's latest revert. Pensionero has not participated in discussion on the talk page.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Article protected for one week so the discussion can work itself out. New editor warned that discussion by edit summary is insufficient, pointed to the key provisions of WP:Edit warring, including that making superficial changes is not a loophole in WP:3RR. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:ObodepmYWalls reported by User:Geoff B (Result: Protected)

Page: A Serbian Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ObodepmYWalls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [258]

• 1st revert: [259]
• 2nd revert: [260]
• 3rd revert: [261]
• 4th revert: [262]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [263]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [264]

Tried the talk page, tried his talk page, no response. He's provided two reviews, neither of which backs up the majority of his edits. Geoff B (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it is this user who both resorted to edit warring and did not engage in discussion (his messages were abusive warnings, while I engaged him on his page). He violated 3RR himself, as evident from page history, reverting to the same version 4 times, while my versions differ in both changed text and added references. ObodepmYWalls (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

• Result: Fully protected two weeks. May be lifted if consensus is reached on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Geoff B reported by User:ObodepmYWalls (Result: Protected)

Page: A Serbian Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Geoff B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [265]

• 1st revert: [266]
• 2nd revert: [267]
• 3rd revert: [268]
• 4th revert: [269]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [270]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [271]

Comments: Despite adding references and refering to an ongoing debate and film author proclaimed message, entire paragraph is being deleted, and reverts are made to the same version
ObodepmYWalls (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected per the result of another complaint about the same dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Yopie and User:86.101.110.57 reported by User:Nmate (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: 1942 raid in southern Bačka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [272]

• 1st revert: [273] 21:07, 14 February 2011 (edit summary:"Chauvinistic rant. Reference does not exist")
  edit made by IP editor
• 2nd revert: [274] 21:09, 14 February 2011 (edit summary:"Reference does not exist")
  edit made by IP editor
• 3rd revert: [275] 22:09, 14 February 2011 (edit summary:"Reverted 2 edits by 86.101.110.57 (talk); Rv too hurry . (TW))")
  edit made by Yopie
• 4th revert: [276] 07:25, 19 February 2011 (edit summary:"Undid revision 413954370 by Yopie (talk)")
  edit made by IP editor
• 5th revert: [277] 08:43, 19 February 2011 (edit summary:" (Reverted 3 edits by 86.101.110.57 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by PBS-AWB. (TW)")
  edit made by Yopie
• 6th revert: [278] 14:17, 19 February 2011 (edit summary:"Undid revision 414754587 by Yopie inciting hatered through biased information (talk))"
  edit made by Ip editor

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [279][280]
Both editors were already blocked in connection with the same article on 21 September, 2010 on the ground that they did not want to discuss content changes.

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

Comments:
There is a long term edit war between the two users on the article 1942 raid in southern Bačka ,and technically, none of them violated a 3RR there. However, it doesn't mean that they have to edit three time a day because long-term edit warring is just as disruptive, and flying in to revert isn't productive. As far as I can see, the edit war had started on 17 September, 2010 [281] and shortly after both users were blocked for a none technically violation of 3RR on the ground that none of them was willing to discuss content changes.[282][283] Please note that the edit warring has been going on for more than six months without having started a discussion between the two users on the talk page of the moot article and both editors were already blocked for that, in connection with the same article.

Additional note is that when Yopie was blocked for edit warring at the same article, he made an appeal against it and the reviewer administrator rejected his appeal saying that" i would note that the edits in question are not clear vandalism, and that you usedrollback to revert them. I would point out that using rollback is only permitted when there is a clear reason to revert; Using rollback in an edit war may lead to the permission being revoked" [284] And now Yopie has also warned the same IP editor for vandalism without wanting to discuss content changes at the same article.[285]

--Nmate (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: As User:Nmate failed to inform the accused party about this report, I did that for him: [286] (Iaaasi (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

Comment: I noticed this event and reverted edits of 86.101.110.57 to last version by Yopie because behavior of anonymous IP certainly looks like vandalism (i.e. the removal of sourced statements), as everybody can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1942_raid_in_southern_Ba%C4%8Dka&action=historysubmit&diff=414783618&oldid=414754587 I do not think that reverting of these kinds of edits is an example of disruptive behavior. PANONIAN 21:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Note that this article falls under WP:DIGWUREN, and topic bans are possible. Yopie will be on safer ground if he will explain his edits on the article's talk page. He is not correct in stating that the IP's edits are vandalism. Since the IP is inserting unsourced material, he has the harder task, especially when he hasn't used the talk page either. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Prohuman69 reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: 36 h)

Page: Pro-choice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prohuman69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [287]

• 1st revert: [288]
• 2nd revert: [289]
• 3rd revert: [290]
• 4th revert: [291]
• 5th revert: [292]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [293]

Comments:
User reverting without discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Edit warring and NPA violations. User will be on extremely short leash after block expires. Courcelles 23:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:86.164.71.55 (Result: Protected)

Page: Skillet (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [294]

• 1st revert: [295]
• 2nd revert: [296]
• 3rd revert: [297]
• 4th revert: [298]
• 5th revert: [299]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [300], [301] & the edit summaries of above diffs.

Comments:

User is also to be reported for repeatedly throwing out accusations of vandalism for edits made with explainations (therefore not, by definition, vandalism) even when he is also linked to the article on vandalism. Also to be reported for not only constantly inserting unsourced material (see above diffs), but also for outright removing sourced material [302]. If these need to be reported somewhere else, please let me know where. 86.164.71.55 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Anon continues to change IP. Anon offered no source for genre. A group is working on attempting to come to consensus on appropriate consensus. Anon refuses to discuss and is being disruptive. Page is now locked to avoid anon's efforts at disruption. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Kind of looked like a content dispute. The anon was even properly using the edit summery. This ones hard to judge.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Protected one week by User:5 albert square. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anon continues to change IP"

Not intentionally. I can't help it if my IP changes, and I make no attempt to hide behind it.

"Anon offered no source for genre"

What, you mean like the source I added and you removed here? [303] All other edits I made were removal of unsourced info, and as the one adding it back the burden of sourced evidence lies squarely with you.

"Anon refuses to discuss and is being disruptive"

I fail to see how my repeated edit summary explanations, posts to your talk page directing you to the guidelines I'm following and addition of sourced material constitutes "disruptive" behaviour.

The page being locked now solves the problem of Walter edit warring over it, but it still doesn't deal with the issue that the user kept on adding unsourced info, removed genuinely sourced info and repeatedly (and falsely) accused me of vandalism (or just wasn't looking at the edits he was reverting, which really isn't much better). It'd be nice to see that someone can't do things like that without consequences. 86.164.71.55 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

One comment out of more than five edits. I'm sorry, that's not adequate. The page lock stops you from vandalizing it. If you want to participating in sourcing the genre feel free to let me know, after you get an account. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And so Walter continues with false accusations of vandalism and general harrassment, not to mention ignoring the facts (e.g. how I commented on every edit and how he still never added a single source for all the genres he added). Is nothing going to be done about such behaviour? 86.164.71.55 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Eye Smith reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 48h)

Page: Wilbert Rideau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eye Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [304]

• 1st revert: [305]
• 2nd revert: [306]
• 3rd revert: [307]
• 4th revert: [308]
• 5th revert: [309]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [310]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A (see comment)

Comments:

I've warned the user on his Talk page. Although this apparently stems from a content dispute, the user is destroying the formatting of the article and won't listen to me or another editor. He keeps insisting he wants to change the content. Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC) -->

The editor has not edited the article since receiving the 3RR notice (01:26, 20 February 2011). Hopefully, this means the editor has heeded the warning. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that not making any edits after a warning is an exemption to what is described as a "bright-line rule". I placed the warning because the instructions here tell me to, but I was unaware it was required. In my view, regardless of the result of this particular report, the warning should be changed to a notice that the user has been reported. The warning reads as if the user may not be blocked unless he continues. Confusing (at least to me). One more thing: the user did get a warning. I told him on his Talk page that he was destroying the formatting of the article. The other editor also included cautionary language in his edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Others may disagree, but am inclined to assume good faith with this editor. True, the repeated edits were disruptive, but I do not believe that this was the intent. The formatting problems and contentious editing are newby mistakes. Now that the editing has stopped, I think it best to see what the editor does next. If they participate in the talk page discussion, great - We might have the makings of a new constructive contributor. If they resume disruptive editing, a block may then be in order. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I support cutting the user a bit more slack, more discussion is underway over the content he she wanted to remove amongst editors and the reverting has stopped and I do also think their edits were in good faith although detrimental tom has sorted that issue - . thanks for that tom. Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but I disagree with the inferences drawn about the user's behavior. My guess is the reason the reversions stopped is because the user logged off and hasn't been back. That could be confirmed if there are tools that show login/out history. As for Tom's action, although he says he takes no position on the content dispute (and I believe him), his choice as to what to restore to effectively took a position. When I restored the article, I restored it to the most recent properly formatted point before Eye Smith's disruptions. Still, WhisperToMe, the other party in the content dispute, doesn't seem to be bothered by where things are now, so I suppose it doesn't much matter. The article also looks ugly because Eye Smith clearly doesn't know how to edit, but I'm not going to touch the article because I've already made three reverts, and I doubt anyone would cut me any slack. :-) Anyway, I should probably let go of all this - not good for my health.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. If the editor comes back to revert the article again and seems not to be listening to any of the advice given, let one of the admins know or submit a new report, linking to this one. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours. The editor came back and continued to revert the article. In my opinion, he gets no credit for one post at BLPN when he was already on the point of being blocked. I do not perceive any genuine BLP concern that would justify reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Uygur reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 31 h)

Page: Eastern Mediterranean University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 14:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 12:49, 19 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Allegations of administrative misconduct */")
2. 12:50, 19 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Allegations of administrative misconduct */")
3. 12:51, 19 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Rectors' Dismissal Declared Illegal by the Supreme Court */")
4. 12:57, 19 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Allegations of administrative misconduct */")
5. 12:57, 19 February 2011 (edit summary: "/* Rectors' Dismissal Declared Illegal by the Supreme Court */")
6. 20:46, 19 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 414778500 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)")
7. 14:29, 20 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 414858348 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

• Note that this is not technically 3RR as it involves a period longer than 24 hours -- nonetheless it is clearly edit-warring as well as vandalism (removal of sections the editor clearly doesn't like, despite proper sourcing). To top it off, the editor is also deleting vast swathes of the talk page for the article.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Even if the edits were not a 3RR violation, they were a clear attempt to disrupt the article—and its talk page.[311] A block was clearly warranted to prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:71.193.219.233 reported by User:Good Olfactory (Result: full-protection )

Page: John W. Bryant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.193.219.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An edit war has been going on this page since the anon first deleted a cited quote on the page on 18 Feb. Various users have taken this issue up in reversion comments and on the talk page and there has been an attempt to remove a reference to some of the more controversial information from the source, but the reversions continue by this IP address, which now total 13 incidents since the first deletion and 7 in the past 24 hours alone:

• 1st revert: [312]
• 2nd revert: [313]
• 3rd revert: [314]
• 4th revert: [315]
• 5th revert: [316]
• 6th revert: [317]
• 7th revert (in past 24 h): [318]
• 8th revert (in past 24 h): [319]
• 9th revert (in past 24 h): [320]
• 10th revert (in past 24 h): [321]
• 11th revert (in past 24 h): [322]
• 12th revert (in past 24 h): [323]
• 13th revert (in past 24h): [324]

Has received lots of warnings, including a "last warning": [325].

Link to attempt to resolve this on talk page: Talk:John_W._Bryant#Disputed_material. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Comments:

This is a content dispute with an inexperienced newbie, I see no benefit in an edit restriction. The content is disputed and controversial and weakly cited and as such needs to be left out while discussion is resolved, theres a thread at BLPN ans discussion on the article talkpage and the issue is actually imo the repeated reinsertion on the content under discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. He was been warned numerous times about not doing this, and 7 reversions in 24 hours and 13 in 48 hours is way over the line. We have been flexible enough: he is not productively engaging with other users and has become a definition of disruptive editing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is only because disputed content has been repeatably reinserted under dispute - I have also warned one of the users who was replacing the content as imo he had also violated 3rr. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Report it then. There is no "that's because" excuse for violating 3RR. Of course no one will edit war if they get their own way and others stop! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)This IP editor has admitted to a COI over at WP:BLPN. 71.193.219.233 has shown that she is not here to cooperate, but simply censor. Edit warring has been explained to her before. She knows what she is doing but has demonstrated that she does not care. We've given more than enough WP:ROPE. There is a point where not knowing the rules (which is not the case here, far from) does cease to be an excuse. I avoided reverting after a third time yesterday, and have only reverted twice today. The IP editor has made no attempt to show how the source is unacceptable according to WP:RS and has not provided any counter sources, despite calls for such discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 72 hours. My alternative was to block both the IP and Ian.Thomson. I've gone with protection, however. If anybody disagrees, please post here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems fine, but my only concern is that the IP address user will stop engaging in discussion because the protected page now represents his preferred version. What do we do if we don't hear from him anymore? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • That would be a classic case of WP:DISRUPT. If the IP hasn't discussed at all over the 3 days the article is protected, then we'll have to form consensus without her/him. I'll say if the IP returns to edit war at that point, by all means let me know or bring back here to WP:AN3 with a link to this discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Very helpful, thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Whether the objector returns or not the WP:RSN for reliability is a good location to get independent support or rejection for the content. Is this a reliable source for this content, the original assertion that the subject had committed incest claimed to this single source did not belong in the article at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
          • My question was not about the substantive issue, nor do I think it should be discussed here. It was a procedural question only and has been answered by Magog the Ogre. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Doctorfluffy reported by Jb 007clone (talk) (Result: Reporter blocked)

Page: Joseph Ducreux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Edit warrior.

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

1. 01:03, 15 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 412461370 by Doctorfluffy. using TW")
2. 19:49, 15 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 414087797 by Jb 007clone (talk)")
3. 05:57, 16 February 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 414114561 by Doctorfluffy; KYM isn't reliable. using TW")
4. 06:33, 17 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 414210537 by Jb 007clone (talk)")
5. 01:33, 19 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 414476602 by Jb 007clone (talk)")

—Jb 007clone (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment Support edits by, er, Doctorfluffy. Continued efforts by Jb 007clone, including edit warring, to advocate for inclusion of a meme that has not been reliably sourced. Jb continued editing on this page after receiving a warning for edit warring. JNW (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at the history on this page makes it very clear that JB 007clone is doing a strong plurality of the edit warring here. Will notify User:Doctorfluffy since that does not appear to have been done. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. The filer is the one doing the edit warring here. Filer blocked 24 hours. Courcelles 04:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Valvehueme reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: warned)

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

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

• 1st revert: [326]
• 2nd revert: [327]
• 3rd revert: [328]
• 4th revert: [329]
• 5th revert: [330]
• 6th revert: [331]
• 7th revert:[332]

User is also removing my talk page comments. [333]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [334] I have warned him about using facebook as a reference.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [335] The editor in question has not used the talk page.

Comments:Can we please get this person blocked? This constant BLP violation is quite annoying. He now appears to have a new account [336]

• Warned User was never warned about 3RR - template about NPOV violations are helpful for NPOV; vandalism warnings are nonsensical for things that aren't vandalism. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The only warning I gave him for vandalism was for removing my talk page comments, is that no vandalism? Tentontunic (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the talk page. But it definitely isn't a 3RR warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:68.239.242.7 reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: stale)

Page: Auburn Tigers football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.239.242.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [337]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Another user took this editor to ANI to stop the edits, I proceeded to take them to AN3 after they breached 3RR. diff

Comments:

• Two points, first, you just gave the 3RR notice, so let's see if they stop. Second, how on Earth are those edits vandalism justifying rolling them back without explanation, especially given that rollback is only to be used for bad-faith contributions? Courcelles 04:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I came in at the end of the problem (after it was taken to ANI), so I have no comment on whether it is vandalism or not, that was because other editors has, so I followed suit (yeah, I know, jumping off the bridge). I am just going on the violation of 3RR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Stale It is currently one in the afternoon in NJ and noon in Auburn, so they have had time to resume edit warring should that be their inclination. The poisoning has been inserted in a few other articles as well by various editors, but nothing that I saw needed admin intervention at this point. Recommend semi-protection and discussion at the talkpage if this flares up again. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:ChrisStefan reported by User:Thivierr (Result: warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharlto_Copley&oldid=414957718

1. 15:30, 20 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 414957718 by 41.121.72.36 (talk)")
2. 18:26, 20 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 414982138 by Thivierr (talk) - sources are adequate to proof parentage")
3. 05:14, 21 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 415015498 by Thivierr (talk) parentage not in doubt with these sources")
4. 05:59, 21 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 415080581 by Thivierr (talk) no possible doubt about parentage")

—Rob (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Warned Although the dude's been blocked already (expired ~5 days ago), he's new, and I didn't see any 3rr/edit warring warning, so I dropped one on his talk page just to make sure that all possible grounds are covered + make him fully aware of it. If he continues to edit war, feel free to update this report or submit a new one. --slakr^\ talk / 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Jasper Deng reported by Pseudonym (Result:No violation )

Page: Comparison of platform virtual machines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [338]

• 1st revert: [339]
• 2nd revert: [340]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [341]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Jasper Deng's talk page: [342] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [343] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute between third party editor User:Ruud Koot and User:Jasper Deng: [344]

Comments:

This ongoing edit war has caused me to invoke five sources to back up my claims, once on the article and four times throughout the discussions. All five of my sources link to official Microsoft material (Microsoft Technet Library articles).

Note: I prefer not to create an account, as I am not obligated to do so.

Pseudonym 00:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Late additions, User:Jasper Deng told me not to warn him [345] and removed my warning notice: [346].

Pseudonym 00:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I deny any allegations of edit warring. This was after a long discussion that I made a second revert.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Was there consensus when you made your revert? Pseudonym 00:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.86.157 (talk)

• No violation Two reverts in four days do not edit warring make. Courcelles 00:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles, I am not on wikipedia frequently enough, and have no desire to engage in rapid fire editing. I can make no claim either way for User:Jasper Deng. That said, I feel this matter should be reconsidered because User:Jasper Deng reverted the article during discussion, without consensus, stating, I quote: "I'm reverting back since this discussion isn't producing anything.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)" I apologize for my impropriety in the following remark, but I must have missed the coronation in which Jasper Deng became arbiter of whether discussions are fruitful and can be summarily dismissed. That said, if reconsideration at this point is not considered necessary, could you please advise me under what conditions I should post another notice and which noticeboard would be most appropriate? Thank you. Pseudonym —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.86.157 (talk)

User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Shii (Result:Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Major religious groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiwatcher1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [347]

• 1st revert: [348] reverting me
• 2nd revert: [349] reverting IanCheesman
• 3rd revert: [350] reverting me
• 4th revert: [351] reverting me

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Wikiwatcher1#3rr_thing

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Major_religious_groups#Encyclopedias_as_reliable_source

Comments: I am making this report to draw attention to this obnoxious edit war (everyone versus Wikiwatcher1) which has gone through WP:3O, RFC, and mediation without any resolution. Let's hope someone pays attention. Cheers

Shii (tock) 05:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Textbook 3RR violation, after being warned about edit warring on this very article last month. Courcelles 05:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:WikiManOne reported by User:Haymaker (Result:no action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [352]

• 1st revert: this edit at 13:32 was a revert of these two edits by an anon half an hour earlier
• 2nd revert: this edit at 16:36 was a revert of this edit by a different anon 5 minutes earlier
• 3rd revert: this edit at 13:00 was a revert of this edit of mine an hour and a half earlier
• 4th revert: this edit at 13:04 was a revert of this edit of mine an hour and a half earlier
• 5th revert: this edit at 13:10 was a revert of this edit by a anon 4 hours earlier

WM1 has been warned about edit-warring many, many times by many, many different editors, here are a few of the most recent; [353], [354]

Comments:
Chronic edit-warrior made 5 reverts inside a 24 hour period within 4 days of coming off a 48 hour block for edit-warring on the same page. - Haymaker (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The last three entries all appear to be part of a continuous edit and should be treated for 3RR purposes as a single edit. Given that, there's no violation.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

From WP:EW: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.   Will Beback  talk  02:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne has never been blocked for edit warring by uninvolved administrators, he's only been blocked by opposing admins in content disputes. Haymaker has been blocked for edit warring on four separate occasions. He has also brought multiple frivolous incidents like this one to various noticeboards about me while engaging in conduct disruptive to the encyclopedia. Sorry buddy, but I don't think you're going to be lucky enough to have an admin who shares your view "happen" to look at this noticeboard and issue an indefensible block like you got last time. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether the last block was defensible is hardly the point here, though frankly, the ANI topic reviewing this block doesn't seem to support the idea that it was a single admin making an indefensible block. In any case, here Will Beback is correct that it is not a 3RR vio, though given how bad edit warring's gotten, I'd expect that more might result in blocks even if parties don't exceed three reverts (and yes, I mean this to apply to Haymaker, too). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Heimstern's point that edit warring can earn blocks even without breaking the 3RR limit. If it's happening on "both sides" of a dispute then sometimes page protection is more suitable than matching blocks.   Will Beback  talk  05:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Heimstern, I didn't take the time to comment on the ANI discussion since it was already after the fact, but I did receive emails from three separate administrators that admitted that it was a block they would not have made, and the "assuming the block" was entirely ridiculous as it didn't do anything except add another item to my block log. I'm not going to argue about the previous block as it would be pointless. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• this edit at 17:09 was a revert of this edit 2 hours earlier. - Haymaker (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You just don't get the point do you? This is a stupid report because there is no 3RR violation, and even if there were it would be stale at this point. The one you just added happened consecutively with number 2 up above so you're still not hitting gold. Try harder next time, or maybe you should just start collaborating instead of making reports every day. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is stale. At the risk of being redundant, though, let me once again provide this injunction to you both: Don't edit war. It's just going to lead to blocks and protections in which the protecting admin will protect The Wrong Version. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
      • WikiMan, please stop the incivility. You're not helping yourself. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
        • NYyankees, perhaps you should stop with the unsubstantiated accusations of incivility? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

User:Slowart reported by User:Blackash (Result: Not sure what is appropriate)

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

Previous version reverted to: [355]

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff (Slowart removed cited content about himself)
• 6th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I talked in this section.

Comments:
To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI as an artist in this field, I have already tried to address this issue by both talking on the discussion page, offering a compromise and filing for mediation.

Slowart has a COI as the creator of the word Arborsculpture and a potential COI as an artist in this field. He's stated he was also Reames who had self outed himself as Richard Reames the creator of the word Arborsculpture. Arborsculpture is one of alternative names.

I was hoping Slowart would stop and talk. It was these edits diff and the summaries that convinced me that he is too angry to talk, and that this was going down the road to an edit war. My other concern: he is now removing cited text and image. Blackash have a chat 14:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Both Slowart and I are long time editors. Slowart is aware of the 3RR. I'm reluctant to call a truce, as my experience with doing so on the Tree shaping article has been, the other editor changes the page to whatever and then won't talk about the changes. Blackash have a chat 14:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to decide who could be sanctioned for edit warring here would be 1) a challenge, as the situation is rather a mess and slowly-developing and 2) do nothing but kick the can down the road a day or two. So, page protected for 72 hours, which should encourage everyone to find the talk page, something Slowart has not done since October of last year. Courcelles 15:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think encouraging people to discuss this good idea. After I had filed this I realised I should have also taken Slowart to COI noticeboard for his behavior. Which I've now done here. Blackash have a chat 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)