Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:00, 19 February 2011 view sourceNmate (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,033 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:17, 19 February 2011 view source Chesdovi (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,098 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:
	'''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. --] (]) 14:21, 17 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. --] (]) 14:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Semi~~) ==		== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Iyengar}} <br />
			'''Users being reported:'''
			:{{userlinks\|Ramanujamuni}} and
			:{{userlinks\|Hari7478}}

			<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			Previous version reverted to:

			<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			* 1st revert:
			* 2nd revert:
			* 3rd revert:
			* 4th revert:

			<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

			<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ] and ]


			<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]

			<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			This is a somewhat unusual situation, as I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject at hand, i.e. ], 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 ] 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 that did nothing more than delete a source. My second edit reverted a inserted into the article proper. The latter edit was made after a message left on my talk page by ]: ]. Shortly thereafter, ] 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 ], then mainly between ] and ] (which seems to be a one trick pony, as it has only been used to edit the Iyengar article) and to a certain extent ]. It seems ], 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 ] by removing each others' sources.
			For the record, I have obviously never claimed to have any administrative privileges on Misplaced Pages, 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. ] (]) 10:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

			</br>
			'''Hello. This is me ] to justify my point.'''</br>
			My user:id has also been mentioned in this report by ]. I would like to justify my doing, by providing valid points.</br>
			1. .This was the original version of the ] article before ] and ] started making changes. The two users "] and ]" 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 This was the first vandalising change made by ] - Diff </br>
			2. Since then i had to revert their edits repeatedly. But all i did was only reverting vandalising edits. Here are my edits , , , , . 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".</br>
			3. These are the vandalising edits of ] - , , , , . In all these edits ] had repeatedly deleted "reference source materials" and tried to establish his own statements and POVs, without providing valid references.</br>
			4. ] had also been falsely accusing the integrity of the reference materials. ] 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.</br>
			5. I had adequately discussed justifying my point in ] talk page. But the user paid no heed to it. ] rejects the authority of "reference sources" i had provided, and had been giving his own POVs repeatedly in the ] page, by "removing references". I had also provided additional references for cross-checking.</br>
			6. ] had also ,modified and tampered with my warning message on his talk page. See here .</br>
			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. ] (]) 12:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
			*'''Result:''' Article fully protected two weeks. Please follow the steps of ] 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 ] and see if anyone can give advice about the article issues. ] (]) 15:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: normal discussion and editing have resumed) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2011 Iranian protests}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Muboshgu}}

			<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			Previous version reverted to:

			<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			* 1st revert:
			* 2nd revert:
			* 3rd revert:
			* 4th revert:

			<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

			<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			<u>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.
			</u> <br />

			<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			{{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 ] resumes. - ] <small>(])</small> 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)}}

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72h) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Tanglewood National Golf Club}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Jflaiz}}

			<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			Previous version reverted to:

			<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			* 1st revert:
			* 2nd revert:
			* 3rd revert:
			* 4th revert:
			* At this point the user was ], but as soon as the block was removed
			* 5th revert:
			* 6th revert, as IP:
			* 7th revert:
			* 8th revert:
			* 9th revert, as IP:

			<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

			<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			:* Second warning after returning from block

			<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			As shown above, a repeat offense. ] (]) 22:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
			<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			:{{an3\|b\|72 hours}} ~] <small>(])</small> 01:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72h) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Blake1960}}

			<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			Previous version reverted to:

			<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			* 1st revert:
			* 2nd revert:
			* 3rd revert:
			* 4th revert:
			* 5th revert:

			<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

			<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			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):

			<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			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.

			<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			: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...

			:]

			:Thank you.

			:] (]) 01:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

			::{{an3\|b\|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. ~] <small>(])</small> 02:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Winged football helmet}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Winged football helmet}} <br />
	'''User being reported:'''		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Imacericg}}
	:{{userlinks\|~~Imacericg~~}} ~~<br/>~~		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|74.235.160.155}}
	:{{userlinks\|74.~~235~~.~~160~~.~~155~~}} ~~<br/>~~		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|174.96.172.62}}
	:{{userlinks\|174.96.172.62}}

	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.		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.
Line 67:		Line 231:
	] (]) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)		] (]) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

	*'''Result:''' Semiprotected ], due to the ]. If Imagericg and the lookalike IPs continue to promote the addition of a link to spartanjerseys.com, I suggest filing a report at ]. ] (]) 15:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
	* Thanks Ed. ] (]) 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

			<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	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:
	# Constantine S. Demos and Steven S. Demos, M.D., The Tradition Continues: Spartan Football (Muskegon: Michigan State University Football Players Association, 2008) 515.
	# Michigan State Football: They Are Spartans (Arcadia Publishing (January 11, 2004)
	# 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
	# http://www.uniwatchblog.com/2010/12/29/winging-it-helmet-history-reconsidered/
	# http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/110113_bulwark_football_helmets
	# 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.
	] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
	* '''Imacericg is the/an author of spartanjerseys.com'''. I just found a post to this 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. ] (]) 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?
	] (]) 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 , 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:
	<blockquote> ... 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.</blockquote>
	] (]) 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.] (]) 01:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Resolved) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Resolved) ==
Line 220:		Line 356:
	'''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 ] 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 ]. ] (]) 22:19, 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 ] 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 ]. ] (]) 22:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (~~Result~~: ~~Resolved~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Currently: Mediating) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of Presidents of Egypt}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of Presidents of Egypt}} <br />
Line 244:		Line 380:
	:::Maybe the best thing here would be page protection? Indefinitely, if possible. --] (]) 16:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)		:::Maybe the best thing here would be page protection? Indefinitely, if possible. --] (]) 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 ] issues? ] <sub>]</sub> 17:21, 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 ] issues? ] <sub>]</sub> 17:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

	:::::Things have calmed down and discussion is the name of the game again. ] 21:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
	{{~~collapse~~ top}}		{{archive top}}
	::I think someone also should look this - Jack admits here that he's a sockpuppet master - . --] (]) 12:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)		::I think someone also should look this - Jack admits here that he's a sockpuppet master - . --] (]) 12:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
	::: It's pretty widely known. ] 12:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)		::: It's pretty widely known. ] 12:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 269:		Line 405:
	*:: why you? you're the one who reverts everyone on that article. and, no, I didn't and won't be. ] 14:22, 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. ] 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. --] (]) 14:29, 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. --] (]) 14:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
	{{~~collapse~~ bottom}}		{{archive bottom}}
	<small>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. ] (]) 14:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)</small>		<small>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. ] (]) 14:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)</small>

Line 319:		Line 455:
	(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. ] (]) 05:13, 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. ] (]) 05:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Not blocked for now~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	'''Page:''' http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard <br />		'''Page:''' http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard <br />
Line 359:		Line 495:

	@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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|not}} 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. --] (]) 22:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~No violation~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|International law and Israeli settlements}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|International law and Israeli settlements}} <br />
Line 373:		Line 508:

	The user also seemingly dimissed the claim after being notified and asked to self-revert. See .<br />		The user also seemingly dimissed the claim after being notified and asked to self-revert. See .<br />
	:The user did not "seemingly dismiss" anything. He responded that he (correctly) believed that this was one revert. Remember AGF.--] (]) 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 .		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 .
	<br /><br />-] (]) 15:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)		<br /><br />-] (]) 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.--~~] (]) 15:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)		:There is not a O revert rule. 1 revert is allowed. ] (]) 20:17, 19 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 revision. It was than reverted and the information added again . The second diff shows that Chesdovi again removed it. -] (]) 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.--] (]) 16:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
	::::Asad,I think you meant this . 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. ] (]) 18:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

	{{an3\|nv}} ~] <small>(])</small> 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: page semi-protected) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Christian terrorism}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|193.35.132.25}}

	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|protected}} I was considering a range-block, but there's some useful content coming from that range.] (]) 18:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

	{{User\|Atomaton}} has four times reverted a second bukkake drawing into the ] article:

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

	The background:
	*Discussion on removing one of the two bukkake drawings (see ) began on 16 February at 07:15, at ], 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
	*#{{User\|Kaldari}}
	*#{{User\|Enric Naval}}
	*#{{User\|Genevieve2}}
	*#{{User\|Carolmooredc}}
	*#{{User\|Crossmr}}
	*#{{User\|Oda Mari}}
	*#{{User\|Herostratus}}
	*#{{User\|Jayen466}}
	*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 ({{User\|Cptnono}}) has said they would prefer both pictures to remain.
	*Atomaton has commented 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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 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.
	:My first edit 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 editto restore the article back to consensus, was after editor CarolmooreDC '''mistook an image in the article for the image in another article, the ] 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 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, Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

	::The article has not been in this state "for years", but since . 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"
	::*Enric Naval: "Both images show the same thing in almost the same way, so we would only need one of them."
	::*Genevieve2: "the Illustration depicting the act of bukkake seems to me inappropriate for a site serious as Misplaced Pages ... This image must be removed, thanks, merci"
	::*Carolmooredc: "One is enough."
	::*Crossmr: "I agree with the removal of the second image due to article length and a bit of redundancy."
	::*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."
	::*Herostratus: "I would support this per WP:HARDCORE." (expressing preference for not using either of the explicit drawings).
	::*Jayen466: "I propose removing one of the drawings. The two drawings are very similar, and the second one is redundant." --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

	{{an3\|nv}}. Also ]. 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. ~] <small>(])</small> 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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? ~] <small>(])</small> 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
	::::No... ]. 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. ~] <small>(])</small> 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 , at 17.07, 18 February. The first (and so far only) editor to comment at the RfC, ], 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 . One of them is ], 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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 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. ] (]) 03:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Arab-Israeli conflict engagements}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|AndresHerutJaim}}

	Previous version reverted to:

	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:

	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	This template, like all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 22:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: protected, warned) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Dilma Rousseff}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Pensionero}}

	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* initial change
	* 1st revert
	* 2. revert
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]

	<u>Comments:</u> 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.] 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC) <br />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

	* Article protected for one week so ] can work itself out. New editor warned that ''discussion by edit summary'' is insufficient, pointed to the key provisions of ], including that making superficial changes is not a loophole in ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 17:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|A Serbian Film}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ObodepmYWalls}}

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|A Serbian Film}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Geoff B}}

	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->

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

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	<u>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 </u> <br />
	] (]) 18:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

	== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1942 raid in southern Bačka}} <br />
	'''User being reported:'''
	:{{userlinks\|Yopie}} <br/>
	:{{userlinks\|86.101.110.57}}


	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert: 21:07, 14 February 2011 (edit summary:"Chauvinistic rant. Reference does not exist") <br/> edit made by IP editor
	* 2nd revert: 21:09, 14 February 2011 (edit summary:"Reference does not exist")<br/> edit made by IP editor
	* 3rd revert: 22:09, 14 February 2011 (edit summary:"Reverted 2 edits by 86.101.110.57 (talk); Rv too hurry . (TW))")<br/> edit made by Yopie
	* 4th revert: 07:25, 19 February 2011 (edit summary:"Undid revision 413954370 by Yopie (talk)")<br/>edit made by IP editor
	* 5th revert: 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)")<br/>edit made by Yopie
	* 6th revert: 14:17, 19 February 2011 (edit summary:"Undid revision 414754587 by Yopie inciting hatered through biased information (talk))"<br/>edit made by Ip editor

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: <br />
	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.

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	There is a long term edit war between the two users on the article ] ,and technically, none of them violated a ] 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 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.
	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"'' And now Yopie has also warned the same IP editor for vandalism without wanting to discuss content changes at the same article.
	--] (]) 20:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)




	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

Revision as of 20:17, 19 February 2011

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Kurdo777 reported by User:Flatterworld

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 , and when I warned him about it, he removed the warnings from his talk page. He has also been in violation of WP:Talk, and keeps making comments about me on the article talk page, instead of focusing on the content. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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:

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

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 Misplaced Pages, 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. .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 This was the first vandalising change made by user:Padmavasantha - Diff
2. Since then i had to revert their edits repeatedly. But all i did was only reverting vandalising edits. Here are my edits , , , , . 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 - , , , , . 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 .
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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: 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)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
At this point the user was reported and blocked, but as soon as the block was removed
5th revert:
6th revert, as IP:
7th revert:
8th revert:
9th revert, as IP:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Second warning after returning from block

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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):

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

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

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

See our discussion at...

Talk:Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent#Controversy_about_EPA_form_of_MPGe_-_A_Cover-Up_in_Progress

Thank you.

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

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

User:Imacericg reported by guanxi (Result: )

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) User being reported: 74.235.160.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 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:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - 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 (, , ), 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:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: 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)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: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)

Atlantic slave trade Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:

History of slavery Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:

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 /_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)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Compare to edits by 204.140.189.253 (talk · contribs): , , and which took place after VeryGentle1969's edits of , and .

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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 Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Verygentle1969. Elockid 03:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: oldid

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 - . Cheers, --Sundostund (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think someone also should look this - Jack admits here that he's a sockpuppet master - . --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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion. This isn't relevant to this 3RR report unless he breaks one of the conditions listed there and still in force. (And probably not directly relevant here, even then.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please focus on the 3RR report. Jack Merridew 14:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Why me? You started this nonsense, you should focus on this yourself. By the way, you also breached 3RR, so if I ended up blocked you will be blocked also. --Sundostund (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
why you? you're the one who reverts everyone on that article. and, no, I didn't and won't be. Jack Merridew 14:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
No, you're the one who started with edit war over some stupid graphic things on that page. Again, if I'm blocked, you'll also be. --Sundostund (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert: 03:57, 17 February 2011

2nd revert: 04:22, 17 February 2011

3rd revert: 05:55, 17 February 2011

4th revert: 19:33, 17 February 2011

5th revert: 19:50, 17 February 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user notified

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 FOX News Yahoo News Boston Herald Daily Mail 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[REDACTED] article. Besides, if the words "is not Jewish" could be BLP, they could have been removed from the article, while the piece of antisemitic mob of 200 men attacking a single, powerless woman should have stayed in the article, and User:Off2riorob should have been blocked for edit warring, and removing sourced info.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Notice the edit summery here

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. Misplaced Pages: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:Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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.Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Suggested_solution_and_changes (copy for archive) IQinn (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The two reverts:

1st revert:
2nd revert:

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

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)

There is not a O revert rule. 1 revert is allowed. Chesdovi (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories: