Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Kordestani reported by User:Tradedia (Result: Blocked)

Pages: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• Breaking 1RR on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 Revert 2 13:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Breaking 1RR on Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 23:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 Revert 2 12:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#SDF Military Bases

Comments:
The articles on which the edit warring occurred are subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place 2 days before he engaged in 1RR violations. This user has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Before being notified of the sanctions, he had engaged in edit warring. However, his being notified of the sanctions, did not change his attitude. Also, you can see that in the last 4 days, he has received messages from 2 other users complaining about his attitude ([1][2]). In addition, there is a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his bad edits over the last few days. Tradedia^talk 04:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – One week for edit warring on Module:Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map on 23 February. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: All parties warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:
There was a dispute over some sections of the article which led to edit war between FreeatlastChitchat. Thanks to Toddy1 and HyperGaruda, we were trying to build a consensus. Suddenly, FreeatlastChitchat jumped in and started reverting without paying attention to the ongoing discussion on the article talk page (which he himself had started but had not led to consensus yet). Anyway, after his jump I reverted his edit and asked him not to be disruptive and pay attention to the current discussion. To my surprise he reverted me once again and claimed that there was a consensus over what he alleges (which was clearly not true!). Note: The reported user has been blocked five times till now (three times for edit warring). Moreover, he were unblocked by slakr provided that he attempts to self adhere to WP:1RR (his contributions shows that he has shown zero effort to respect WP:1RR). Mhhossein (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Rationale aka defence

Explanation for EdJohnston who was kind enough to ask about this on my TP. So here goes. The simple fact is that three editors agree with me that the text I removed falls under WP:COATRACK, one of them is the longtime editor and admin Drmies, the other two are also editors in good standing. However IF the nom can PROVE to anyone that the text is not WP:COATRACK I will accept any sanction given. On the other hand if the nom cannot give even a single argument for his editing, then the question should be "why did he revert me?" and he should be blocked for 24 hours as per his disruption. This is wikipedia, not a playground. A revert should be made only when you can argue for something. If you do not have rationale you should not revert simply based on the fact that someone has agreed to 1PR; for in this case you are just harassing that editor. As far as the ongoing discussion on TP is concerned, it is about other things, not about coatrack. The issue about coatrack has already been decided. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

First, there's no consensus on removing all the sections regarding the events (as you did). Second, I simply reverted you as there were an ongoing discussion on the TP, ignoring which you did what you wanted. Two of us were mentioning that the article needs some information on "on the holiday as it is celebrated nowadays", and "how are their actions related to the historical events from 1979". Anyway, it's not a matter of WP:COATRACK or other things, you're edit war is discussed here. Third, At EdJohnston's request I can provide some other violation of WP:1RR by the reported user. Mhhossein (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein Firstly I hang my head in shame when I see that your sole reason for reverting me is "I simply reverted you as there were an ongoing discussion on the TP". Discussions are ongoing on TP All the Time, you should first see if the discussion is about a certain topic or not. The discussion about coatrack had been concluded, hence my removal. Secondly please stop this foolish forum style posting. You made a report. I made my defence. Let admins decide. If you want to make additional comments, fine with me, make then in the comments section. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No, there were no conclusion over that! before you started your second round of reverts, you asked me and HyperGaruda if we were agreeing that they were coatrack, and I told you what my concern were (HyperGaruda did not make any comments). BTW, I see that multiple warnings and blocks has not made you refrain from calling other's edits "foolish". FYI, this is how we usually discuss in Wikipedia and it has nothing to do with "forum". Mhhossein (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein as per your own words your "concern is on the fact that the article lacks information on "how the holiday is revered in Iran" nowadays." How can you address WP:COATRACK concerns with a comment saying that the article "lacks information"? Seriously dude? Did you even read the coatrack essay? Just for once, read the guideline and policy. To be frank this is just a mockery of editing! Someone says there are coatrack concerns in their edit summary and a guy reverts them by saying "Yeah dude the essay lacks information" and then lodges an edit warring complaint. Really? I mean Seriously? I think WP:BOOMERANG of a 24 hour block and a reprimand should be served now, seeing that he himself gave the diff which brought to light his "grave concerns" which he had about the article, and perhaps the next time we won't have to go through this waste of time. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a clear "No" in my comment. Are you trying to see it? Mhhossein (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein for that "NO" you should be blocked for 24 hours and given a stern warning. Saying "NO" is not enough, you must give a reason. As I said before this is not a playground. Why are you digging yourself deeper into this hole btw? Furthermore I will not be replying here anymore. Perhaps User:Drmies will be kind enough to take a look at this thread and close it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I had clearly explained why I was not in agreement. You're again uncivil enough to call my attempt to gather more views "ridiculous" (however it's more polite than using the "F" word (and it's derivatives such as "what the f**k and Shut the F**k up), "[you have] mental disease"[10], "you are a liar" and etc). Stop block block block please. Mhhossein (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

He also reversed me 4 times over the last few hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.201 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC) And before you claim anything, correcting an obvious mistake is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.201 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked the case. Both of you had clearly violated WP:3RR, as I explained below. Mhhossein (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: All parties are warned against further edits that don't have consensus support on the talk page. There is now an open RfC on the talk page; please use that to resolve the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston I would not open this topic (and a RFC), if I were to make further edits. Did you just notice that I was talking about an edit warring trend? The user is clearly accused on another case. Anyway ... . Mhhossein (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein TP discussion shows that 5 editors disagree with you with no one agreeing to you coatrack, your RFC shows that no one agrees with you. Show some good grace and let it be. Bottom line. The text you want to insert remains deleted unless you can address WP:COATRACK concerns. What you call a "trend" on my part is something normal wikipedians do all day long. i.e remove policy violations. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

See the the other topic reporting you. You are already guilty of violating 3RR. Mhhossein (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:79.44.13.105 (Result: Protected)

Page: Template:Sunni Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Collapsing a long report to save space. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Previous version reverted to: [11] Diffs of the user's reverts: 10:58, 20 February 11:56, 20 February 12:46, 20 February 14:33, 20 February Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Uninvolved myself FreeatlastChitchat must know 3RR - there is an ongoing discussion above about FreeatlastChitchat violating 3RR on an other article. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Uninvolved myself None of the users involved discuss, all just edit war one with the other Comments: I am not involved but saw this. Everybody has done wrong. Two IPs have changed the template arguing "sufi isn't a school of divinity". Uncorrect behavior but not vandalism. FreeatlastChitchat reverts 4X in 4 hours. Having the right version is not an excuse for 3RR violations. As I'm not involved and all have erred, I restored the version FreeatlastChitchat prefers, but must also report FreeatlastChitchat - an established user should know better. Particularly when the user is already involved in ongoing report for 3RR violations on different article. 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Reverting an IP hopper whose edits are pure troll behavior with religious bias is allowed. I had requested page protection but there seems to be shortage of admins on RFPP I presume. This is not a matter of "whose version is better" this is simply a vandal abusing multiple IP's. He has been trying it at another page as well, but that too is being reverted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC) No. You have the right version but the others are not vandals. They explain why they change, they argue "sufi isn't a school of divinity". That is not right, but is not vandalism. You do not have the right to revert them 4X even if you have the right version. Template is now protected. If the other changes IP, they are also guilty of 4RR but still not vandalism. 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC) btw this report smells to be frank. MR anon IP guy just how exactly did you find this "template"? Templates are not normally read by "readers" , and without a watchlist it is impossible to check them for changes. So just how DID you find out that this edit war was going on? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I checked history. So what? It would not matter if I said 'divine inspiration', both you and the others edit war no matter what I saw. And do remark that I support your version and I restored your version. Why talk about me? What does it matter for your edit war? 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Oh but how did you "chance" upon this template page? Templates are not for our readers, they are usually not even known to most readers. How did you come to visit this page which is tucked away. Just asking FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC) My interestes are Zoroastrianism and Islam. What does it matter? You edit war 4X and you make it sound that I am the one who did wrong. Did you edit war? Yes, four times. Can anyone do a report when they see edit war? Yes, I think so. If you edit war 4X, why discuss me? Is the issue my interests in Wikipedia or is the issue your edit war? 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Everytime you post a report. Your own actions are scrutinized. It is quite amazing that a person who has not edited a template till now is able to first of all "find" that template and then edit it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Good. Now you have scrutinized my actions. I have explained them. Now I scrutinize your actions. Why do you edit war? An user did a report on you few days ago. Now you edit war again. Perhaps you did edit war also earlier. If you know the rules, why you break them so many times? 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC) removing vandalism of IP hoppers is not "edit warring". You will have to explain how you "just by accident" chanced upon a "template" . "Just" when this was going on. A hell of a coincidence , don't you think. If you say you wanted to edit the template, then "where is your edit"? You did not put in any text or take away any text. So what where you doing at the template page? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Here is my edit [12]. My first edit. You see I answer when you ask, you never answer. Why you edit war so much? You say "vandalism" but that is not vandalism. The IP did wrong, but did not do vandalism. The IP thinks "sufi isn't a school of divinity". That is wrong, but thinking that is not vandalism. You behave in way like you are the judge here when you are person who did edit war. 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC) You press the E button to edit the template. Sufi is not a school of divinity. Why does this keep getting added when there is no proof that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.201 (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC) that is a revert not an edit. Where is the "edit" you came to this article to do. You see only editors with accounts have watchlists, so if you are claiming that you do not have any account and did not see the "changes" made to the template. Just what were you going to do "had we not ben warring as you say". The non suspicious pattern is that if an IP editor goes to an article they may red it or edit it. Templates are not usually "read". So what were you doing at that template MR IP guy who seems to be quite well versed in wikipedia policies for first time user. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Where is the discussion on the template's talk page per WP:BRD. I see that there's been a protected edit request by IP 213.205.198.201 stating that "Sufi is not a school of divinity." (rightly rejected by an editor other that FreeatlastChitchat as the WP:BURDEN is on those making the declaration to bring WP:RS demonstrating this to be the case), and a comment by IP 84.13.168.43 also stating the same. This does not make the reversions by FreeatlastChitchat 'edit warring', but standard procedure in the case of vandalism, POV removals of content, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Have you even read WP:BURDEN? It says that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with be editor who adds or restores material. It is not my duty to prove that something is false it is your duty to prove that something is true. I am trying to fix an obvious error and somebody keeps reversing. Sufi is not a school of theology. Prove that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.204 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)@213.205.251.204: It is not the duty of Wikipedia to prove that something that you perceive to be untrue, is indeed so. Erasing content that is rightly sourced is POV vandalism, and will not be tolerated. Also, I've read through the talk page for Template:Sunni Islam, and no where do you specify what is incorrect, and how it is incorrect compared to Sufism, or the many references that counter your point. This would also mean the burden to prove that it is untrue would be on you. Otherwise your edits are WP:POV, and also WP:OR seeing as you have brought zero references to back your claims. Boomer VialHolla 03:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC) It should also be noted that WP:BURDEN is relevant in the context of its inclusion being the long standing version of the template, meaning that it is the WP:CONSENSUS template by default. If you wish to change a consensus template/article/list, the onus falls on the editor/s wishing to remove the consensus content to demonstrate that the redaction is not a POV and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Iryna Harpy: You said that FreeatlastChitchat's reverts were not edit warring rather it was a stansard way of dealing with vandalisms and removing POV. Your argument is basically wrong per WP:3RRNO. Although 3RR rule has some definite exemptions, non of them justify FreeatlastChitchat's edit warring! Was he fighting an obvious vandalism (page blanking and adding offensive language) ? Not actually! was it removal of clear copyright violations and such things? was it violating WP:BLP? No! He should not have engaged that war and he should have avoided violating WP:3RR. The reported user were blocked 3 times for edit warring so he clearly knows what "edit warring" is! I'm not endorsing the IP's persistent edit warring. In fact both of them did the wrong thing! Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @Mhhossein: Please read Template vandalism. Did you also not note that IP 84.13.168.43 (see here) and IP 213.205.251.204 (see here) are one and the same person? In other words, that user was attempting to change a widely used template (and the template has been placed under pp now). The policy you are invoking is not as absolute as you seem to be reading it as being, and the issue of where editors are overstepping the bright line and where they are not has been discussed over and over at the Village pump and the AN. Please don't invoke policies as if they were cut and dried with no room for leverage. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC) The whole flipping point is that it isn't "rightly sourced". In fact it has never been sourced. There is absolutely no proof that Sufi is a school of theology. No proof has ever been given. Where are the references? There isn't one. So stop claiming that there are "many references". This is not vandalism but fixing a clear error given that there are zero proofs to back up your claim. As for your claim to consensus, then this has never been discussed in the first place. It was added a few months ago by a banned user so should have been reversed anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.204 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC) If anything, I am the one reversing to the consensus version!!! You are the one reversing back to a version by a banned user!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.204 (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @Iryna Harpy: The location is identical. But one of the IPs is dynamic while the other one is static. One is provided by "Talk Talk" while the other is provided by "Orange mobile". Even if we assume they're the same, so what? It's not the case here because a bright line (3RR) is violated. Sorry, but your argument is again not sensible to me. How (why?) should we ignore the violation of WP:3RR by both of them? The policy is clear and I think those exemptions certainly provide enough "room for leverage." The case is even more clear if the disputed content had was added by a banned user as "213.205.251.204" claims. Mhhossein (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Well, Mhhossein, I went through the history to see when it was introduced earlier on in the piece (which is why I previously noted that this seemed to be a long standing consensus version). None of the editors with accounts or IP editors were banned, and it was not eliminated by other editors active on that template since being introduced in June 2015. Perhaps IP 213.205.251.204 can edify us as to who this 'banned' editor is... and include the relevant diff? I know that you have another dispute going here, having reported FreeatlastChitchat above, but the editor is a newbie and is entitled to a little leniency when slip-ups occur in good faith. Personally, I see a reprimand and warning to be adequate, but I am not going to look into or involve myself in your report against the user. I do think it best that an admin step in and evaluate the situation. I hope that you understand that I've involved myself in good faith and bear no animosity towards you. I sincerely hope you get this sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @Drmies:@Slakr: I have to agree that both parties User:FreeatlastChitchat, and User:213.205.251.204 are in violation here. However, User:Mhhossein, FALCC was reverting because the IP editor was removing information under the basis of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also, FALCC might of been blocked previously for edit warring, but that does not allow you the HYPOCRISY to remind ATONED editors of past misdeeds. I'm pinging a few administrators (mainly those who have previously dealt with FALCC) so this problem can be resolved. Boomer VialHolla 06:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC) No it wasn't introduced in June 2015. That's just not true. The editor who introduced it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheDestroyer10 and he added it on the 17th dec 2015 at 19.28pm. Before then it did not exist. It was never discussed. No proof was ever given for this claim. Even now no proof has been given. I was right to remove this unsourced, unreferenced false information that was never discussed and was added by a banned user. You are wrong to accuse me of vandalism. I was reverting to a consensus version. You guys are reverting to a version by a banned user. Says it all really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.204 (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Can you please proide an actual diff to when the content was added to the article? Boomer VialHolla 06:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @Boomer Vial this edit was the one which introduced the text. The editor in question did a huge amount of work on the template and all watchers were happy with his work. He is not a banned user, rather he has done quite a good job of cleaning up and organizing the template. Furthermore, we never source anything in the template itself. The sources aka rationale for inclusion is found in the article itself. So anyone who wants this out is welcome to argue at the Sufism page, where he may encounter some laughter, but then, that's what happens when you argue against such obvious things. I'd like to point out that trash talking about another editors hard work is a mightily low blow, especially when the editor in question has done such a good job on the template. To be frank, not every single thing on wikipedia needs a TP discussion, the editor who inserted this was being watched by quite a lot of uninvolved guys, and our lack or reverting should be considered our consensus. I am kinda surprised that someone who is jumping IP's in order to insert a highly POV edit is not being considered a vandal. It is basic IP abuse to be frank, and POV edits on templates from such users are blatant vandalism, hence fall out of 3PR. Had the said user opened up any TP discussion giving any rationale, I would have engaged them on TP. But seeing that that they are jumping IP's to vandalise, I reverted them as a vandal, which thier edits show them to be. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @FreeatlastChitchat: I wasn't 'talking trash' about you at all. I'm sorry if my edits were perceived that way. Also, the edit the IP editor is quoting is one of these[13][14]edits from December 2015. This would be incorrect, seeing as you just provided an earlier diff from April 2015 where Safi is included in the article. Again, I just want to convey that I'm absolutely assuming good faith here, and I want to apologize for saying you were in the wrong. I was going to quote the fact that you are under WP:1RR, but I decided against it, seeing as this is a case of IGNORE. I've also strikeout my above statement. I do stand by my statement towards User:Mhhossein about reminding ATONED editors about past misdeeds. Boomer VialHolla 07:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Well that's just a bare faced lie. It was NOT introduced in the April edit you provided. In fact that edit actually agrees with my one. How ironic!!! The actual edit that added Sufi was [15]. It was added by a banned user a few months ago and was never discussed. So it is not vandalism to remove unsourced, unreferenced content added by a banned user that was never discussed. It is vandalism however to keep adding this unsourced content 4 times in a few hours as you did. You really ought to be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC) See this edit no Sufi in the template, See the second edit big fat Sufi in the template. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC) What are you on about? Both edits give the same list for Schools of Theology. They are: Athari, ilm al-Kalam, Ashari and Maturidi. There is no mention of Sufi as a school of divinity/theology in either edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @213.205.251.63: Please go to this[16], press control + f, and type in sufi. You'll see it right on the page. If you can't see it, I don't know what to tell you. Boomer VialHolla 07:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC) There is no mention of Sufi in either edit. It does not exist. Do a search for Sunni schools of divinity. You will only see Athari, Ilm al-Kalam, Ashari and Maturidi. Look at the source for both edits and you will not see Sufi at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC) My apologies, all, for typing in June when I meant April of 2015. IP 213.205.251.63, I don't know what you're looking at, but it seems strange that at least 3 other editors can see it as such: "Sunni schools of theology" - Ash'ari, Maturidi, Sufi, Ahl al-Hadith or Athari". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Thank you Iryna Harpy for your civil response. I see your good faith here, just like what Boomer Vial is doing here. But I think we're missing the point, the reason I recalled FreeatlastChitchat's block log was to say that he had been well aware of what he was doing and I can't accept that he's a newbie. Anyway, even if we suppose that the IP was a vandal (which is not a case here till now!) the policy (WP:3RR) emphasizes on "obvious vandalism", i.e. edits such as page blanking and adding offensive language. Did the IP blanked the page or did he used an offensive language really? Btw, I have a question for Boomer Vial: Are you endorsing FreeatlastChitchat's multiple reverts? @Iryna Harpy: even if we suppose that the "sufi" term is right...nothing changes, we're discussing a repetitive disruptive behavior? Mhhossein (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @Mhhossein: Please see WP:3RRNO (point #4). The IP editor was removing content on a purely POV basis. Boomer VialHolla 09:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC) You are looking in the wrong place. The source for the April edit does not include Sufi as a school of theology/divinity. This was added on the 17th Dec as per my previous note. In mobile view you can see this clearer. This is the April edit [17]. There is no mention of Sufi. This is the Dec edit [18]. You can see that Sufi is added. In desktop mode the template itself always displays Sufi for all historic edits even for edits where I explicitly removed Sufi. E.g [19]. If you check the source, you will see that Sufi isn't there despite it being visible in the main panel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC) I was not removing content on a POV basis. I was removing it because it wasn't sourced and no evidence has been provided. We also know that it was added by a banned user so it should have been reversed straight away. You claimed that there were "many references" that Sufi is a school of divinity/theology. Not one source has been given. Go ahead and provide the evidence if you are so sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Ok, first of all, any diff that I click on from before this one[20], has no mention of sufi anywhere. Not only that, but any diff from before content is added will not have content that was added at a later diff from the one you are viewing. So I'm sure where you're getting "n desktop mode the template itself always displays Sufi for all historic edits even for edits where I explicitly removed Sufi" from, especially since three other editor are saying that they see "Sufi" in this[21] diff. Also, it is not on me to prove the consensus founded version, seeing as you keep arguing the content was added by a "blocked editor", yet you have yet to provide one diff that proves so. Boomer VialHolla 10:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Look, do you see Sufi in this edit where I explicitely removed it [22]. Yes or no. That is my point, Sufi is listed even for historic edits where it was definitely removed. If you check mobile view or the source you will see that Sufi is not there. I'll list the diff once again for Sufi being added by a blocked user as you ignored it the last time. Here it is [23] it was added on the 17th Dec. The burden of proof is on you to show why an unsourced, unreferenced edit by a banned user should be added. To date you have provided zero sources for your claim that Sufi is a school of divinity despite making the claim earlier that there were "many references". This link here explains why historic versions of the template are not displayed when you look at the edit history. This would explain why Sufi is displayed in the history even when it was not in the source. If you check the source of the historic version of the article you will see for sure that Sufi was added by the banned user on Dec 17th. It did not exist before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Once again, if was added on December 17th by a supposedly blocked editor, why has been confirmed by 3 different editors to be on this[24] revision dated from April 15, as well as any diff I pull up from after April 15 (excluding diff where the content in question was removed)? Such as this diff from June 21, 2015[25], or this diff from May 19, 2015[26], or this diff from August 10[27]. Here[28] is the diff immediately proceeding the diff you keep quoting where the edit was supposedly added by blocked editor User:TheDestroyer10, with 'sufi' included in the template. I'm pinging back a few unrelated editors (@Cmr08: @Severo:) to confirm 'sufi' is on all the diffs I just provided. Also, can you please follow the spacing sequence when adding responses. Those are the colons (:) before every comment. Boomer VialHolla 12:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC) All the diffs you provided are historic versions of the template. As I mentioned in my last note historic versions of templates are permanent links. Permanent links do not necessarily maintain historic versions of templates. Read this for an explanation. If you want to see what was included in a historic version of the template then you need to click "view source" for that historic version. Eg [29] gives you the source for the one I edited. Note that the source doesn't have Sufi in it despite the fact that the display of the historic version does. As I mentioned before Sufi was added in this edit by the banned user Destroyer10. It was unsourced, unreferenced and no discussion took place regarding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Oh, I see what you are trying to say now. I'm really sorry, and you're absolutely one hundred percent correct. I also do not see 'sufi' in the source for the template before the December 17th edit. Boomer VialHolla 13:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC) I do not see how these reverts should be exempt from 3R. However, if Freeatlast is guilty of edit warring, so is the IP, even setting aside the actual 3R count. Moreover, I think it is particularly deceitful of the IP to edit from these different addresses, practically baiting Freeatlast into edit warring. I mean, 213.205.198.201, 213.205.251.204, 84.13.168.43 saw the same person editing, and I frown on that kind of behavior. Now, which edit came first, which version was the "original" version, that's exciting but not the only thing that matter: there's BRD as well. Oh, it's breakfast time. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Page protected – by User:KrakatoaKatie for four days. Please use the talk page to resolve the disagreement. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC) I use my mobile phone to edit. IP addresses change all the time on a phone. If you are unaware about that then perhaps you should read up on it before you accuse others of being deceitful. I don't give a toss about blocking others. I didn't request that. I do care about the fact that this template has plainly wrong information which was never sourced or discussed and was added by a banned user. I have added a comment on the talk page stating that there is no proof that Sufi is a school of theology. I'll wait 5 days for others to provide evidence. I can tell you now that nothing worthwhile will be provided and then we can all make the change that I made in the first place. 5 minutes of work has become 5 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC) I am aware of that, thank you very much, and I still think it's deceitful to not even acknowledge that. Even when editing via a mobile phone--I do this all the time--one can leave edit summaries, in which you could have explained what is now taking days and involves a half a dozen editors and three administrators. Clearly you are capable of filing a report here from your mobile phone, typing reams of text. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC) No, I didn't file the report here - somebody else did. I have never even been on an admin page before. I did supply edit summaries (albeit brief) but the only response I got was that it was vandalism. In fact it took me numerous messages to convince others that I was not a vandal. Editors should be given the benefit of the doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC) OK, I see that--sorry. But listen, that benefit of the doubt cuts both ways, which is why edit warring is such a difficult infraction to deal with. As far as I'm concerned you're both guilty of edit warring; Freeatlast should have known better (KNOWN WHAT??? easy: edit warring is edit warring even if you're right) and you should have...well, I outlined that above. Both of you should have stopped and sought the talk page. I believe you are not a vandal, but I do not like this unacknowledged IP hopping. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Drmies: I said what you already said multiple times! Thanks for repeating that. Moreover, WP:3RR is clearly violated by both of them as you see. Mhhossein (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC) I know, Mhhossein, I know... But what to do about it? The article is now protected from their disruption, and we're not supposed to make punitive blocks. Cases like these, one wonders: should one block just to try and get the point across? It's like spanking--does it work? I don't know, and I will leave it to a real admin, like EdJohnston. In the meantime, I believe it's time for some tea. Thank you for your comment, Drmies (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Thank you Drmies for your attention. I also noticed your tips here and thank you again for that. Editors involved in this thread were probably lucky enough to have their case investigated by you. Anyway, my concern is about a "trend" not a "mistake" and I know you are well aware what I mean. Mhhossein (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SethAdam99 reported by User:Nikki311 (Result: blocked)

Page: The Undertaker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SethAdam99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

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

Comments:
User:SethAdam99 has also had several warnings for disruptive editing. Nikki♥311 02:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As well as a final warning for pretending to be an admin on his user page. B. Mastino (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Capitals00 reported by User:Xtremedood (Result:No action)

Page

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

List of converts to Hinduism from Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971:

[36] [37] [38]

List of converts:

[39]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971:

[40] - Here is a survey that was discussed in depth.

[41] - Here is also a lengthy discussion that concluded Bangladesh should be included.

[42] - Attempt at Mediation, which did not receive any response.

[43]

List of converts:

[44] - Extremely lengthy discussion spanning for literally months.

[45] - Once again, an other long attempt to try and resolve the issue.

[46] - And finally, another very long attempt to try and resolve the issue.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[47] [48]

Comments:

user:Capitals00 has engaged in extremely disruptive editing behavior. He fails to respond to requests for his justifications for his edits, however has a history of POV revisions and edits. He fails to heed to consensus, but rather, after consensus is established, he often brings about a whole new set of sources, which are often not reliable and engages in disruptive editing practices which are not helpful. He was requested to try and solve the dispute for Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 through mediation, however, he did not respond to attempts to try and get this resolved. He reverted a strong consensus established by users user:Rhododendrites, user:FreeatlastChitchat, myself and others in the List of converts to Hinduism from Islam. Xtremedood (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• One of the Most disruptive users I have run across in the said genre. He refuses any form of third party resolution initiatives and then edit wars to keep his POV in the text. I wanted to report him a while ago but I thought that with enough WP:ROPE he will be hanging himself soon enough, or perhaps changing his ways. It is kinda sad that he has chosen the former. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have warned Capitals00 that he is risking a block for his recent reverts at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. There was a previous RfC. He was also offered mediation but he didn't accept it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Xtremedood has no sources to prove his wording. Current consensus is not to mention "bangladeshi" victory, because Bangladesh had no victories in any of the battles that they fought, it is not supported by any sources. There was a "truce" from Kautilya3, so that Xtremedood could stop edit warring with Human3015. But once I proved that there was no Bangladeshi victory,[49] no one happened to revert me or argue against it, except Xtremedood and it took him over 45 days to return to edit warring.[50] Very soon Ghatus disagreed with Xtremedood as well.[51] Can Xtremedood find some editor other than himself who has opposed my edits? There can be no mediation if you don't even have sources to support your thought that you made up yourself. That's why I disregarded his forum shopping because everyone else on this article has been opposed to Xtremedood. Capitals00 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Capitals00 if your blatant untruth (what is one supposed to call a lie btw, without offending someone) that Current consensus is not to mention "bangladeshi" victory seems to be contradicted by an RFC, which is not even stall enough to be archived. So I hang my head in shame at this kind of vandalism. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC was already superseded by consensus and sources at Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Revisions_by_Human3015. Something that you really don't have to offer. Why there was resumption of edit warring by Xtremedood who can't find any sources? We don't put opinions of a selected user, but what really source say. Capitals00 (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00 the compromise at Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Revisions_by_Human3015 is "decisive victory of India and Bangladesh" . I am not sure why you are being so ignorant. Did you even read the TP? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see Ghatus agreeing with the edits of Xtremedood or anyone opposing my explanation which is backed with sources except Xtremedood. That's how, all I see is that there was a temporary compromise in order to stop the disruptive edit warring of Xtremedood. Now situation is getting worse because you are wikihounding for fun and violating WP:VERIFY. Capitals00 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00 that is because the majority agrees on the edits. Human3015, Kautliya and Xtreme agree on the edit. And so do I now. You seem to be fixated on this issue and have made it into a personal battle. If you want to change consensus try mediation or another RFC. Otherwise learn to accept consensus this is not a WP:HOLYWAR FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No one agrees with the edits of Xtremedood, if they do, then why they don't revert me or show any opposition, why they only revert Xtremedood and oppose him on talk page? All I see is him forumshopping everywhere for pov pushing, where as you are just disruptively wikihounding on numerous articles, you don't have sources either. Capitals00 (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - :::Xtremedood is by far the only one on this article who has been edit warring and trying to push his pseudohistorical thoughts that are not confirmed by facts. I also agree that Freeatlastchitchat is only wikihounding, he don't know what the subjects or articles are actually about, he just go on anywhere his opponents have edited, he just want to take up battles with them. Furthermore, see this link, it is obvious that Xtremedood is edit warring on this article for about a year, and his sole aim is to disrupt the infobox. There was no Bangladeshi victory, look at the sources[52][53] [54][55][56][57][58] and tons of other sources, NO one say that it was any victory for Bangladesh. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Declined I see disruption and team-tagging reverts in the article. No signle editor overstepped 3RR strictly speaking. This means arbitration enforcement is your next stop, not here.Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FreddyNietzche reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked indefinitely as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia)

Page

Jürgen Graf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC) "I'll say it again: "Holocaust denier" is not an occupation. Please look up the definition. Also, this article states Graf is currently in Russia where he works as a translator. THAT is his occupation. A real occupation."
2. 17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC) ""Holocaust Denier" is NOT an occupation. Please look up the definition of occupation! How can this page state he is a translator working in Russian and at the same time list his occupation as "holocaust denier"?"
3. 16:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC) to 16:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC) "I've changed Holocaust denier to Holocaust revisionist. The word denier is used as an ad hominem because of its negative connotations. Moreover it is not accurate as Graf does not deny the events but instead revises them. "Denier" is an ideological word."
   2. 16:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC) "I changed Holocaust denier in occupation to historian. "Holocaust denier" is not an occupation. It is also a ridiculous ad hominem to name a revisionist historian a denier. The occupation historian is more accurate description in this case."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Our sourcing policy */ new section"
2. 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on David Irving. (TW)"
3. 16:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jürgen Graf. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

pov editor edit-warring removing "holocaust denier", material sourced to a high court judge, etc. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia Bishonen | talk 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter reported by User:Curro2 (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]

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

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

Comments:
The user does not appear to contest the claim he is removing (that Kobyakov served as Deputy PM from 2003 to 2010). Instead he is removing content because he thinks this is funny. Given the impression that he is not editing in good faith and is instead just engaged in petty vandalism, I'm asking for a longer than usual block here. Curro2 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly adhering to WP:CIVIL. [66] Curro2 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Since the user erased my warning from their talk page, may be some other administrator would repeat that they should drastically improve their communications skills. Stopping to revert good edits and finally reading the fucking manual would also help.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Do I need to provide a diff of the above comment or does it speak for itself? Curro2 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you're an administrator? How did I miss that? You're an administrator and you're cursing at me? Curro2 (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:ADMINACCT - "Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected. By my count, Ymblanter has made 3 reverts (your diff n:o 3 isn't a revert) and so have you, Curro2. I don't see a single contribution from either of you on the talkpage. I've protected the article for two days to encourage discussion. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC).

You're correct about #3, so he's only reverted three times but I have the right not to be cursed at. I'm also not sure what is in dispute. He has effectively conceded he was wrong on the substance. Curro2 (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Then perhaps it's your turn to concede you communicated badly? And nobody has cursed "at" you. As far as cursing in your presence, you might as well get used to that if you want to edit the English Wikipedia. It's not an attack. If you seriously want to make something of that (personally I think you'd regret it), ANI is the place, not AN3. It's altogether a rather poor idea to file complaints at this board when you're just as guilty of edit warring as the other party. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC).

This does not belong here. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I forgot, administrators are allowed to break all the rules and there's no expectation of basic civility. Maybe that's why Wikipedia's yearly edit count goes down and down. Maybe that's why a sitting head of government had a stub page. Curro2 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC) @Curro2:, you're definitely not imagining what you just described. Ymblanter has a history of talking down on other editors because he is an administrator and he thinks that he can get away with whatever arbitrary reverts he makes, including in cases where there is nothing at fault stylistically or procedurally. It is a clear case of following WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, which he obviously denies and refuses to discuss, instead issuing threats of administrative sanctions. If he does it, its considered administration, if we do it, its "disruptive". We're powerless and he knows it.--Damianmx (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV reported by User:Prefetch (Result: protected)

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

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

this is not strictly a WP:3RR, but this single editor refuses to enter a dialog with 5 other editors that are of the same mind. i don't know what else to do but attempt to get an admin to intervene.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]

we've tried to resolve via talk page, but warring editor refuses to discuss the dispute in the talk page, and is at odds with 5 other editors and counting..not sure what else to do:

Talk:Utah#pornography_in_utah

Comments:

please help!  :-)

Prefetch (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No violation of 3RR, and frankly, the controversial edit is properly sourced, and no editors have given a policy based reason to remove it. That's not to say that we should report that Utahians are the largest consumers of paid internet porn in the USA. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Completely frivolous claim; only two of those reverts (restoring sourced content) were within a 24 hour period. Even if all three were within a 24 hour period, it would not breach WP:3RR. OP was unilaterally removing long standing, sourced content, without either starting a requested RfC or 3O request. A consensus is being formed against its inclusion, and I will abide by that - as I abide by all consensus decisions. OP should be warned what constitutes edit warring. I gave no additional input, because the user kept making the same WP:OR claims and asking the same questions, over and again, after I had already responded. Scr★pIron^IV 20:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

this is not a 3RR issue, it's an edit war issue: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle." scrapiron won't discuss the issue, and clearly is in the minority against a consensus of editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prefetch (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Every edit I made was policy based, as opposed to a bunch of WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT excuses. Unilaterally removing sourced content could easily be construed as vandalism. It's not about "winning" to me, it's about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia and its processes. And, please, learn how to sign your comments, as you have been told by others. Scr★pIron^IV 20:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

sorry - i'm obviously new to wikipedia and don't know all the rules. this page had an obvious mistake in my mind (and it's now obvious to 5 other editors) and so i made a change, and i additionally posted in the talk page to see if everyone was okay with the change. we had an extremely unsatisfying brief discussion that simply made no sense to me, and so i sued for further discussion. you ignored my posts and so i hoped a 3rd opinion would appear, and it did. i mistakenly thought this was the same as the 3O rule, but i was wrong. i then did a formal 3O, and then several more editors chimed in all supporting the edit. at that stage you still wouldn't engage in the talk page, and i just wasn't sure what else to do except appeal to this board. again, i apologize for my clumsy navigation of the processes, but i'm trying to learn and contribute. Prefetch (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I will only interject to note that it's very hard to construct this as "unilateral removal of sourced content" and consequently vandalism: there is a debate in progress with several opinions (now including mine) bringing forth a somewhat compelling WP:UNDUEness objection to the material. Just because something has a "ref" tag on it doesn't make it immune from scrutiny and possible redaction. LjL (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The "debate" didn't start until today, those opinions are after my communication and restoration of the content. When this started, it was just the OP, and me, and I suggested that they start an RfC or a 3O request - rather than the OP and I just disagreeing back and forth. I also told them at that time that it stays at the status quo until a new consensus is reached. It's as simple as that. Clearly they are an inexperienced editor. I don't mind getting rid of the content, I don't care what Utah does with its spare time. What it needed was scrutiny and consensus - not just a new editor coming in and deleting it. 21:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrapIronIV (talk • contribs)

Well, it's getting scrutiny now, so it worked. It's just that vandalism accusations about removing something that smelled so strongly of WP:UNDUE seemed a tad far-fetched, and I thought it worthwhile to point it out. LjL (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While both users could have handled this a bit better (more talking, and less reverting), I think that nothing is really going to happen here (on this noticeboard anyway). A discussion with no real (serious) edit warring makes this report moot. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 02:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Programsyt reported by User:Voceditenore (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]
5. [75]
6. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77], [78]. Reverts 5 and 6 were after 3RR warning. User began edit-warring again after 24 hours.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79] et sequelae. Three of the four editors whom the reported user has reverted are participating. The reported user has not participated despite requests to do so. See also Conflict of interest/Noticeboard here.

Comments:
There may also be socking involved. The previous edit-warring was by Bojdufa, a paid editor, who had changed their name from the very similar Ytprograms. Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• They have been blocked for 31 hours by Drmies following a report to AIV after blanking the article. SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Programsyt is now just blanking the article:

dif

dif

and was blocked by Drmies for 31 hours for Disruptive editing. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Drmies. If this behavior continues a longer block is possible. The new editor User:Programsyt doesn't seem to be taking any advice. A similar account, User:Ytprograms, has been renamed to User:Bojdufa, who is not currently blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

More accounts related to Youth Time are now blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhitelew. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Websoftnew reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocks, Protection)

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

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]
5. [85] - note, done via a sock account
6. [86]
7. [87]
8. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:

User was approaching 3RR the other day and, having been warned, created a sock for the next attempt, and was blocked for socking. Returned to edit warring for same material less than half a day after sock block had run out. At least four users have undone his reversions, and his most recent edit comment, "(i am not going to leave it for sure .... will fight for this information because this is genuine and explained in a better way)" makes it clear that he intends to continue in this manner. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note Page fully protected, and user blocked 72 hrs by Courcelles. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 weeks by User:Courcelles. Two accounts blocked as described in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Websoftnew. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

IP hopper (see below for user IPs) reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Rangeblock)

Page: Devin Durrant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 2605:a601:56e:df01:ac93:933d:f57d:690c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:c107:aeb3:42cb:181b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:55af:15aa:b48a:6641 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:6c44:fc49:c515:5ba7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:44e6:67c5:ba9a:b9f5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:adbf:3cb7:3fe:627f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:11d9:eaa0:8381:a78e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:8851:4a7c:bd5c:44f5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:d521:7236:53bc:ca4b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2605:a601:510:fc01:507a:e957:ec2:d7a6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All the above IPs are registered to the same address and edit summaries support this being the same person.

• Edits/reverts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - mainly linked to reverts of the IP's additions in order to show user's reasons for reverting as well as IP's comments
• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 & 2 3
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1
• See also: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Devin_Durrant

Comments:
I've reported this here instead of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in attempt to maintain the assumption of good faith.

This anon repeatedly adds content that has multiple issues to the same page - but the issue isn't so much the edit as the complete refusal to engage in any kind of communication about the changes. Their edit summaries show that they understand what an edit summary is for, and their comment on the BLP noticeboard shows that they've read other users' edit summaries (which include requests to discuss on the talk page), but their continued refusal to communicate indicates that they either don't understand the messages or are just ignoring them.

In short, this anon may be trying to edit the article in good faith, but instead is just causing endless disruption. They made the same edit again while I was creating this report, which I haven't reverted because that would take me over 3RR, and I'm trying really hard to keep assuming good faith even though part of me thinks this has stepped over the line into straight-out vandalism.

At present, there's no way to resolve the edit war because this anon won't communicate. I'm going to notify them of this discussion on every single IP talk page in another attempt to get their attention, but given past precedent, I highly doubt they'll respond. Marianna251TALK 21:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Set a rangeblock for two weeks on 2605:a601:510:fc01::/64. This should cover all IPs except the first one listed. A person should not use a fluctuating IP to conduct edit wars. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:108.250.37.230 reported by User:BlaccCrab (Result: Blocked)

Page: My House (Flo Rida song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
My House (EP) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.250.37.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [92] [93] [94] [95]

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

• Edit warring is shown in reverts.

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

• I've told him several times to stop edit warring and that JayFrance co-produced the song. It's just some random ip address who does nothing but vandalize that song's page and it's accompanying EP page. Update: He's likely using an alternate IP to do the exact same thing. Undoing my edit is this IP's first edit...107.72.96.84 Update 2 Both IP addresses are from Los Angeles California according to iptracker.com. Obvious sockpuppetry BlaccCrab (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Cleaned up report -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jkaradell reported by User:A guy saved by Jesus (Result: no vio)

Page

David Ortiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC) to 02:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 706748761 by A guy saved by Jesus (talk)"
   2. 02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 706749986 by Jkaradell (talk)"
   3. 02:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "I don't care what the metadata is it's a lousy picture of him. I've been maintaining this page every day for 10 years. I've practically written the entire page. Go through the history to see. Then you drop in one day and decide you're in charge."
2. 01:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "It's s a "fact" that it's better quality. I don't see any better quality in that picture. The picture sucks and I'm not the only one that thinks so. I wasnt the one that changed it back months ago you really sound like you've been saved. Go fuck yourself"
3. 16:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC) "Bro, Sorry but that 2014 picture sucks. The picture of him pointing to his mother in heaven after a HR is better. That's Papi's signature. The picture doesn't have to be recent. A lot of player pages have pictures of their younger days in their infobox."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC) "/* David Ortiz */ new section"
2. 02:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on David Ortiz. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Infobox image */ new section"

Comments:

This user has made a total of five reverts regarding the infobox image on David Ortiz's page, and also made a personal attack against me by telling me to "go fuck" myself. I explained my rationale to them about why I would prefer to use the image I have reverted to, and I stopped reverting after the third time. On the other hand, this user's only rationale behind the image they keep reverting to is their personal opinion that the other image "sucks." They need to understand that Wikipedia is built on consensus, not edit warring, but they have also been unwilling to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Also, their most recent revert is assuming ownership of the article. A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Issues of civility and such should probably go to WP:ANI. That said, Jkaradell, I strongly recommend, at the very least, engaging with @A guy saved by Jesus: on the article's talk page and/or seeking a third opinion or other forms of dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 06:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:AndrewGulch reported by User:SaintAviator (Result: )

Page: Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [96]

1. [97]

1. [98]

1. [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101] [102]

Comments:
Lots of discussion in links below. User has a strong bent on this theme, not getting results in Talk, now involved in edit war. Received warning here [103] after 3rd revert. Then did another revert. Is also spamming on talk page on same issue [104] [105] and [106] same theme [107]. Im also concerned about a possible Sock with same ideas, wording. [108] and [109] Another user deleted four other threads by IP with same geolocation as IP above, mentioned here, last comment [110]. SaintAviator lets talk 04:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• As a newcomer I have found the editing atmosphere at Vladimir Putin to be utterly toxic. There are insults, blind reverts, and the like being hurled from both sides of the debate (including, I must say, the complainant here). It is worth pointing out that this is the edit warring noticeboard and not merely the 3RR noticeboard. In that regard I ask (beg, plead) for the admin who acts on this complaint to look in on the situation as a whole and apply sanctions liberally. Another possibility would be to full-protect the article for a long enough period that the combatants get bored and drift away. Maybe one of those measures will change the editing atmosphere sufficiently that some of the rest of us can edit. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Recently there have been three reverts of the lede at Vladimir Putin by User:Solntsa90, who has previously been blocked for edit warring. It may be time for a ban of that editor from the Vladimir Putin page. Back in January he was banned by User:Drmies from RT (TV network) as shown at this link. Lately there have been complaints to admins about editor behavior on the Putin article (as echoed by VM above) and it may be time to start using the ARBEE sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )

Page: Mr. Robot (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114]
4. [115]
5. [116]
6. [117]
7. [118]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]

Comments:

While the editor may not have violated 3RR, they most certainly have violated any edit-warring protocols. They also believe themselves to be above needing warnings via templates such as {{uw-editwar}}, per their posts on my talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Alex tells part of the story. I'll skip the content discussion that he refuses to take part in and focus just on this matter. Yes, Alex did put a template on my page, at 23:41, 3 minutes after I had already self-reverted [121]. Alex was even aware of my self revert at 23:47 [122] but continued pretending that it didn't happen. 2 responses later, he was still ignoring it [123]. Claiming that he's tried to resolve it is kind of amusing. Alex hasn't tried to resolve anything at all, despite attempts to get him to discuss the issue. To summarize, I self-reverted before the warning was placed. I informed Alex that I had self-reverted. No edits to the page have taken place since then. I'm disappointed that an experienced user like Alex has refused to engage in any discussion, instead choosing to communicate via passive-aggressive edit summaries. BTW, I didn't say I was above warnings (there's that penchant for fabrication), I told him not to template something that could have been done with, you know, words....and probably not after the edit had been self-revertedNiteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that in no way was the edit warring template in regards to the editor's most recent edit; rather, it was for their actions as a whole, though they see keen to reject this. I do not need to participate in a discussion to note that an editor has a serious warring-personality issue. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, when a discussion is already underway over the material you are reverting, you should be participating in the discussion, not making reverts based on faulty applications of essays. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Niteshift has managed to stay juuuuuust this side of 3RR, but has taken the stance that he has no obligation to gain consensus, despite having made the bold edit, which has been reverted by three editors. I do agree with Alex that he still is engaging in slow edit warring, trying to justify his attempts to force his edit by claiming editors supporting the long-standing status quo have not provided a justification to retain the edit, and thus continues to revert. He refuses to abide by WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, as will as misapplying policies related to character articles and film cast. His edit is arbitrary, and seems to be an effort to do nothing more than remove three actors who do not have articles. --Drmargi (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• The magic "3 editors" again. One who made a revert and stopped discussing, you and Alex, who has refused to participate in the discussion. What you and Alex fail to mention is that there is an other editor supporting the removal. Both of you keep waving around essays (BRD and Statusquo) as if they are policies. Saying that I refuse to abide by an essay shows that you don't realize that an essay isn't a requirement. You at least participated for a while, then you stopped when you didn't get your way from us. To this day, you still haven't cited a policy, MOS or even an essay that supported including the material. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I stopped when the discussion turned into an insult match and I was called a liar by an editor who didn't check his facts. And your other editor acknowledged he'd only seen a couple episodes of the show. He's there for an agenda all his own, that has nothing to do with improving the article. Regardless, do you have consensus for your edit? No. --Drmargi (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Do you have consensus to leave the material? No. It doesn't matter if that editor had seen all the episodes. The principal applies to any movie or show, not just this one. I don't know about his alleged agenda, but I do know he supported removal. 2 editors in the discussion supported it, 2 did not. But you left, the other editor left and then claim that the material stays by default. None of this, however, is what this noticeboard is for. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)