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:Caballero1967 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )

(undid vandalism by IP 82.132.225.11) Historiador (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Stirling engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Caballero1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]

New GF editor Jcflyer58 (talk · contribs) recently added some new content to the article. For some unfathomable reason, ClueBot took exception to this and reverted it, with warning [5]. I can see no good reason for this. I thus restored it and improved the technical citation of the pre-existing NASA source (presumably ClueBot didn't recognise the prose citation).

This is a good addition.

Jcflyer58 continued to work on it. Caballero1967 then reverted it, with a further warning [6]. I struck this warning through as incorrect, restored the content and invited Caballlero to comment further.

This addition is sourced. It is part of a two line para, with a cite at the end of the para. We have no reason that each sentence must be individually cited, when the cite at the end of a short para covers it.

Caballero1967 has now reverted this three times, as if it were unsourced. They have issued warnings to all concerned:

• User_talk:Jcflyer58
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Stirling_engine
• User_talk:Caballero1967#December_2015

They have not however discussed the substance of this, why they are reverting continually. If it's "because it's unsourced", that's a failure of WP:CIR. If it's because it's unclear, they could discuss it. They have not done this, they have simply dismissed both other editors as if they were idiots adding unsourced content, "Every addition should be explained and sourced. It is simple".

I don't like this addition. It is too close to "close paraphrasing" of the source and the extent of the claim (as is not unusual for Stirling engine material) is "optimistic" to a point that raises eyebrows (Stirling engines have been "the next big thing" for a long time, yet they still have yet to deliver.). I would like to see this claim toned down and put in NASA's voice, not WP's objective voice. However one thing that is clear about this is that it is sourced content. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

They have now added [7] a {{citation needed}}, adjacent to the citation. I think WP:CIR now applies. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Caballero's argument: Three reverts is the maximum for a day. Thus, there is no war edit. Moreover, they were not reverts to the same editor. One was for Jcflyer58 and two for Andy Dingley.

It seems that Andy Dingley is not assuming good faith in my reverts even when at every instance I mentioned that an explanation or a source was needed for additions to the article. These were my annotations:

1- In User_talk:Jcflyer58 I left an automated welcoming message that also informed the user about sourcing new additions. It also invited the user to return to the article to include a source in addition to the change (no source was included with the user’s contribution).

2- “Reverted good faith edits by Andy Dingley: If you bring an argument that's new for the article, explain it in the comments sections, justify it in Talk Page or place a reference. How else would we verify it?”

3- “Reverted good faith edits by Andy Dingley: One more time. Verify, explain, and source. You know how it works, and you know the time it takes to make sure these rules are followed.”

The changes inserted were not clear about the source. Perhaps the editors working on the article presumed the evidence and sources, but from a patrolling perspective, these changes were not sourced and worse, they were not explained. These were the comments left for the changes:

1- [8] None

2- [9] "That thing in the "< ref >") tags? It's called a reference." (note: as explained below, there was no reference (< ref >) attached to the new contribution or at the end of the new sentence)

3- [10] "Rv repeated blanking on sourced content."

To the first attempt for input/change without a comment and from a user that had already been warned by a bot, I performed a good faith revert and only asked for a source. There was no source connected with the new addition and, as you saw above, no comment about how this new addition may have linked to whatever sources had been cited already in the paragraph.

To the second attempt for input/change with an unclear comment, I reverted it and, as shown above, explained what was necessary with the addition of new information to the article. I also went to the user’s talk page and explained the reasons for this action.

To the third attempt for input/change with another unclear comment added to an unfair accusation (unfair because blanketing is meant for changes without explanation), I reverted the change and went, for the second time, to the user talk page and re-explained my case. I also went to my user talk page and commented on the issue since the user had tagged me there.

As soon as I noticed that behind the lack of good communication was a group of dedicated editors working on this article, I went back and undid my reverts and placed the citation tag at the end of the new sentence so the contributors would notice where was the issue that provoked the reverts.

As I explained in my annotations, a comment, a Talk Page explanation, or a citation linked directly to the sentence being added should have avoided all of these problems. A critical step was when user: Andy Dingley, instead of merely explaining that this was an addition linked to the sources already cited in the paragraph, chose to write “That thing in the "< ref >" tags? It's called a reference.” Not only is this comment vague, but also contains a subtle insult, which cast doubts about the purpose of the reverts.

• I wish to set a formal complaint about the gratuitous reference to WP:CIR and for the unnecessary reaction to a work that only asked for explanations to changes done to the article. Historiador (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"at every instance I mentioned that an explanation or a source was needed for additions to the article"

At every instance, even now, you are treating other editors as idiots who don't realise this.

The content is sourced. It always has been. Why are you demanding sources when they're already there? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Contennt needs to be sourced. Why is that so hard for you to comply with? 82.132.225.115 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:, you appear to say that your gripe with my interventions take you and the other editors working with this article as "idiots." I regret that. That was never my intention. Your comments on my page, which you posted after I have already reverted your changes for the second time and left a message in your own talk page (things were moving rather quickly), were enough to warn me about the way you were feeling. Taking your grievance to this level is not only a waste of time and an unnecessary investment of energy, but it also leaves adverse tracks of its own, like your gratuitous reference to WP:CIR (when the page clearly warns you against its use for issues of this type) and your accusation of bad faith (on which this entire report is based). I took the decision to leave your input on the page with a tag for citation before learning that you have appealed to this noticeboard. It is still puzzling. Historiador (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The section that was tagged was covered directly in the citation at the end of the paragraph. I duplicated it in place of the cn tag. Why is there no discussion on the article's talk page? Did anyone actually read the source that was provided? My only concern about the content is that the sentence is nearly verbatim from the source. One does not need to cite every sentence in a paragraph, when the section is covered by the source at the end of the paragraph. Scr★pIron^IV 18:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:, I should mention that I never received notification of your question in User_talk:Jcflyer58, which you posted at 7am on Dec. 3: "Perhaps Caballero1967 would care to explain further?" My entry on that page was automated (as explained in my edit summary comments and above)-- and you never allowed me time to even get to it. Otherwise, I would have answered it. Historiador (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, thanks. My request were an explanation in the summary comments or in Talk page. If none of these, then a source would have hinted to the purpose of the addition. Again, more impotant was a summary/comment/explanation. None of them were provided, but until the end, when all the reverts were already done. Historiador (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caballero1967: The edit summary that you referenced yourself, while a bit sarcastic, should have been explanation enough. It occurred at the beginning of the edit summaries. You mean, you did not check the reference, and just continued to revert? I would strongly suggest you drop it at this point, and withdraw the complaint. Scr★pIron^IV 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, I suggest you read this entire thread more carefully. I am not the one making an accusation here. I did read the comments, and as I explained above, did not understand it as an explanation for the change (in retrospection, many things look perfectly clear). Not only because it was unclear, but also because there was no reference linked to that specific change and addition: none!. I took the extra step to read the sources linked to other parts of the paragraph and it was still not obvious to me. And since I was guarding the page against vandalism, and my requested had been unheard, I reverted it back, IN GOOD FAITH, and asked for an explanation, again. That's it. Keep in mind, that at every moment, I explained that I was asking for an explanation, a simple comment that would warn me that this was a collaborative project and that these additions were not random. Following WP about acting bold, I, again asked for explanations (or sources), nothing fancy. I am raising a complaint only as a reaction and linked to the accusation of war editing. The case drops, and as a result, the complaint falls with it too. Otherwise, there is a different place to raise a formal complaint. Historiador (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, let me repeat, as to be as clear as possible (even though I have made it a focal point here), Andy Dingley's first comment to my revert, not only was sarcastic (a bit, because the space only allowed for a bit), but hinted to a reference that was none-existant. There was no < r > in the change being added or at the end of the sentence that I could look at. It was a reversion, an undid, a revert done in a hurry, without a proper explanation. And then, the user accused me of war edit, when I only reverted two of the user's edits (both without proper explanations of my own reverts). I searched for explanations, and as soon as I learned what was going on, I fixed the problem. All of this took very little time, but the accuser jumped to this page as soon as possible. In fact, my fixing of the page was done prior or at the same time that the accuser was writing on this page. No assumption fo good faith and lack of good communication. Historiador (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I would suggest you merely apologize for misreading, and be done with it. Read the sources before reverting. I'm done here. No need to ping me any more.Scr★pIron^IV 21:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I did not misread. The message was unclear. You misread something when the message is clear. And yet, I did apologize. let me quote, "you appear to say that your gripe with my interventions take you and the other editors working with this article as "idiots." I regret that. That was never my intention." The thread has grown, I understand, but it still important to read all the information before making any comment or passing any judgement. Historiador (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above, there was no source to read! No reference linked to the addition. None! And yet, I read further, and the link was not obvious at first. The context, keep in mind, is a persistence of adding information without explanation, and again and again, I asked for an explanation, a comment, something that would make sense.Historiador (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

*Perhaps it is necessary to restate succinctly what I have explained here already in order for this case to get the attention it needs, namely, a result.

Summary: User:Andy Dingley brought my name to this noticeboard under the false accusation of edit warring. Not only did I stay within the parameters of the 3RR rule, but none of my reverts were done in bad faith. Perhaps the entire case is the result of poor communication and of reacting too fast to each other actions (I am also at blame on this last point). User:Andy Dingley explained that my constant request for sources or for explanations made editors feel like idiots. Even when this could have been solved without coming here, twice I apologized for giving that impression while asserting that this was never my intention. Moreover, I did bring the article back to the position it was before I had reverted it. This I did rather fast, as soon as I realized the nature of the problem. In fact, everything took only a few minutes. However, these were unfavorable actions and failures of good practices that should be considered from the user who brought me here:

(the links to the actions referred here are already posted above)

1) It accused me of Edit Warring when there was never more than 3RRs, and not even the spirit of the law was broken: here.

2) It failed to assume good faith WP:GF.

3) In both instances, it failed to answer my requests for an explanation: summary/explanation/comments (WP:RFC) (the first user provided no comment).

4) It failed to establish an effective communication with me before coming to this noticeboard-- a clear pre-requirement stated at the top of this page. (The two links above, which claim to be warnings sent to me, are not warnings at all. One lead to the bot's change and the other to my first change. Not only they say nothing about the user's claims, but they were not placed in my talk page nor on the article's talk page).

5) It failed to warn me about the 3RR rule by posting this tag on my talk page: { { subst:uw-3RR } }, a step that should have been taken before approaching this forum.

6) It failed to follow the steps suggested to avoid edit warring as explained here (this is key if the user felt there was an edit warring in the making).

7) It used the WP:CIR against me in this forum even when at the page's top clearly says: "Be very cautious when referencing this page, as it can be very insulting to other editors." Writers of this page understood how it could be used as a shortcut to gain the upper hand by undermining other editor's standing (even when I was not discussing substance, but procedures).

User:Andy Dingley should have taken in consideration that Edit Warring "is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle...good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism" (quoted from the top of this same page).

Cheers, Historiador (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Within a quarter of an hour you had managed to deliver three reversions to this article and three patronising warnings to two different editors on three different pages; all because you couldn't read a reference that had been there all the time, at the end of a two line paragraph.

You are still [11] making comments "hinted to a reference that was none-existant" – the necessary reference has been there all the time.

You claim (above [12]) that this is not edit-warring because, "Three reverts is the maximum for a day. Thus, there is no war edit." as if you're entitled to three, and other editors can just suck it up because You Know Your Rights and you're damned well going to have your fair share of your edits. Even more bizarrely, "Moreover, they were not reverts to the same editor. One was for Jcflyer58 and two for Andy Dingley. " as if it's better when you're reverting against multiple editors!

I see no benefit to prolonging this verbosity, but nor do you seem to have learned anything from it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:, you only see one thing: my request for sources. But that was only part of what I was asking. It could also have been a short explanation in the edit summary box or a comment on the article's Talk Page. You may want to look above again when I mentioned that we both were acting in a hurry. If I would have given a [better] look to your profile, I would have noticed that you were making constructive contributions to the article, and would not have made the last revert (despite your unhelpful comments).

If you would have also read my request for explanation/comments/sources in the manner I intended, you would have noticed that my only function was to protect your work and that of your colleagues. As you appeared to have seen, your article came up as possibly vandalized, perhaps because some contributions were made without a summary. So, I came to it with the intention of making sure that whatever change would go in it would have to follow guidelines and to act (as always) in good faith. The first contribution had no summary/explanation and came from a new user that had already been warned by a bot, so I reverted it with a message that asked the user to return to the article. The second one (yours) had a cryptic and sarcastic message, but no explanation. The third was an accusation, again, no description. In all my reverts, I asked for explanations or sources, and in Good Faith. So you should have known I was not meaning to fight. In my last revert, I even issued you a clear plea for help so you would see that I was only guarding your page: "You know how it works, and you know the time it takes to make sure these rules are followed.” And still, I apologized for giving you the wrong impression.

Perhaps you could give us examples of better ways to approach an editor that is including information in your article without explanation. Unfortunately, the examples of your comments to me are not the best. But most importantly, you did not follow procedure, in the article and neither here.

In trying to make sense of your actions, I am starting to think that you thought I was challenging you in some sort of way, but I was not. It should be clear by now that my interest is not in creating dissension. I think that this would have been avoided if you would have talked to me in my Talk Page, in the article's Talk Page (ScrapIronIV was also surprised that there was no mention of it in the Talk Page) or personal message. Your actions show an eagerness to work in your article without being bothered, and I can understand that. But the way you reacted to my attempts to protect your work failed to follow good practice. Historiador (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Minor editing. Historiador (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:75.80.175.107 reported by User:Pemilligan (Result: )

Page: Vaughan Foods beheading incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.80.175.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments: User repeatedly removes "murder" categories, giving different reasons at different times, but apparently assuming that including the categories is a WP:BLP violation against the person accused of the crime. Same behavior at 2015 Washington, D.C., mass murder and other pages.

Pemilligan (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Better report InedibleHulk as well, because he's been very zealous about this issue and I just caved in with his reasoning. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't blame you. It was pretty solid reasoning. Another guy tried this same passive-aggressive pointy edit game after I schooled him on the topic at a different article. Are you him again? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

As far as this article goes, no, you can't say a killing was murder while the killer has an upcoming murder trial. That'd be presuming guilt, instead of innocence. Whatever 75's intentions, the edits are good. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can say a killing was murder without presuming the accused is guilty of the crime. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

When the question is whether it was the defendant or someone else who killed the victim, sure, no harm done. The Washington one is like that. But when there's a known killer, and the trial is only about whether he had justification or excuse, it's prejudicial to decide he didn't before a jury does. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, December 4, 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. This does not convince me that calling the crime murder assumes the accused is guilty even in such a case. I think you offer a distinction without difference. If you want to establish your point of view as rule here, pursue consensus. I don't think you've established one. Still, since 75.80.175.107 (talk · contribs) has been following your reasoning without offering any of his own, I will be happy to see him stop reverting changes to 2015 Washington, D.C., mass murder. Pemilligan (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

75.80.175.107 (talk · contribs), could you expand on that? I'm not sure to which comment you're responding--which "it"--so it isn't clear to me what you think "it does". Pemilligan (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:WWGB reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Advice)

Page: Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WWGB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [23] and the template they removed 2x is itself a 1RR warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24] notification placed in threads of talk page at the same time notice placed at top first time, with no comments by anyone.

Comments: Since this article and its talk page now fall under 1RR (ISIL related), removing the 1RR warning at the top 2 times in far less then 24 hours is a very obvious breach of 1RR. Note I have not edit warred because I added the top notice originally (not a revert) and restored it once (is a revert). I'm not seeking a block, only a declaration that WWGB is edit warring in breach of the 1RR rule. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Response. User:Legacypac arbitrarily adds the ISIL template to an article, and then holds me accountable to 1RR. This despite the fact that ISIL did not claim responsibility for the attack, nor did one perp have any stated interest in ISIL. The other perp indicated on Facebook that she supported ISIL. How does this amount to it being an ISIL-related article? WWGB (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I' e created or edit a number of pages under these sanctions. We don't debate the inclusion of the new page each time it just applies The suggestion the wife only is ISIL supportive while they had a bomb making factory at home is strange. Legacypac (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just learned that "the one revert rule continues to apply to articles, not all pages, in the scope of the sanctions" (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Amendment). This complaint relates to a talk page, not an article. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand that allows someone to revert once at any given page, then revert once at another given page. So not 1RR across the topic but per page. The enforcement log shows long blocks for edit warring over templates and maps so it is clearly not just related to articles. Legacypac (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Uncivil behavior WWGB has now called me a 'lone wolf' on a terrorism article which makes it sound like he thinks I'm a terrorist. [25]. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I made no allegation of terrorism. A "lone wolf" is someone who acts alone [26], which is what you did in adding a contentious template to an article where its relevance is very dubious. WWGB (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't debate the inclusion of the new page each time it just applies. Actually, that's exactly what we are forced to do until there is some authority (Arbcom?) to rule on very borderline cases like this one. I don't think even "broadly construed" is intended to mean "everything where the letters ISIL appear, regardless of how tenuous the connection". If we are given such a vague definition, cases must be debated and consensus must be reached. I'm open to correction on this - by Arbcom. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:WWGB is advised that if he adds or removes the Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting again before consensus is reached he is risking a block. See the current discussion at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting#ISIL template usage. If consensus decides that the template doesn't belong on the article then there is no more 1RR restriction. All parties should wait patiently for the discussion to finish, and if necessary, for it to be reviewed at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I take it the rule is: If it contains the letters ISIL, the sanctions are in effect unless consensus is reached to the contrary; in other words, the default is sanctions in effect. Ok. But you linked to a discussion about a different template unrelated to the sanctions. The closest thing I can find to a discussion about the applicability of the sanctions in this article is Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting#ISIL related (Inspired or Directed), which hasnn't had much participation so far. It's a big talk page and I may have missed something. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right. The template that WWGB was reverting was {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}}, not Template:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. But if WWGB wants to get the {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}} removed he should wait for consensus to be reached at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting#ISIL related (Inspired or Directed), or at one of the linked discussions. Another unilateral removal is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Erlbaeko reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693697704 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Rv. see mediation."
2. 09:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693804821 by My very best wishes (talk). See talk."
3. 11:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693941276 by Kudzu1 (talk) No consensus for removal. See talk, mediation and tree EW-reports at WP:AN/3.""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ghouta chemical attack. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "/* same ol' POV pushing which just won't stop */ re"

Comments:

Gaming the 1RR with a 2nd revert at 25 hours. Editor was previously blocked back in June for pushing the same content (literally much of the same text), in the same article. Article is also currently subject to mediation; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack#Item 4 - Deal with the rebel motivation issue and UNDUE in the whole article. Previous warnings about gaming rv rules at User talk:Erlbaeko#Gaming revert rule timelines and User talk:Erlbaeko#1RR VQuakr (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, also evaluate the actions of user VQuakr (talk · contribs). He is clearly trying to avoid the spirit of the consensus policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, etc. VQuakr (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Which, btw, is strictly forbidden. I believe he do so to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that the report below is connected to this case (same article, same content). As I see it, a group of users, VQuakr (talk · contribs), My very best wishes (talk · contribs), Kudzu1 (talk · contribs), Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), Bobrayner (talk · contribs) and Sayerslle, have repeatedly restored their preferred version. Most of them have been edit warring, even if they have avoid breaking the one-revert rule, or even coming close to do so. I believe they all have been playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of the consensus policy. That they lack consensus for removing the content appears from the articles history, several talk page discussions and this mediation. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• User Erlbaeko was previously blocked for edit warring on the same page [27] and warned by an uninvolved admin about general sanctions in this area [28]. He then started was a party in mediation on the subject. It is my understanding that mediation failed to produce consensus to include these materials (I asked mediating admin to clarify this [29]), however Erlbaeko resumed edit warring immediately after during the ungoing mediation [30]. Now, speaking about BRG (a complaint below), this is obviously a WP:Meatpuppet account of Erlbaeko per WP:DUCK, or at least they act as such. Given very small number of their edits, it acts as an account with "a clear shared agenda" as noted here, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I did not start the mediation, nor is it closed, and as far as I know, I have never met or had any previous contact with User:BRG~itwiki. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"As I see it, a group of users..." - Erlbaeko, you know that's just another way of saying "I am edit warring against consensus", right? I mean, you're saying that six users (it's actually more) disagreed with your changes but you decided to edit war anyway. Your only support here is that brand new throw away WP:SPA User:BRG~itwiki. Volunteer Marek  18:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't count blocked users, it’s actually five users that have removed the content (at the moment). It's at least that many that have expressed that they disagree with the removal, but I don't expect them to watch this page. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's at least that many that have expressed that they disagree with the removal - that's demonstrably false. Volunteer Marek  20:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not false, and I can find diffs that proves it. (I will if the closing admin ask for it.) Erlbaeko (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Utterly false. This edit-warring against consensus is intolerable, especially considering there is an open mediation regarding this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not follow this page very closely, but it seems there were no RfC on this page to include (or not include) this specific disputed material. The link provided by BRG below refers to an old discussion (not an RfC) on this page with regard to inclusion of different material. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A little background info: VQuakr has a point when he says it is more or less the same content, even if it is slightly different wording/sources. Overall, consensus for the Motivation section was reached through editing over several years. It was first removed by "My very best wishes" on 5 June 2015, ref. diff (his very first edit to the page). That he lacked consensus for that removal appears from: 1) his removal was immediately reverted, ref. diff, 2) this talk page discussion. From there several editors have been involved on both sides, but there has never been consensus to remove the content. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was one of the disagreements which led to beginning of the mediation where I am not a party. Based on response of mediating admin [31] and your response on article talk page, this question was indeed extensively discussed during mediation (contrary to the claim by BRG below about refusal to discuss) and there was no consensus (either way) achieved. However, it appears that a clear majority of contributors who actively edit this page right now do not want this content to be in the page. Therefore, your recent reinsertion of this text [32] was not supported by other contributors. You was told [33] (edit summaries) that there is no consensus about it, and these reverts indeed indicate the lack of consensus. Given that, your continuous reverts, like this (i.e. during the standing 3RR report about you) can be a reason for a block or other sanctions, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"consensus for the Motivation section was reached through editing over several years" - this too is completely false. Note that Erlbaeko links to the page which defines "consensus" although they make it seem as if they were linking to some discussion which established this consensus. This looks like they're being purposefully misleading. No such discussion actually exists. Here's people trying to deal with the WP:UNDUE problem as far back as 2013. Yet Erlbaeko would tire people out, edit war, and then come back and try to restore their fringe version repeatedly. For at least two years. This has gone long enough and it's a textbook case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Volunteer Marek  17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And the edit warring is ongoing

Here. Erlbaeko continues to edit war on this article against multiple editors even as this report is discussed and even as mediation is still open. They're basically trying to sabotage the process of mediation because they were not getting what they wanted.

Note that Erlabeko has been blocked for edit warring on this very article previously and that they have also been warned about gaming the 1RR restriction (also on this article). Which is exactly what they're doing here. Volunteer Marek  17:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Warned Three reports about the same edit war. Yay. Since I closed the other two with warnings, I'll also close this one with a stronger one - Erlabeko, stop gaming the system. Any more reverts timed to avoid 1RR may result in a block or topic ban. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Fix ping @Erlbaeko: --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, I am not the one who is gaming the system in order to avoid the spirit of consensus. I have explained it to VQuakr here. Did you read it? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: I've read through these reports and right now the only one that's close to a block is you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Well, I can live with a block, if that is what it takes to have someone to listen here. I am dealing with editors that believe the consensus policy is "irrelevant", ref. User_talk:Erlbaeko#December_2015 The last time I checked the Consensus policy was Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and I am reverting to enforce it, not to game it. Please, take a closer look. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"I can live with a block" is pretty much as clear cut admission of "I intend to continue the edit war" as you can get. That's why I said above that we need a preventive block here as it's clear that Erlbaeko has no intention of respecting consensus. Volunteer Marek  19:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I am respecting consensus. You are not. I can find diffs to prove that there never was consensus to remove the section. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude, you were/are edit warring against five different people. It's ridiculous to claim you have "consensus" in that situation. Volunteer Marek  19:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's you, "My very best wishes" and Kudzu1, that is edit warring to remove it at the moment. That is tree users in my counting. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So in your mind an editor's input only counts if they edit war? VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I said, nor is it what I mean. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: that is not what the policy says. Per WP:ONUS, you are required to achieve consensus to include disputed material. Of course, even if there was clear consensus to include that does not make it permissible to edit war. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of that policy, @VQuakr:, but that does not mean that you just can delete sourced material that have been in the article for a long time, and then demand consensus to include it again. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You need consensus to remove sourced material, and that is basically what this dispute is about. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That isn't what WP:NOCON says. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved experienced administrator comment on this, please? It is important to get a clarification on the last statement. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Btw, here are the users that have opposed the removal of the Motivation section (by reverting the removement or commenting on the talk page/mediation):

• Erlbaeko Ref. diff
• BRG~itwiki Ref. diff
• Darouet Ref. diff
• Γνῶθι σεαυτόν Ref. diff
• Mnnlaxer Ref. diff

To me this means that there is no consensus for the removal, and that the ones that have removed it are the ones that are gaming. It also means that this block is made on wrong premises. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• • THIS is why it's impossible to work with you on this. You won't drop the matter, you keep beating the dead horse, you misrepresent discussions/rules/anything that serves your POV, you stonewall and obfuscate, you don't listen and you keep going and going and going and going with it until everyone's bored and tired and stops paying attention, and then you sneak back in and try to implement your own POV anyway. Then the whole circus starts again. Volunteer Marek  22:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I won't drop it. You only need to admit that you lack consensus for the removal. Then we can work constructively on improving it. Simple as that. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Volunteer_Marek reported by User:BRG~itwiki (Result: No violation)

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer_Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:26, 4 December 2015‎ (UTC) .. →‎Motivation and timing: there was obviously no consensus for inclusion of this highly POV and UNDUE material. Please stop trying to sneak it in.
2. 09:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC) .. I've "seen" the mediation. There was no consensus for these changes, people just got tired of telling you over and over again that they disagree. You then came here and tried to sneak it in
3. 09:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC) .. self revert for now but this is ridiculous WP:GAMING and disruptive behavior. Very much acting in bad faith
4. 15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC) .. yes, per talk and mediation, there's absolutely no consensus for these POV edits which you snuck in while mediation was still on going. If you want to continue the mediation that's fine but leave the article alone for now
5. 19:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC) .. there's no consensus for this, it's WP:FRINGE, mediation is ongoing and you two (someone who's been blocked for edit warring here previously plus a brand new SPA) are gaming the rules

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35] [36] [37] [38]

Comments:
The page had a "Motives" section since at least September 2013 (the page was created at the end of August 2013) and a "Timing" section since August. As I pointed out in the talk page it is common, if not customary, to have a section about the motivation of a crime or the objective of a military action. In June 2015 an edit war started and there was a vote to remove said section, which failed[39]. The talk to sort out the open problems is ridden with personal attacks and off topic discussions[40]. The only reason given for the reverts is that "there's absolutely no consensus for these POV edits [...] while mediation was still on going", but the section predates the mediation and the edit war that made the mediation required, so, if anything, it should stay there at least until the end of the mediation and not the other way around. BRG~itwiki (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a bad faithed report filed by a new single purpose account whose main purpose appears to be to edit war on the Ghouta Chemical Attacks article. As a few other users have noted on the talk page, the whole thing is fishy and there's a good chance this is a sock of a previously banned user (trying to figure out the sock master).

Also, there's been no 1RR violation here, at least not by me. I did make two reverts on 12/4 but after the second one I immediately remembered that there's a 1RR restriction on the article and self-reverted. User BRG~itwiki very dishonestly presents my self-revert as one of the reverts. That right there tells you what kind of an account this is.

On top of that, there was no 3RR warning either. User BRG~itwiki just includes the diff of the notification of this discussion as if it was a warning.

WP:BOOMERANG please. Volunteer Marek  18:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Q.E.D. More baseless and gratuitous accusations, prompted by a stubborn unwillingness to discuss the issue. BRG~itwiki (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No, this has been extensively discussed, mostly during mediation. But this is a noticeboard for discussing behavior of users rather than content. There are good reasons why unregistered IPs and obvious SPA with less than 50 edits (like your account) should not be engaged in edit wars in subject areas that are covered by discretionary sanctions. If they do, they can be (and in my opinion should be) indefinitely blocked. This is one of the reasons I reverted your edit on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is another false statement, My very best wishes. A simple search found 612 edits. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

My account is older than yours. The said section was there (for good reasons btw) when the still ongoing Mediation started, so removing it is against the rules. Doing it again and again is really obnoxious and off-putting and it is a symptom of the vested interest that is behind many edit wars on sensitive articles on Wikipedia. BRG~itwiki (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Your account was started on May 7 2015 and has 27 edits, about half of them to this article. Your thinly veiled references to my editing on articles you've never edited with this account clearly indicate that you've had previous accounts here (your assertions about the mediation are also false, but nevermind). Volunteer Marek  17:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• No violation BRG~itwiki warned about WP:GAMING NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @NeilN:: BRG~itwiki has made yet another revert without discussion to the article: [41] -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @NeilN:: User:Volunteer_Marek has also made yet another revert to the article: [42] Erlbaeko (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

there's an ongoing mediation on this very issue and there's no consensus for inclusion. Someone - not saying it's you, but someone - is trying to sabotage the mediation process and consensus by using a throw away single purpose account, BRG~itwiki, to edit war. We should leave the article as it was during the mediation process and restart discussing it at the mediation talk page. Volunteer Marek  19:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And there still hasn't been any violation, Erlbaeko, so this is just more evidence of bad faith on your part. Volunteer Marek  19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And semi-protecting the article in the meantime would be a *very* good idea. Volunteer Marek  19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Erlbaeko, after BRG~itwiki, who was explicitly warned for gaming, reverted. BRG~itwiki blocked for gaming. Enough. Volunteer Marek, the article is semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User: H1N111 reported by User:Bleckter (Result: Indef)

Page: White Latin Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: H1N111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He was blocked.

Comments:
The user was blocked yesterday [47] and today continues reverting editions. Also he was blocked for personal attacks. [48] [49] [50]

• @H1N111: block him/her longer, he attacks other people. 333-blue 00:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User picked up right where they left off when the block expired. Has this become a case for an indef? Their account was created on November 25. If User:H1N111 will promise to behave better in the future the matter could be reconsidered. I'll leave a note for the editor. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Have a good evening gentlemen, for my part, I promise to not say insults and make personal attacks. But first, I want to remind to Mr.Johnson that I explain him why I reversed the edition of Mr.Bleckter, and also what I said the same in the talk page, I want to see what he says about it.--H1N111 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

H1N111, if that's the best you can do I'm planning to go ahead with the indefinite block. You continued the war right after your last block expired, showing you have no intention of following our edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

honestly, the page White Latin American was in perfect condition but I said, for the umpteenth time, that genetics has nothing to do with race, and Mr. Belckter mistook race with genetics, but I start to believe that all this was planned against me, but no matter, I will not put my edition, because sooner or later the truth will be known. The lie hard while truth comes. Greetings (and don't disturbed me again)--H1N111 (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Before I leave, I'll leave this note of November 23: I come to label that the user Blecker after to accusing me and put his hands on data of Argentina and Costa Rica, he did not follow editing, this could signify a WP: SPA.--Special:Contributions/190.148.92.240 (User talk:190.148.92.240) 21:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC) --H1N111 (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – User continued warring on the same article after their block expired. No appropriate response to warnings. Personal attacks and battleground editing, 'removing your trash.' EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Timber72 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result:User warned)

Page

Nontrinitarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Timber72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 693919895 by Laurel Lodged (talk) The claim may be supported by "sources", but if the "sources" are invalid, so is the claim."
2. 22:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC) ""Sources" are not sources if they don't line up with fact. That is what Wiki is about: fact. If I publish a blog that says "the moon is made of green cheese", you don't get to add that because it is from a "source.""
3. 22:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "The sources are not reliable if they publish that which is not true. Are we going to have a "the chicken or the egg" debate about it? RELIABILITY depends on FACT. Otherwise, by definition, it is UNreliable."
4. 05:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "So, if one self-publishes, it's"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Nontrinitarianism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite being directed to policy and guideline pages, the editor still doesn't appear to understand essential concepts such as what constitutes reliable sources. FyzixFighter (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: User warned. I am disappointed nobody has done this before.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Timber72 here: this "warning" is without merit, and the comment "I am disappointed nobody has done this before" betrays a lack of neutrality that is against Wikipedia policy. I am perfectly familiar with Wikipedia's "what constitutes reliable sources" policy. The problem is that these people simply do not AGREE that the source is reliable, which is mere opinion, and not verifiable. Warning editors and threatening editors, and hiding behind a "these edits aren't based on reliable sources" is against Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timber72 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:FyzixFighter reported by User:Timber72 (Result:No merit)

Page

Nontrinitarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC) FyzixFighter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,894 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (rv - actually wikipedia is about verifiability, not WP:truth, RELIABLE sources support this statement, a self-published blog is a source but is not a reliable source) (undo | thank)
2. 22:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC) FyzixFighter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,879 bytes) (-93)‎ . . (Undid revision 693934175 by Timber72 (talk) - a self-published blog is not a WP:RS)
3. 22:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC) FyzixFighter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,894 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (and fixing this to be in accordance with Abrahamic religions, where many reliable sources are provided that support this)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Nontrinitarianism. (TW)"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nontrinitarianism>

Comments:

Verifiable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, have been added. "FyzixFighter" seems to have a problem with religious views that may potentially conflict with his, has been involved in edit wars before, and thus does not seem to be able to maintain neutrality about the topic.

Also, one of the edits mentioned is a keystroke error, the result of hitting "enter", thus saving the page, before the reason was properly documented, and thus not a violation.

Timber72 (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A few technical points - First, the timestamps and links for the diffs of the reverts are wrong - they look like the remnants of a cut-and-paste of the immediately preceding report. I believe diff 1, diff 2, diff 3 are what User:Timber72 intended. Second, diffs 2 and 3 are consecutive edits without any intervening edit. Third, the diff of edit warring Timber72 listed is actually the warning that I left on his/her talk page after Timber72's third revert. Perhaps Timber72 was referring to this warning which Timber72 placed on my talkpage, which honestly seemed a bit odd to me since I had only reverted once at that point. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: No merit, closing, the filer warned. Please see the above request.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:113.210.128.87 reported by User:CatcherStorm (Result:Page protected)

Page

TVXQ albums discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "You are indeed dumb asshole!! The reporeted say TVXQ! sold more than 1 Million in Japan alone in 2013 and around 900,000 ~ 1,000,000 Million in 2014, so how the hell TVXQ!'s records sales sray the same over the years? TOTAL it you dumb asshole. Nice try!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on TVXQ albums discography. (TW)"
2. 06:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on TVXQ albums discography. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There are multiple more reverts on the page that this IP made. For some reason I wasn't able to select these reverts using Twinkle, so please look at TVXQ albums discography's page history to see the edit warring. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting! This IP has been repeatedly reverting my edits, adding in her own unsourced content about the group's sales figures. This IP completely disregards the fact that there is already an official number reported about the group's sales figures (KOR: [51] ENG trans: [52]), which I added on the page, but she keeps taking it out. I told her to recheck her so-called "sources" to understand why I had to revert her edits, but she ended up attacking me. According to the older edits on the TVXQ page, I have a feeling that this IP is the blocked user MugenDarkness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Darkreason (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: Page protected by NeilN--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Kudzu1 reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kudzu1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 16:36, 4 December 2015
2. Revision as of 02:27, 6 December 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]/[55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]. See also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ghouta_chemical_attack#Item_4_-_Deal_with_the_rebel_motivation_issue_and_UNDUE_in_the_whole_article

Comments:
Note this report is connected to the cases above (same article, same content). It is not a 1RR violation, but he has repeatedly restored his preferred version, and he do so to fight other editors.

Erlbaeko (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• By "repeatedly", I assume the reporter (who was reported above for a much more convincing 1RR violation) means "twice", with well over a full day intervening. I suggest the reporter be patient and wait for me to actually violate a 1RR or 3RR restriction before reporting in future. I expect he or she may end up waiting a long time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

From the sanctions you said you were familiar with (here), it appers that you may be blocked for edit warring, without further warning, by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. Thank you. (Not that this is the first offence.) Erlbaeko (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, it's clearly not an "offense", but good luck to you in your little vendetta. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Warned Erlbaeko I'm really tempted to block you for making three reverts in three days and then reporting Kudzu1 for reverting twice in two days. See WP:GAMING NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN Please see the report above. This is clearly a revenge report by Erlbaeko. The fact that Erlbaeko filed this report and then continued to edit war [57] basically evidences how bad faithed this report was. Note also that Erlbaeko has been warned previously about gaming the 1RR restriction. Several times: [[58] [59], [60]. Blocks are suppose to be preventive not punitive. Well, here is where we need a preventive block since it looks like Erlbaeko has no intention of stopping. Volunteer Marek  17:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Marvin 2009 reported by User:STSC (Result: blocked)

Page: Epoch Times (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:
User: Marvin 2009, a single-purpose account editing on Falun Gong related articles only, is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia and persistently reverts and removes edits which he regards not favourable to Falun Gong. In this incident, he just kept removing "anti-communist" description from the lead of the article regardless of other editors' inputs. STSC (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What User:STSC said is simply not true. I was to add back two removed contents from reliable sources:

First one: In the February 2007 interview with The Associated Press' Nahal Toosi, the English Epoch Times chair Stephen Gregory said: "It's not a Falun Gong newspaper. Falun Gong is a question of an individual's belief. The paper's not owned by Falun Gong, it doesn't speak for Falun Gong, it doesn't represent Falun Gong. It does cover the persecution of Falun Gong in China."Nahal believed to say Falun Gong "owns" Epochtimes can be technically inaccurate, while many Epoch Times staffers, including Gregory, are Falun Gong practitionrs.

Second one: In 2008, David Ownby, director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the Université de Montréal and the author of Falun Gong and the Future of China said the newspaper is set up by Falun Gong practitioners with their own money.

In addition, i did not remove the "anti-communist" description. I only moved it from the first paragraph to a different section based on the discussion on talk page.

Plus, I am not single-purpose account. I edited other pages like People's Daily as well. User:Sinceouch2422 might qualify for this title. On this page, recently I saw User:Sinceouch2422 keep adding lines from a blog source and removing lines from the reliable sources. I discussed this on talk page a few times and tried to correct such edits for protecting the article.

Finally the warnings User:STSC put on my talk page previously was not fair. At those occasions it was User:STSC lunched multiple editing wars. This time, i just noticed the note User:STSC put on article epochtimes talk page a few hours ago. It was my time after mid night. I am going to response to the note, which does not have any ground. Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You have persistently removed the relevant descriptions from the lead disregarding other editors' inputs.

You're a SPA because your edits have been mostly only related to Falun Gong, even on other articles.

STSC (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

STSC reported me on multiple items. Now do you acknowledge only two items left? As to these two items, let me explain. In the talk page there is no consensus that the "anti-communist" label should be put in lead. In fact I proposed to move it the article at least twice. It seemed that nobody disagreed. So I moved it to the correct section a few times. On Wikipedia FG related articles, I saw the similar situation occurred as if decribed in a westernstandard.ca report titled with "Embarrassed by reports of live organ harvesting, CCP sympathizers launch a high-tech disinformation campaign" [[Sowing Confusion]. Some IDs like User:STSC and User:Sinceouch2422 who have been fooling around, hiding reliable critical info against China Communist Party, so sometimes I tried to prevent the damages they caused. Otherwise i could be involved in more other pages. It is User:STSC and User:Sinceouch2422 who do not respect editing policy in FG related pages and always launches edit wars. If going through your two record in recent months, this is quite clear. Thanks. Marvin 2009 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits are undefendable; other editors had put back the 'anti-communist' in the lead but you alone kept removing it, and within 24 hrs you have removed it 4 times. STSC (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You guys kept deleting the critical info from the Washington Post without any grounds. I was addressing that issue. I did not revert or deleted the anti-communist label, and just move it a correct place on consideration of the discussions. Plus the wrongdoing you did previously (like disregarding the consensus one talk page and deleting Canadian parliament info etc.), actually I am the editor who should report you and User:Sinceouch2422 here. Simply I did not want to get you guys into any trouble, so i did not report. Now you reported me. i have the same feeling as that time i responded to your warning on your talk page a few weeks ago. At that time, you put a warning on my talk page, but in fact it was exactly you and User:Sinceouch2422 who severely defied WP:OR, WP:NPOV and other wiki policies and should be warned. Marvin 2009 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

References

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Katie^talk 19:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:STSC reported by User:Marvin 2009 (Result: stale/no violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 10:25, 28 November 2015
2. Revision as of 12:09, 28 November 2015
3. Revision as of 17:08, 28 November 2015
4. Revision as of 03:50, 29 November 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]]

Comments:
Note this report is connected to the cases above (same article, same content). It is not a 1RR violation, but he has repeatedly restored his preferred version, and he do so to fight other editors.

Marvin 2009 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Stale Katie^talk 18:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:TruthIsDivine reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result:blocked sock)

Page

Defensive gun use (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Help! This user is attempting to add statistics that aren't in the references he cited. Please block him from Wikipedia! Undid revision 694064339 by Clpo13 (talk)"
2. 22:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "You are a fraud. The article you link to does not say 33 million. Show me the inlinecitation or stop LYING. Use some common sense, vandal Undid revision 694063935 by Clpo13 (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC) to 21:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Are you stupid? 33 million is not logically possible. Undid revision 694055972 by Gaijin42 (talk)"
   2. 21:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Yes, let's restore the fraudulent 33 million figure which you made, you intellectual fraud. Undid revision 694055551 by Gaijin42 (talk)"
   3. 21:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted clear vandalism by GaijinUndid revision 694053525 by Gaijin42 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "{{subst:alert|gc}}"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Please watch out for pro-gun fraud in this article, when I originally found it yesterday, there had been a completely made up figure of 33 million defensive gun uses annually, a logically impossible figure someone just made up. Beware of gun-lovers!..."
2. 22:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Pro-gun fraud in this article */ r"

Comments:

See also edit warring at Gary Kleck and the multiple personal attacks as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked Sockpuppet of Kingshowman. Katie^talk 19:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:‎Lokato reported by User:Jolly Janner (Result: )

Page: List of countries by literacy rate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Lokato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74] (as blocked user 166.48.141.173)
4. [75] (by IMusikkForeva; pressumed sockpuppet)
5. diff
6. diff
7. diff
8. diff

Prior to my involvement in the article (1 November 2015), I noticed the edit still popped up:

• [76] (166.48.141.173)
• And sometimes spilling into other articles: [77]

After doing a major update to the article according to CIA World Factbook, Lakota has, for the past month, been removing all sources of data for Bandladesh which put its literacy rate at about 60% (instead insiting that the the government's own source of 70% is the only valid answer). There is discussion at Talk:List of countries by literacy rate#Disputed data for Bangladesh and User talk:Lokato#List of countries by literacy rate. Essentialy I disputed that the CIA was the best source and he that the CRI was the best source, so I decided to request a third opinion. ONUnicorn suggested adding another column to include both of the data and I agreed, although Lokato failed to engage in discussion. Worldbruce has also commented that UNESCO would be a less POV source and to use a third column. As a result, I converted the entire page to UNESCO data (it was mostly the same at CIA, including for Bangladesh) and put two figures for Bangladesh: one from UNESCO and one from CRI. I thought this would end the dispute, but even after this, Lakota has continued to remove the data from UNESCO and insist that CRI's data is the only correct one. I've been unable to get any discussion with the Lokato lately and the edit warring is still continuing. Hopefully posting this topic will make Lokato take the edits more seriously. Jolly Ω Janner 02:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:68.231.26.111 reported by User:The Almightey Drill (Result:IP blocked one week)

Page: Portal:Current events/2015 December 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.231.26.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Wow, I am not going to manually list them all: look here

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here

Comments:
Phoenix-based IP which is reverting me at a prolific rate when I correct the name of a British newspaper. Has made absolutely NO attempt to discuss, not a single word, despite several requests for his/her logic. '''tAD''' (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not the first time that this IP has engaged in edit warring behaviour. The user was recently edit warring at Supergirl (U.S. TV series) and acting very uncivil to those who reverted him (especially User:AlexTheWhovian). DarkKnight2149 03:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Arman ad60 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

Page

History of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Arman ad60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "The negative parts of Islam is not acceptable. Please don't revert my edit without taking with me."
2. 21:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Included text from an earlier version. Mr. Eperoton, It was mentioned in the original version."
3. 20:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Included text from an [earlier version]. It was mentioned in the original version."
4. 20:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Mongol invasions */ Removed humiliating part of Timur."
5. 19:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Included some text from an [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Islam&oldid=644966462 earlier version]] and removed some unnecessary parts in the end."
6. 10:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "/* City-states and Imperial period */ I have changed some sentences in the beginning of the section. I think they were wrong"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on History of Islam. (TW)"
2. 22:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "/* December 2015 */ trying to clarify"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor continued to revert after warning and clarificationI think there may be a competence problem here. See talk page also for extended discussions. Doug Weller (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one week. A review of the talk page confirms there may be a competence problem as well as some difficulty with English. An unblock might be considered if the user will agree to wait for consensus on the talk page before making further changes at History of Islam. He may have trouble editing neutrally on a topic close to him. One of his edit summaries says "The negative parts of Islam is not acceptable." EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Rafe87 reported by User:CFCF (Result:24 hours)

Page: Biology and sexual orientation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rafe87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [82]
5. [83]
6. [84]

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

Hist of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments: By way of defense, I'm calling attention to the fact that the user who filed the complaint unilaterally decided to remove extensively referenced content from the entry, and when challenged on his behavior, all he could only vaguely muster in justification was that "Wikipedia guidelines" allow for removal of sourced content. The excuse he gave for one such removal is that one scientific theory defended by the author of one of the articles was widely criticized - but my edits never made reference to THE THEORY, only to the EMPIRICAL findings mentioned by the author, which, by the way, were produced by research teams that have nothing to do with the author (who was only describing the research) or his theory.

I don't also see how I'm guilty of edit warring. I reverted the content removal, and when reverted myself, I reverted back. In my understanding, this is not a violation of 3RR. Rafe87 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You are obviously guilty of WP:Edit warring; read that policy. And WP:3RR is but one portion of WP:Edit warring, and it is clear that "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." and "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

This is what the article looked like before the recent cognitive additions and edit warring. Per what is stated at the bottom of Talk:Biology and sexual orientation#Heterosexual vs. gay material, and poor sourcing, I was going to report Rafe87 here, but CFCF beat me to it because I had other matters to attend to in the meantime. Rafe87 has also engaged in WP:Personal attacks at the talk page; see here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of WP:3RR by User:Rafe87, which normally calls for a block. There's also the issue of personal attacks on Talk:Biology and sexual orientation, "You have been maniacally hostile this entire fucking time". EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 19:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:176.233.218.150 reported by User:Eteethan (Result: Blocked)

Page

Visa requirements for Turkish citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694210706 by Eteethan (talk)"
2. 20:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694209716 by Eteethan (talk)"
3. 20:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694207403 by JoeSakr1980 (talk)"
4. 19:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694204060 by Twofortnights (talk)"
5. 18:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694196088 by JoeSakr1980 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Visa requirements for Turkish citizens. (TW)"
2. 20:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Visa requirements for Turkish citizens. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:70.199.83.173 reported by User:Jab843 (Result: )

Page

Fascism in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

70.199.83.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)2600:1017:B41C:3E19:E0B1:F855:AC64:33C0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC) "Look there are about 1000 references where Trump is being called a neo-fascist. Mostly by his party. If you'll allow me I'll gladly addUndid revision 694249006 by Philip Trueman (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) to 01:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 01:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694248777 by 2602:252:D5E:C250:C972:B05:E727:E537 (talk)"
   2. 01:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694248760 by Philip Trueman (talk)"
3. 01:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694248466 by 2602:252:D5E:C250:C972:B05:E727:E537 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments: Won't take pause and has switched accounts.

This is demonstrably false. I've accepted others changes to my edits. Please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.83.173 (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Bigbaby23 reported by User:James26 (Result: blocked )

Page: Holly Holm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigbaby23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88]
2. [89]
3. [90]
4. [91]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:

User has been blocked twice before for edit warring. This person has ignored attempts at communication and has not cited any policies, simply resorting to name calling. -- James26 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang on 3R. The editor above is just abusing wk policy to try and push his pov.Bigbaby23 (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see myself violating the three-revert rule within a 24-hour period on the page's history. Your opinion of me is incorrect too. The fact is you've violated policies, just as you have before. -- James26 (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. Last block for edit warring was one week. Katie^talk 14:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Maverick.Mohit reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Page protected)

Page: Bhakt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maverick.Mohit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Several reverts have been taken place the past few days, in an attempt to censor this page. Today, Maverick.Mohit reverted 5 times, which is edit-warring:

• IP 106.219.50.191 11:44, 7 December 2015: "I have written the original definition of the word "Bhakt". This word is of sanskrit origin and had been widely used in the scriptures of Hinduism such as BhagvadGita, ShrimadBhagvatam, Narad Bhakti Sutra etc."
• IP 123.201.152.142 20:38, 7 December 2015: no edit-summary
• Debasishsinha 21:52, 7 December 2015: "removed the misinterpretation"
• Maverick.Mohit 10:36, 8 December 2015: "Corrected the opening lines of article. What ever was written before is already mentioned in article. Request trolls to not treat wikipedia as facebook or twitter."
• Maverick.Mohit 15:18, 8 December 2015: "Don't spoil the article."
• Maverick.Mohit 15:23, 8 December 2015: "Already mentioned in previous edits that this can't be opening for the article. Things are already mentioned in recent usages."
• Maverick.Mohit 16:09, 8 December 2015: "Did you cared reading details of my previous edit? Bhakt is an ambiguous term known mostly in Hindu religion. you can't spoil it."
• Maverick.Mohit 16:21, 8 December 2015: "Ok will discuss"

It's clear that this page is not about "bhakta," but about "bhakt"; removing the summary of the term "bhakt" from the lead are therefor misplaced.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• diff talkpage

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
The term bhakt has religious meaning ahead of political or social media troll terms. So opening of an article can't have a different introduction as per wikipedia policy. Whatever is being mentioned by you and others seems motivated by political vendetta. Please help wikipedia remain free from trolls. As this is even used in facebook by trolls. I just tried improving the article as Bhakta and bhakt have different meaning and that meaning is more about religion rather than poltical. You also never cared discussing on talk page. Now you are acting on grudge. Maverick.Mohit (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I requested for protecting page as it was being edited by being politically motivated. This can't be opening of an article which has a different meaning all together. Disappointing that you acted on his complain,even i could have nominated him for edit war.Maverick.Mohit (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)