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:LightandDark2000 reported by User:2A01:CB04:63D:D700:2135:C5BE:CDA7:AA6D (Result: )

Page: Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking 1RR:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 13:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 Revert 2 13:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is 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. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria & Iraq modules. His bad faith edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000 and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000. In spite of being blocked many times for breaking 1RR, he continues to edit war & broke 1RR again. 2A01:CB04:63D:D700:2135:C5BE:CDA7:AA6D (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Those were size changes, not really anything related to content. In any case, I fail to see any good reason why you reported me, other than to get me thrown off of Wikipedia. In any case, the vast majority of your written arguments are biased and inaccurate; they sound like personal attacks to me. By the way, you can't report someone just some users are complaining or have personal issues with another. Also, the way you wrote about me sounds like you might be a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of a former user who was blocked from Wikpedia (though I could be wrong); there were multiple users blocked, some of whom are now socking, due to violating Wikipedia policy in that topic. BTW, I did not turn every single user against me, and I was not "blocked many times for edit warring", and I do not "continue to edit war" (the last time that happened was in November 2015), at least not intentionally. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

But if what happened constituted edit warring in any manner, I deeply apologize. It was not my intent, and I will take more steps in the future to prevent or mitigate future conflicts like this one. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: )

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)

User:Fez120 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

Page

Kosovo Liberation Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fez120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "See talk page! Sourced content is wrongly interpreted."
2. 20:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705489621 by FkpCascais (talk) No reasons were given for last revertion."
3. 19:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705469498 by 23 editor (talk) The text in the source is presented as accusations, not as facts. Also why did you revert my changes?"
4. 17:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Aftermath (post-1999) */ FRY accusation to gather support for their case are not facts. If y2000 incidents happened surely there must be better sources."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

The user was blocked for 31h for edit-warring on another article (also covered by discretionary sanctions for Balkan-related subjects; diff for DS-alert) 10 days ago so they know the routines.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

POV edit-warring, repeatedly deleting sourced content they disagree with. Thomas.W ^talk 21:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that he also commented in article space.--Zoupan 21:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days by User:Slakr. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: also WP:ACDSed to 1RR for 3 months, too. Twice in one month isn't a good sign. :P --slakr^\ talk / 04:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aricialam reported by User:Reiuji (Result: protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1[diff]
2. 2[diff]
3. 3[diff]
4. 4[diff]
5. 5[diff]
6. 6[diff]
7. 7[diff]
8. 8[diff]
9. 9[diff]
10. 10[diff]
11. 11[diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: #1[diff]

1. 2[diff]

Comments:

Editor Aricialam has been previously reported and warned by several editors for edit warring. The result of that was the page being frozen. Notwithstanding this, for the past few months now,User:Aricialam has reverted more than 20 edits in an attempt to keep the Calvin Cheng page as a piece of puffery. Myself, User:Lemongirl942, User:Khairulash, User:JQTriple7, several anonymous editors around have all tried to improve the page but are all getting reverted by Aricialam. My previous attempt to raise the issue on the talk page was met with the section on the talk page being deleted wholesale by Aricialam. Clearly this user has not shown any intention of engaging in any serious discussion and is merely using reverts and delaying tactics to wear out other editors in an attempt to keep the current state of puffery.

Reiuji (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have now engaged with Aricialam and some progress has been made. I do not feel any action is necessary at the moment. Reiuji (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected --slakr^\ talk / 03:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:209.66.197.28 reported by User:Zanhe (Result: 31h)

Page

Taipei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Tongyong Pinyin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Pinyin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), many others

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC) "enough bullshit with the wrong characters.nobody in taiwan uses the wrong tai anyways. stop reverting wtf."
2. 20:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "wrong.nobody uses that tai in traditional. the taiwan on taiwan beer is there because it was founded under japanese ruler. nobody uses that taiwan."
3. [11] "wrong characters removed"
4. [12] "stop reverting to completely wrong chinese characters!"
5. Many more, see user contribs

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [13] from LiliCharlie
2. [14] from Jayaguru-Shishya
3. [15] from me

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [16] on Talk:Chinese Taipei
2. [17] on Talk:Puzi

Comments:

Can administrators please take action already? This disruptive IP has been edit warring for weeks across a number of articles against multiple editors. An ANI complaint was filed last week, in which at least five users complained about the IP, but it was neglected by admins and became archived before action was taken, leaving the IP free to make disruptive edits again. Zanhe (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Please take action. Note that this user was reported last week on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I have put a lot of effort into attempts to engage him in dialog on several talk pages since February 9th, most recently on Talk:Taipei, but he has steadfastly refused to discuss, apparently preferring to edit war. Phlar (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Put an end to these abuses. This user has been distracting lots of serious editors from their work far too long. I wanted to explain them why all their edits are against the manual of style for China related articles and why their use of the |p= parameter of template {{zh}} for Tongyong Pinyin is incorrect but they don't show any interest in discussion or cooperation. Instead they keep doing the same thing that seems ideologically motivated over and over again. Do something now. LiliCharlie (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 03:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon self-reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: warned/troutted)

Page: Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

I am self-reporting myself for edit warring. I have no excuse, but as an explanation, I simply forgot about the first revert (in the body of the article) and thought that I was at 3RR for my reverts of the infobox -- and I really should have stopped at 1RR or 2RR. I am well-aware of our policy, and clearly violated it. For what it is worth, I apologize and I won't do it again. Please note my record: over 30,000 edits and ten years as an editor with zero blocks. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Troutted — And here. Take an {{Alert}}. Now just chill, take a deep breath, and either use the talk page or get some fresh air. Just don't do it again, because it's a WP:ACDS area and self-reporting what appears to be an honest mistake will only ever work once, if that. Be a cool voluntary 1RR-er like many of us. --slakr^\ talk / 03:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks. 1RR it is. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Satesclop reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Catalonia protected)

Pages:

• Catalonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Basque Country (autonomous community) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Valencian Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29]
7. [30]
8. [31]
9. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments: Multi-user edit-war among no less than three articles and probably more than those. A current flare-up of nationalist vs. separatist sentiment among Spaniards. Page protection has been declined. Elizium23 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely false. I am not nationalist. The user Elizium23 is clearly separatist and supports that the articles of three regions of Spain include maps as if it they were countries or Europa's nations, and they only are regions. It is unacceptable that these maps appear and it has been discussed in the corresponding pages. Satesclop 03:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protected. I have full-protected Catalonia for three days, as that has had the most back-and-forth on it. In his defence, Statesclop has stated his position on the talk page, and while Basque nationalism can exhibit some of the most contentious politics in Western Europe, I have to assume good faith he is trying to get a consensus for his changes, so a block is not appropriate. If the other two articles exhibit similar levels of edit warring, consider filing a request at WP:RPP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Since we can't edit the Catalonia article anymore, I request to recover the text and the maps that most users agreed to display — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion Satesclop's behaviour is not good as he's constantly edit warring and he's done canvassing — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

With all respect, @Ritchie333:, you may have overlooked data, Satesclop's attitude is nothing short of "my way or highway", breaching the basics of WP at all levels, consensus and trust of the editors. The disruption of Satesclop on other pages may continue for the boredom of other editors. Please do read the talk pages, there is no consensus attempt at all, only rant. I do not understand the comment on Basque nationalism (irrelevant), we could go through details on Spanish nationalism or mafioso policies of some political agents if you want, which I do not thing applies here anyway. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have read the talk page. I don't see much discussion before January, and following that I would say that Statesclop has generally responded in kind. All I see is a few editors complaining that somebody has a strong POV they don't like. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Really? Well, that is not what I am seeing with my own eyes and what other contributors are seing. Check out this and this, and this, plus the following WP:JDLI tantrum of the editor in question. You know, good editors are leaving the EN WP because of this kind of Satesclop interventions with no consequences. Plus the editor has engaged in canvassing, plus... (sigh). Iñaki LL (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bonadea reported by User:Spidermanandsuperman (Result: Reporter blocked)

<!Article name :List of records of India

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]
7. [41]
8. [42]
9. [43]
10. [44]

<!Please take necessary action <!Bonadea is sock puppet of nsmutte.Bonadea name entered in to the list of Nsmutte sock puppet list [45] <!Please take necessary action(1000mnb (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)) Please verify the primary and secondays sources of this matter .This is indian record created by a doctor,can see in primary source ..←So kept in the "list of records of india"page.I cant understand what is the mistake in this.Bonadea and releted socks wantedly try to delete this above matter from the page many many times.It is purely personal attack on the doctor(1000mnb (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

• Obvious block evasion. 1000mnb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte, continuing a long-term pattern of harassing Bonadea, including by making frivolous edit-warring reports. The OP is a blocked sock, as is Coolcool1000, who filed another frivolous AN3-report against Bonadea yesterday. Thomas.W ^talk 10:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked indefinitely Obvious block evasion by Spidermanandsuperman/Nsmutte. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

References

User:WrestlingPS456 reported by User:Krj373 (Result: )

Page

 

User being reported

WrestlingPS456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Seems to be edit warring on wresting based pages. Not quite sure what is going. May be a sock puppet of banned user. I am not familiar with the subject matter to understand what is going on. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 15:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note Appears to be an ongoing ANI report about the same user. See WP:ANI#Martimc123. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:71.17.185.31 reported by User:Jess (Result: Blocked)

Page

Intelligent design movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

71.17.185.31 (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 21:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC) to 21:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 21:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 20:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC) to 20:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 20:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 20:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [46]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aelimian21 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: )

Page

2015–16 Norwich City F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Aelimian21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705868049 by Qed237 (talk) Please, inform me why you are repeatedly reverting or undoing to protect your preferred version."
2. 00:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705863724 by Qed237 (talk) It is adding more detail."
3. 00:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705857428 by Qed237 (talk) Why?"
4. 23:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705847574 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
5. 22:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705846570 by Joseph2302 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2015–16 Norwich City F.C. season. (TW)"
2. 01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015–16 Norwich City F.C. season. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring against multiple users at 2015–16 Norwich City F.C. season, 2015–16 West Ham United F.C. season and 2015–16 Southampton F.C. season. Editors User:Joseph2302 and User:Andre666 have opened discussions at User talk:Aelimian21#Your edits and User talk:Aelimian21#Southampton season article respectively, but despite that and warnings for edit warring the editor has continued their disruption. Qed237 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree, I've made clear at their talkpage that the WikiProject Football consensus is to only list a player's primary position, not all of them. They've made no attempt to communicate or try and gain a new consensus on the matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have simply tried to put more detail onto the page, I don't see the consensus. You are the one Edit warring because you were the one that was repeatedly reverting or undoing to protect your preferred version.Aelimian21 (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I also tried to receive a explanation on User:Joseph2302, as I have opened a discussion on his page.Aelimian21 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It was posted on my userpage, not my talkpage, so it was deleted.

Also, my talkpage comment and the other one clearly explain that no other Wikipedia football article does it- the reason is it clutters the page, has little value, and is unsourced.

Also, I made 2 reverts with clear edit summaries and attempted to talk to the user- they have made 5 reverts, and so unless they self-revert, they should be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The editor has continued doing the same thing on other articles and show now sign of listening and following community consensus. Qed237 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree a block is overdue, their editing is disruptive, edit warring, and in some cases just plain incorrect (Graham Dorrans has not played much or at all at RM or LM for Norwich this season, so listing him as either is just plain wrong). And their "discussion" on my userpage was just telling me not to revert them, which is not a discussion at all.

Possibly a good-faith editor, but needs to learn to cooperate with other members of the community. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't personally see how it "clutters the page" because at most maybe 3 positions more will not be a inconvenience. I should listen a bit more to others, but as should you as I just want to see were it says that only the primary positions should be shown. In 2015–16 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season some of the extra positions were there already, I simply added more. Graham Dorrans has not played much at RM or LM for Norwich this season, but he has played there before. Aelimian21 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

So Dorrans shouldn't be listed as playing there in this season's article, since that's entirely misleading (he hasn't played there this season). Same for about half the positions added on the Norwich season article, they haven't played there.

And as explained at your talkpage, more information isn't always necessary, per WP:INFO. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Dorrans has played there in the past, which allows people to see the positions he can play. In this case it is necessary to provide info. Aelimian21 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aidepikiwnirotide reported by User:Thomas.W (Result:24h)

Page

Qajar dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Sure, always I prefer to discuss so I explained my "logical" reason, but apparently you along with your friend are doing "Edit-War". Perhaps some editors here think that Wikipedia belongs to them and their friends!"
2. 14:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "As mentioned in Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti article it was ruled by Iran ["...from bringing it fully back within the Iranian domains."]whereas Iran was NOT ruled by Russia, but also it lost "ONLY A PART OF" its territories which means totally different."
3. 12:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "As mentioned in the article Qajar is "AN IRANIAN DYNASTY" So, the next dynasty must belong to Iran not other country such as Russia or any other county."
4. 10:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "losing a part of a country by another country is a usual matter in history. It is not an exception."
5. 02:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Russia is unrelated to this article that is about history of Iran"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Qajar dynasty."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

POV edit-warring against multiple editors. Thomas.W ^talk 14:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

edit-warring against "multiple editors" or a "cartel!" ? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC), clear 3RR violation and I see no discussion at the talk page Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W and User:Sapphorain and User:LouisAragon reported by User:Aidepikiwnirotide (Result:filer blocked 24h)

Page

Qajar dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Thomas.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sapphorain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and LouisAragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

These user work as a cartel - a tricks to show that a single user is against multiple users. - Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Baseless nonsensical allegations against three users. Hmmm... what's that thing flying over there... - LouisAragon (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A totally frivolous report in retaliation for the report above. Thomas.W ^talk 15:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours, clear 3RR violation and I see no discussion at the talk page Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:58, 20 February
2. 11:56, 20 February
3. 12:46, 20 February
4. 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 [48]. 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 Vial^Holla 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 Vial^Holla 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 Vial^Holla 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[49][50]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 Vial^Holla 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 [51]. 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[52], 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 Vial^Holla 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASunni_Islam&type=revision&diff=695674599&oldid=694623618an 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 Vial^Holla 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 [53]. There is no mention of Sufi. This is the Dec edit [54]. 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 [55]. 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[56], 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[57] 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 Vial^Holla 10:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Look, do you see Sufi in this edit where I explicitely removed it [58]. 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 [59] 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".

User:Alexander's Hood reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: )

Page: Monarchy of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alexander's Hood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 20:30, 19 February 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:55, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 20:30, 19 February 2016‎)
2. 17:51, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 17:26, 20 February 2016‎‎
3. 17:54, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 17:26, 20 February 2016‎‎
4. 18:49, 20 February 2016‎ (reverts to 18:39, 20 February 2016‎
5. 19:07, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 18:49, 20 February 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60] (also warning earlier in edit summary here)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Monarchy of Canada#"Succession and regency" update

Comments:
FWIW, I think 'more eyes' are needed on the article-in-question, concerning the content being disputed. Dare I say it, an Rfc might be required. BTW - such an Rfc, won't be started by me. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: Alexander's Hood is not as new a user as the account's edit history might suggest. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe SPI, is the proper place for that. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact, User:Miesianiacal is conflating separate issues and also overlooks his own edit warring. For example:

1. 17:53, 20 February 2016
2. 17:35, 20 February 2016
3. 17:01, 20 February 2016
4. 22:49, 19 February 2016

In any case, the issue seems to have been resolved. Alexander's Hood (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's evident at least one of those could in no way be classified as a revert. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, you class as reverts this edit and this edit which do not touch upon the content of the article at all but in which I removed your tag with an edit note explaining how, in fact, your tag was unwarranted -and you do this despite the fact that your subsequent edits appear to accept the source as legitimate. These last two edits are quite separate from the other three and conflating them in order to create the impression of a 3RR violation is unwarranted, particularly as, again, your subsequent edits accept the validity of the sources.Alexander's Hood (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what a revert is. But, it's not me you have to prove anything to. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it didn't occur to me that the last two edits counted as reverts and I have accordingly self-reverted the last two edits and will be more careful in future. However, I think you should attempt to be more collegial in your editing and less belligerent and perhaps this tagging dispute could have been handled better by raising it on the Talk page. Alexander's Hood (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Your "self-revert" restored the tag but reverted my additions and changes to the third paragraph. So, your tally still stands at five.

I suggest you not be hypocritical about other people's attitudes. You won't win hearts and minds that way. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to be accommodating but since you're after a pound of flesh I am voluntarily ceasing editing for several days. Alexander's Hood (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm a WP:RETENTION member & this type of reason to go on a wiki-break, isn't nice to see :( PS - Return soon, Alexander's Hood. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)