Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zander251 (talk | contribs) at 02:33, 25 February 2016 (→User:Jkaradell reported by User:A guy saved by Jesus (Result: ): Add note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:
The articles on which the edit warring occurred are subject to Misplaced Pages: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 (). 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 04:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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 Misplaced Pages 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), " mental disease", "you are a liar" and etc). Stop block block block please. Mhhossein (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Page

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971:

List of converts:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971:

- Here is a survey that was discussed in depth.

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

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

List of converts:

- Extremely lengthy discussion spanning for literally months.

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

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Talk:Utah#pornography_in_utah

Comments:

please help!  :-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

dif

dif

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. - note, done via a sock account

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Edit warring is shown in reverts.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• I've told him several times to stop edit warring and that JayFrance co-produced the song. It's just some random ip address who does nothing but vandalize that song's page and it's accompanying EP page.

Comments:

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

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

User:Jkaradell reported by User:A guy saved by Jesus (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring