Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:51, 4 June 2013

• 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.

Click here to create a new report

User 98.193.225.142 (Result: Malformed}}

In the course of attempting to remove an item that apparently contains invalid citations on the entry page 'Jim O'Rear' my edits have been continually undone by editor 98.193.225.142 who deletes these valid edits and accuses me of "vandalism" each and every time. I posted two entries in the talk page that were deleted by another editor, one rightly so, but the other, which I have since restored is factually based and indicates why neither credit appears to be a "reliable source" as both are privately printed books that are either co-authored by the subject entry, or feature an interview with the subject entry where he simply repeats his own claims of being in the film in question, despite no other evidence of his purported involvement would appears to exist. The editor has also re-worded my own talk page entry and altered it, instead of responding to it. My attempts to resolve this issue where met with rambling accusations and are written diatribe describing what he considers to be his definition of "vandalism" including rather wild accusations. This subject of this page is a minor film figure of very questionable notability who cites many "uncredited" roles and stunt work in major motion pictures, but almost always cites questionable citations which in the past have included consumer reviews from sites like Amazon and Barnes & Noble as well as IMDB (in which anyone can add a film credit) It would appear that this page may possibly be a vanity page which is either written by the author himself, or somebody who has a close relationship with the subject. The page appears to be hyper vigilantly "guarded" by the primary editor with any edits that contradict what that editor wishes to be true quickly deleted as "vandalism". I would appreciate expedient attention to this matter. Thank you (Sellpink (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC))

Response to SELLPINKs claims...

User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Misplaced Pages takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)"

User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Misplaced Pages, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Misplaced Pages takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)"

User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Misplaced Pages, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Sellpink reported by User:98.193.225.142 (Result: IP 98.193.225.142 instructed)

Page: Jim O'Rear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User Being Reported Sellpink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jim_O%27Rear&diff=557546403&oldid=556857958
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jim_O%27Rear&diff=557914651&oldid=557678083
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jim_O%27Rear&diff=prev&oldid=557546403
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Jim_O%27Rear&diff=prev&oldid=557548364

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Sellpink

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jim O'Rear http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:98.193.225.142

Comments:User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Misplaced Pages takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)"

User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Misplaced Pages, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Misplaced Pages takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)"

User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Misplaced Pages, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan.

98.193.225.142 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Actually, Sellpink made only two reverts on this article and has engaged in a talk page debate. It seems rather that the IP has been heavily edit warring in this case, e.g. by repeatedly reverting (, ) a valid copyedit. Instead of reverting even more contributors you should have waited for consensus on the article talk page. Currently the edit warring seems to have stopped and this edit by Collect has been confirmed by several other editors. But if this continues, the article will be semi-protected. On a side-note, posting your paragraphs twice as you did above or here is confusing and unnecessary. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. removed fact Rothbard has an MBA from Columbia
2. removed new material as unsourced WP:OR when kept other material from same source; didn't ask for quote to verify;
3. removed new material;( also removed fact Rothbard founded Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics)
4. In info box changed economic history to Historical revisionism (probably beginning of attempt to introduce negative WP:OR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: . (He asked a question I replied to 10 minutes later, but given below I think that was fair warning.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Problems_with_6.2F1.2F13_edits is whole thing started last night, latest change after no reply and diff on another related issue

Comments:
As a PhD economist of some competing Austrian economics school, User:Specifico already has expressed contempt for Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises-related economists (as well as editors who he perceives as defending them) as at April 20 diff, April 21 diff,May 28 diff.

S/he is attempting to remove material with high quality sources describing Rothbard as a Misean who influence libertarianism, and material showing his academic and editorial credentials. S/he and another editor have twice removed Austrian school from the Infobox even though the fact he is an Austrian economist has four high quality refs in first sentence of lead, and more easily can be found. They replaced it with Anarcho-capitalism, even though there is no such economic school, and s/he uses refs that only say he influenced that ideology. When I pointed this out in the most recent talk page thread s/he ignored it, but opined in a separate one that the Economist infobox should be replaced with a general one. Yes, the article has far too many primary sources that need deletion and I'm helping clean that up, but it's getting frustrating having to explain real problems on the talk page, have to tag them to get their attention, and just be ignored while lots of questionable changes get introduced. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment – We are provided 4 diffs, dealing with different portions of the article, and at least 2 of them are well founded edits. Item 1 (diff 38), both degrees are in economics, but clearly a PhD is better than an MBA, so no need to list both -- Rothbard's creds as an economist are established. Item 2 (diff 39) removed clearly non-sourced info. (Perhaps there is more stuff that should be removed? SPECIFICO selected that one -- so what?) So, with 2 diff remaining, that editors may have a more basic difference of opinion on, where is the warring, what violations of 3RR are there? – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment The 3rr rule is that one should not revert to a preferred version more than 3 times within an 24 hours – not one should not edit more than 3 times within 24 hours. The 4 edits listed does not revert back to a 'preferred version' that was previously introduced or supported by SPECIFICO. From the edit history, it appears that Carolmoore is the one who has been reverting to a preferred version. This complaint is baseless, I suggest that someone explain to Carolmoore the difference between editing and reverting. LK (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The time period in question of what is a revert has never been established firmly (unless I've missed something in the last year), as I know from past discussions trying to clarify the matter. (I just noted two as new material since that also is relevant.) So just in case I tried to establish the larger context of POV pushing to remove material that makes the subject look good and put in material that makes him look bad and refuse to discuss on the talk page despite editing the article after talk page notes made. I know from past experience that LK doesn't think much of Miseans either; SRich may be annoyed at me for other reasons as an involved editor in ongoing problems at a series of articles. But if I've misinterpreted current policy as interpreted by non-involved, neutral editors, I do apologize. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Given OP's intensely critical comments to SPECIFICO on talk pages and the prior (erroneous and rejected) ANI complaint filed by OP against SPECIFICO, I fear that WP:Battleground may be in play here, particularly because the charges are (again) erroneous. Steeletrap (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: Article protected 48 hours. Both Carol and SPECIFICO appear to be editing on a topic where they have strongly-held personal convictions. Carol observes on talk that she herself is mentioned in one of the references. She is described as a left-libertarian activist who opposed Rothbard at some Libertarian conventions in the 1980s. SPECIFICO identifies himself as an Austrian economist. When you care about a subject it may be difficult to achieve neutral prose. I suggest that the editors use a Request for comment or some other method to bring in outside people who might help balance the article. The WP:RSN is something else to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ed. With all due respect, your comment above appears to affirm carolmooredc's ad hominem complaint against me in this matter. I am an Austrian economist, but aside from carolmooredc's undocumented personal ruminations and allegations, there is no evidence that I have edited Rothbard against policy. On an ANI or other complaint I'd hope that the issue would be stated and documented in terms of specific behavior and policy with diffs or other documentation. This is one of a series of escalating personal attacks that carolmooredc has brought against me and others recently. I've already stopped editing the Hoppe article because of them and I will now stop working on Rothbard. If you check the history of Rothbard, you'll see that carolmooredc had 4RR over the same period she cites, and unlike me, she did edit war back to her preferred content. I'm gone from that article, but other editors will continue to improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

After my first set of edits where I did some reverts I was careful and just added material or tagged material that the editor was ignoring on talk while continuing to edit on the article. Always glad to undo any accidental 4th revert. Also commented on all the templates you put up on the article, which were either valid or needed future discussion, so did not ignore yours. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Carol, these past couple of weeks, you've been way too eager in reporting people to ANI and AN3. It appears that you have become emotionally involved. May I suggest that you take this article freeze as an opportunity to step back? Above you show some confusion about what constitutes a revert. The WP:3RR policy is pretty clear: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." I revert when this sequence of action occurs: 'You change something, I undo the change.' That's why there's a "Previous version reverted to: " line in the 3RR report. It's pretty clear that Specifico was not reverting in some of the diffs you posted. You should understand the difference between an edit I don't like and a revert. Lastly, it doesn't help your case to accuse others of bearing a grudge against you, as you did above, all that shows is that you've adopted a battleground mentality. At this point it's probably best to step back, relax, and take a break. Remember, nothing on Misplaced Pages is permanent, you can work on getting it right next week just as easily as you can today. rgds LK (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Tieff reported by User:Rivertorch (Result: )

Pages: Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Suicide of Audrie Pott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tieff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is edit warring on two articles to insert content sourced to an unreliable source listed at Misplaced Pages:ELPEREN. Noticeboard thread: Misplaced Pages:RSN#findagrave.com_redux.

Multiple warnings issued to user, who has not responded to any of the messages on his or her talk page or participated in the discussion at article talk.

Diffs of the user's repeated edits at Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons (6 in <48 hrs.:

Talk page discussion is here: Talk:Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons#Date_of_birth_revisited.2C_and_sourcing

Diffs of the user's repeated edits at Suicide of Audrie Pott (4 in <48 hrs.):

User warned about edit warring:

Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have these articles on my watch list and have reverted Tieff's edits twice now, leaving warnings and comment. They are edits that appear trivial but are against consensus, against the spirit of WP:SUICIDES, and against multiple discussions. Date of birth is discussed specifically not only in the editor's talk page but on Talk:Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons#date_of_birth, as is the so called source. I'm starting to see the initial stages of WP:RANDY, so far without the support squad. What we have so far is relentless editing against consensus. Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Ccroberts123 reported by User:Frungi (Result: 24h)

Page: Mattel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ccroberts123 (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: I missed this line before. I did leave the warning, though, after posting here, and he has since been blocked. —Frungi (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire edit history of User talk:Ccroberts123 as of .

Comments:

Blocked - 24 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:OrangesRyellow (Result: Full protection for 24 hours )

Page: Anjem Choudary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The edit warring involves two different sets of data. The first two reverts are to edits by a third user, and the last three are to my additions of sourced content in the lead. All within 24h. I have placed a warning template on the user's talkpage just now. The last revert is a partial revert in the sense that may edit in the lead has been reverted, but the material which I added in the article body has been moved to another place in the article body and many of the sources have been deleted. I count it as a revert because I think the material should remain in the lead too, and the current placement in the article body is inappropriate. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Anjem Choudary#Pakistani ethnicity

Comments:

• Page protected Full protection for 24 hours. Discuss this on the talk page, please. Bencherlite 10:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KAME 1971b reported by User:1966batfan (Result: Indef)

Page

April 30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

KAME 1971b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2013-06-03T15:11:41Z "Undid revision 558139432 by Technopat (talk)"
2. 2013-06-03T15:11:05Z "Undid revision 558139347 by Technopat (talk)"
3. 2013-06-03T15:10:32Z "Undid revision 558139281 by 1966batfan (talk)"
4. 2013-06-03T15:10:06Z "Undid revision 558139216 by Amaury (talk)"
5. 2013-06-03T15:08:29Z "Undid revision 558138994 by 1966batfan (talk)"
6. 2013-06-03T15:07:36Z "Undid revision 558138854 by 1966batfan (talk)"
7. 2013-06-03T15:06:57Z "Undid revision 558138777 by 1966batfan (talk)"
8. 2013-06-03T15:06:09Z "Undid revision 558138567 by 1966batfan (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 2013-06-03T15:07:56Z "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on April 30. (TW)"
2. 2013-06-03T15:06:01Z "Caution: Unconstructive editing on April 30. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely as a VOA. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:77.56.43.218 reported by User:Mangoe (Result: Semi)

Page: Legendary creature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.56.43.218 (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:

There is a long discussion of how God got to be not a legendary creature at Talk:Legendary creature#Mythical creatures such as deities, i.e. gods & God

Comments: IP user has come in pretty much once a day, as their only activity, to re-add "God", without discussion. Page protection was refused, so here we are. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one week by another admin. This article gets a lot of drive-by edits from people new to Misplaced Pages. These edits usually end up being reverted. So a longer semiprotection would be something to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KARGOSEARCH2 reported by User:Delljvc

Page: Lingam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KARGOSEARCH2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Edit warring Delljvc (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

This is mostly a content dispute, although a new editor is pushing the same incorrect change with such frequency that it has passed 3RR already. An already poor article is having an unreferenced block of incorrect information added to it. The latest block is still there (and still misleading), but I'm at 3RR.

Note first that this is HTML element, not HTML. HTML could be considered as an "introductory" article where some flexibility in terminology might be considered useful to make it more approachable to a wide audience. However this is HTML element: the narrow, specific topic that is of particular interest and of a need to be exact and precise in its description.

Specific problems:

• Elements are not tags. This is not merely a misnomer, they represent different objects. This is the article in which this difference has to be explained precisely and correctly.
• Elements are not "text level elements". Some elements are related to text, others are not. This term is not merely a neologism, it's an invention, and an inaccurate one.
• (Most importantly) "element is a code declaration that contains instructions for formatting or rendering content online." is quite wrong for HTML in the last decade and a half: instead we carefully separate content (HTML) from its presentation (via CSS). This new statement completely contradicts this and so is grossly misleading. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of this distinction within HTML.
• %block; (vs. %inline;) is part of the HTML DTD and is relevant to HTML element. However the box model (as now added) is a purely presentational feature, belonging as part of CSS. The new additions persist in hopelessly confusing the two.

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring