Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:29, 28 November 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.

User:184.91.62.109 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 72 hours)

Page

Snopes.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583306204 by Gamaliel (talk)"
2. 23:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Accuracy */ Only opinion with no factual or credible backup."
3. 20:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Accuracy */ disputes the accuracy through Supreme Court Documents. Also disputes accuracy of the william ayers situation. If needed far more discrepancies can be listed or a separate category can be added. Snopes is bias as well as factcheck."
4. 08:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Accuracy */ statements from the subject about themselves is not an acceptable standard. Snopes has been debunked as far as politics is concerned. There are many more references if needed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Snopes.com. (TW)"
2. 23:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "edit warring at snopes.com"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

There are three other edits that fall outside of the 24 hr window. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. Edit warring and apparent POV-pushing. The IP has removed well-sourced material that he seems to have personal disagreement with. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:117.90.241.193 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Semi)

Page

List of tallest buildings in the world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 2nd damaging vandalising POV by John Blackburn. Prior to 1997, Hong Kong would have been able to be listed under "country," but after the year 1997 Hong Kong's ownership was transferred from the United Kingdom to China Hong Kong is part of China"
2. 00:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC) "That GDP is list is also factually incorrect and needs to be corrected as Hong Kong, China, you people are destroying the accuracy of Misplaced Pages. It is an indisputable fact that Hong Kong is a self-governed city belonging to China, unlike your beliefs!"
3. 00:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC) "Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, but it is NOT a country. The category you guys are trying to list Hong Kong under is "Country" of which Hong Kong does not qualify because Hong Kong is just an autonomous self-governed city of China"
4. 23:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "Reverted damaging inaccurate edits from Baseball Watcher that are laced with false information. Hong Kong is a city and territory of China. This is official and recognized by the United Nations. To list Hong Kong as a "country" is vandalism and POV"
5. 23:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "Reverted POV pushing by John Blackburn to non-POV version. Everyone can go google Hong Kong and see the accurate indisputable fact that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (aka. Territory) of the country of China. Hong Kong is NOT a country!"
6. 22:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "Reverted to correct factual non-pov version from previous POV edits that were pushed by Thomas. W who is trying to push his Hong Kong nationalistic and separatist pov by trying to list Hong Kong as a "country" when it is not. Hong Kong is a city of China!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of tallest buildings in the world . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

There are several users: Thomas W., John Blackburn and Baseball Watcher who are trying to push there Hong Kong separatist POV that Hong Kong is supposed to be a "country" when the indeniable fact is that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, it is officially a city and territory belonging to the mother country of China and as such in order to maintain truthful accuracy and non-POV it is necessary to list Hong Kong under it's mother country of China. Hong Kong by itself is NOT and has NEVER in it's entire history of existence been a so-called "country" and what these Hong Kong separatists are trying to do is destroying the accuracy of Misplaced Pages as a repository of truthful information. Please intervene and feel free to read about Hong Kong and confirm for yourself that it is just a SAR of the People's Republic of China and NOT a country. Thanks! 117.90.241.193 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Two points. They all appear to be edit warring. Hong Kong is part of China. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one year. The protection log shows this is a long-term problem. I don't know why Pending Changes didn't prevent the IP's reverts. But in general I believe Pending Changes is better against drive-by vandalism than for long-term POV pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Thainguyencc reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

I also believe the user was also using an IP for this dispute ]. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and my request ] It appears that it is only being objected by one user. Full protection might be needed.

The biggest problem I see is it's being claimed it's a fake map but no improvements are being suggested but the fact that I also believe the reported user was previously the IP complicates matters. I myself am up against the 3rr barrier so I am taking it here.

What do you think if a map not show California, Texas... are not an English-speaking areas without source? --Thainguyencc (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comments

The actual issue at hand is a bit dicey. Knowing where to look, one can find the source, but it is poorly explained. Thainquyencc may be over 3RR, Hell in a Bucket definitely is is at three - there's no way to cast either edit as clear vandalism or anything. Protection is probably more appropriate than blocks for everyone. WilyD 14:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually reverted 3 times as it appears to be an unsupported change. The 4th edit you see is a revert of a modification to the protection template ] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this is correct - there's a fourth revert of someone else in the jumble of reverts, HIAB is at three reverts, not four. WilyD 14:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And ] the changes continue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I replaced by a new map, and added source, not revert.--Thainguyencc (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated on the talkpage "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." this is directly from the 3rr policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. It looks like Thainguyencc began the edit war using IP addresses and then continued with his registered account after semiprotection was imposed. It is fair to add up all his reverts when deciding on sanctions. In this edit he put the words "Kwamikagami's fake image" into the text of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Zavtek reported by User:IJA (Result: Blocked)

Page: Hiking in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zavtek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This user is a suspected WP:SOCK: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. This user was also topic banned from all Kosovo related articles. IJA (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

To the person dealing with the issue, I have self-reverted and that is how the article shall remain. Zavtek (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Since Zavtek is a sock, a block is inevitable, one way or the other. bobrayner (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Shervinsky reported by User:Andrux (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3. . This revision was done by anonymous user, however, Shervinsky put his nickname instead of the IP as showed in this diff.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I tried to discuss the issue at the talk page, and suggested to user Shervinsky to prove his statement by providing a reliable reference, but he refused to do so continuing editing war.

--Andrux (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I myself started the discussion but have been involved into an edit war by users who don't even react to arguments by pure claiming they are "not convincing". Please make users participate in the discussion. --Shervinsky (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Shervinsky's contributions in the past have been nothing less than argumentative, uncivil and based on dubious editing practices. I would be more than happy to provide examples of lengthy discourses and attacks on editors rather than content in the past should it be required. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"nothing less than argumentative, uncivil and based on dubious editing practices" — WP:NPA detected. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could offer a neutral way in which to define blatantly hostile, POV edit comments such as this one; creating section names on talk pages such as this or this; edit warring by several reverts where citations and translations of non-English citations were noted on a new article he/she created and calling legitimate requests 'vandalism' and 'trivial' and, if you follow the trail, as being violations via harassment and disruptive editing; ingenuous interpretations of established information. The pattern in the choice of articles Shervinsky works on and the attitude which he/she brings to the table can, by no means, be interpreted as isolated instances (they are merely the tip of the iceberg with regards to conduct elsewhere). Would you consider blanking and overwriting existing articles in politically sensitive areas without even attempting to first enter into a discourse on the talk page to be reasonable, good faith, cooperative or civil editing practice? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Aless2899 reported by User:DESiegel (Result: No action)

Page: Societal attitudes toward homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aless2899 (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:

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality#Use of File:Status of gay persons.jpg (entire section is about this one item.

Comments:

Entire issue consists of repeated insertions of File:Status of gay persons.jpg. See talk page and user page reasons given for not using this policy-violating image. DES 23:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

DESiegel, you did not give Aless2899 a WP:Edit war warning; notifying Aless2899 of this report is not a warning. Aless2899 is a WP:Newbie, obviously; WP:Newbies usually do WP:Edit war until they come to truly understand how this site is supposed to work (and even then some of them carry on with their WP:Edit warring reputation after finally becoming experienced Misplaced Pages editors). Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough I was perhaps too quick on the trigger, although this talk-page warning came prior to his last revert. But he seems to be engaging on the article talk page now, and not continuing to revent, which is the important thing. DES 00:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Since this new editor was almost certainly not aware of our edit warring policy, I suggest that this be closed with no action. - MrX 04:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Based on the above discussion, I'm closing this report as a block would serve no legitimate purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

User:FilmandTVFan28 reported by User:Two kinds of pork (Result: )

Page

Tara Platt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FilmandTVFan28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Threats are not allowed."
2. 04:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583483609 by Two kinds of pork (talk)"
3. 02:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Her filmography is correct. Please do not attempt to undo it. I don't want to have anymore problems again."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I've been through this with him before last week, so it's not like I haven't tried to talk to him already.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

This editor apparently doesn't appear to understand that we require sources for all articles, especially for BLPs. Can someone please try and explain this to him? I've notified the BLP board about this article. Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Being an experienced user for 6 years with BLP issues, I already restored the filmography section and added sources from either side per WP:V and WP:BLP. Just so you know, you are a new user who has edited Misplaced Pages since June and FilmandTVFan28 has had more experience on Misplaced Pages and is a competent user. The situation appears to be resolved. I'm sure he understands we require sources for BLP, as I explained to him on my talk page. Can someone please close this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I'm going to leave this open a while longer. The two parties have been edit warring, and others are also entering into the fray. That should stop until a consensus is reached on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Enigmatic666 reported by User:Jianhui67 (Result: Blocked; semi-protected)

Page

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

User being reported

Enigmatic666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583537089 by 87.114.254.100 (talk)"
2. 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583535669 by 87.114.254.100 (talk)"
3. 14:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583534428 by 87.114.254.100 (talk)"
4. 14:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583532170 by 146.90.240.199 (talk)"
5. 14:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583530155 by 146.90.240.199 (talk)"
6. 13:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583527003 by 146.90.240.199 (talk)"
7. 13:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583522819 by 146.90.240.199 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Genieo. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I later semi-protected the page for five days due to what appears to be block evasion and/or sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Alhanuty reported by User:HCPUNXKID (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Yabrud is rebel controlled,and douma and marj al sultan airport are not besieged."
2. 23:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583590813 by HCPUNXKID (talk),there is no source on douma being besieged ,marj al sultan airport is not besiege ,fighting is reported not in Yabrud ,check the edit history and talk"

I've had given two reliable sources (Bomber kills 15 west of Damascus and Syria regime, foes reject compromise) about that two towns be besieged, as it can be seen on the edit history, but this user seems to ignore it.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol,the second one was my self-revert,and for douma and marj,it was from a Saudi-website making an writing error of besieged,no other source said that douma and marj is besieged ,and for Yabrud I can't find a source confirming Yabrud is contested,no English source confirming Yabrud,also I didn't edit war,the second one was my one time revert,I rarely edit in this article.and he brings up unneutral sources. Alhanuty (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And I am not willing to further argue in this issue,and he can keep it as it is nowAlhanuty (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And there is still conversations on the talk page about the issue.Alhanuty (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

For the source of Yabrud is a Spanish source that some editors might not be able to read.Alhanuty (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I found no source stating that douma is besieged from all directions by Assad Alhanuty (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And this map proves my argument that douma is not besieged from all directions.https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(September_2013).svgAlhanuty (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And I repeat again,that the map can be left as it is,I have. No intention in reverting his latest editAlhanuty (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And my second one was my self-revert,no edit warAlhanuty (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that its an editing error or we have simply to believe you? And could you write in columns like me in order to not mess up the discussion, if possible?. And about the claim "I rarely edit in this article", just look at the articles edit history, if you call that "rarely"...As far as I know non-english sources are also allowed. There are for example arabic or french language sources and no one has objected using them...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Like for example,I don't understand Spanish,my second edit was a self-revert,I am not an active editor,no need to go further,and I said I have no intent to push this issue furtherAlhanuty (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Also the map shows marj al sultan as not besieged,and I want to inform you,that there is a region called al-marj and a city called marj-all sultan and an airport called marj al sultan.,you made the airport besieged without any source.Alhanuty (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Alhanuty, just about nothing you say above is correct. You reverted twice. You never self-reverted. You don't "rarely" edit the template; you have frequently edited it before. Nevertheless, although not required, you have never been officially notified of the general sanctions (I've done that just now on your talk page), and you claim you'll leave the article alone; hopefully, that one statement is true. That doesn't prevent another admin from taking action, but I'm not. HCPUNXKID, your report was malformed. Please don't make it harder for administrators to evaluate a report that you file.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

,never meant to edit war,but for Yabrud,like not everybody understands Spanish,and for douma and marj,I showed that map that proves my argument Alhanuty (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Also,there is no source that marj-all sultan airport is besieged .Alhanuty (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:50.171.11.116 reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: )

Page: Indiana Jones (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.171.11.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

And many more

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
So this user seems to refuse to accept the reality of Disney's control and plans for Indiana Jones, which are already well documented in the article (and therefore its inclusion in the template is also warranted). The user constantly reverts any attempts to restore the cited material, using snide edit comments, and blanked outright others' comments on the talk page discussing the matter (see here). The user had previously been warned about edit warring on these same pages in August but blanked them immediately (see here. Clearly not able to collaborate with others or accept consensus or verifiable sources.oknazevad (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring