Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:40, 29 January 2016

• 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:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Darouet (Result:no action)

Page: Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi (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: and

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
FreeatlastChitchat nominated Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi for deletion, and the result was keep. After that, the user removed large portions of content from the article 4 times within 24 hours, and three of these removals were reverts. The user has (at least some) valid concerns about content and can edit productively to address those. However, the 3 reverts in 24 hours after a failed deletion nomination clearly indicates a behavioral issue as well.

I am NOT recommending a block, but kindly request that an admin warn FreeatlastChitchat that this isn't acceptable behavior, and that their concerns can be addressed using other means. I saw they had a raft of blocks recently and a warning for them to cool off and approach this more productively would help all, I think. -Darouet (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum - FCC has apologized and self reverted, and the third revert genuinely appears to have been accidental. FCC's content concerns are serious. I am not requesting a warning and don't believe one is merited in this particular case. -Darouet (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment I haven't edited this article, but surprised that FreeatlastChitchat has removed large scale material five times in the last two days given how recently they were warned by Drmies after the ANI monster case. As so often before, FCC is right, concerning the content. Had I seen this article before instead of here, I would have supported FCC's interpretation. I have no recommendation to make (not my place) but I would implore FCC to change behavior. Despite our differences, I don't doubt your knowledge and you often do good things. But edit warring really is big no even when we're right. And in this case, you were right. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Jeppiz. I have no background on Hadith, and am a little underprepared to evaluate the quality of sources that should go into an article about Islamic texts. I appreciate FCC's substantial post on sources, and was reading more about those earlier today. But I was surprised by their deletion of the background section I added in an effort to improve the article, and the edit warring just isn't helpful. I think that if FCC's objective is to improve the article, there are far more constructive ways of using their energy to do so. -Darouet (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have little to offer here: I scolded Freeatlast for their intemperate word choice, not for anything else. I haven't looked at this article since Freeatlast was reverted twice; I thought they started talk page discussion, with an RfC, after I advised them to do so. What I did notice was that some of the sourcing proposed at the AfD (in which I did not participate) was extraordinary weak (vanity/POV publishing), and that is why I was wondering if Freeatlast didn't have a valid point with their removals of information. That doesn't invalidate the charge of edit warring, of course, but it is to say that we're not simply dealing with someone blindly removing well-verified content. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Reading more about the dispute, I think FCC is correct that many provided sources are woefully inadequate. For the most part, Mhossein's rebuttal's of FCC's critique suggest a major competence problem for Mhossein. Nevertheless the blatant edit warring after the failed AfD is a behavioral issue, and the last revert was not supported by policy, nor by content problems. A better use of FCC's time, if they really want to invest in this topic, is exploring what sources are appropriate for commentary on Hadith. -Darouet (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Defence@Darouet and @Drmies I fail to see how this can be called edit warring.

I reverted Mhossein and Nadeem once, which makes two reverts but the third "revert" is not removing anyone's information. It is more of a self revert. I restored the article to a version "BEFORE" the the time I edited. It removed my own edits. I would like to apologize to Darouet if his background section was also removed, but I did not keep in mind that he was editing the article as well. I simply restored the article to a stable version and reverted "MY OWN" edits. You can clearly see that it is not removing anything that is being discussed. I am merely undoing my own work. If in this process I have inadvertantly removed Darouet's background section I can just put it back in. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have reinserted the text by Darouet.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: I accept that explanation, believe you made an honest mistake and thank you for self reverting. Your concerns about sourcing for the article are not trivial. I am curious to know what kinds of texts are available to provide basic sourcing for Hadith and other historical and literary documents that pertain to Islam. This seems to be an important issue, since the Hadith probably deserve to be (neutrally) described on Misplaced Pages. -Darouet (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Declined, seems to have already been resolved Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsley Man reported by User:Rebbing (Result: )

Page

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Parsley Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701889652 by 108.174.119.237 (talk) You messed up the section!"
2. 04:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Sigh."
3. 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701888586 by 45.26.44.116 (talk) There are still protesters present."
4. 04:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701888010 by 62.107.223.152 (talk) Completely unnecessary."
5. 04:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "There are still supporters present at the refuge."
6. 03:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701878540 by Rebbing (talk) What are you talking about? You just changed the titles."
7. 03:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701877443 by Rebbing (talk) Not sure what this is about."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:35, 10 January 2016
2. 20:47, 14 January 2016
3. 01:33, 19 January 2016
4. 08:42, 23 January 2016

Comments:

My attention was called to this user's behavior when he repeatedly reverted my efforts to fix this page's citations. Looking at this page's history and the comments on his talk page, this appears to be a pattern.

—  Rebbing  talk  17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Only two sets of two appear to be reverts of the same material--for 3RR we need four. There is no proof of edit warring in this set of diffs. Parsley Man is thanked for their cleanup efforts: one of the edits messed up the formatting, and two of the edits claimed the affair was ended; it hasn't ended, as far as I know. Rebbing, please inform yourself of the relevant policies before you bring someone up on charges. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: The text of WP:3RR (and the definition at the top of this page) says that "n editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." You say that I've only shown two reverts of the same material, but the text of the rule repeatedly says that it doesn't matter: it defines a revert as "any edit . . . that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." The diffs I've provided show: (1) an editor (2) performing more than three edits that reverse the actions of other editors (3) on a single page (4) within a 24-hour period. Is there anything else needed to show a violation of the rule?

And, by my understanding of the policy, there is no exception to 3RR for reverting good-faith edits that are merely incorrect or make the article ugly: there is an exception for "obvious" vandalism, but the policy explains that "editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism."

I did not bring this claim on a whim: I brought this because I thought this behavior was unhelpful, a clear violation of policy, and something about which the editor has repeatedly been warned. If I'm out of line, I sincerely apologize, and I will cheerfully drop the matter and return to editing, but I would appreciate being shown the error in my thinking. Thank you.

—  Rebbing  talk  04:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well, Rebbing, I guess you showed me. Good work. Let's get a real admin, like EdJohnston, to look at this situation. Personally, I'd never look at these edits as in any way disruptive, though I did look at that talk page before I closed it and saw what you saw. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather leave this open until User:Parsley Man has a chance to respond to the message on his talk page. The edits may be helpful but he has been acting as though he is immune from 3RR. He has received lots of 3RR warnings by different people during January and we need to find a way to get him to pay attention to this. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Oof! There's no need for sarcasm; I'm not out to prove anything here. I'm not familiar with the Misplaced Pages bureaucracy, but I want to be useful, and I honestly thought bringing this case was the right thing to do. Have I misunderstood the rule? Is the rule only enforced when the violation rises to a certain level of disruption? Do you simply not care? I'm not trying to make this into a drawn-out discussion, but you said I ought to inform myself of the relevant policies, and I believed I had. Thank you. —  Rebbing  talk  05:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing, I wasn't being sarcastic. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My bad, and I see EdJohnston's comment. Thanks. —  Rebbing  talk  05:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not daunted by this. I admit that I've done wrong and I am willing to accept whatever punishment comes my way. Parsley Man (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:XavierGreen reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Protected)

Page

Luhansk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "There was no consensus to change the infobox"
2. 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702027981 by Iryna Harpy (talk) I did read the talk page, there is no consensus to change from what was originally here"
3. 00:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702029754 by Iryna Harpy (talk) There is no consensus for change, see DPR Talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "/* POV pushing on Luhansk People's Republic */ new section"
2. 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Luhansk People's Republic. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor has ignored the talk page indicating that the use of a 'war faction' infobox has been discussed here on the Donetsk People's Republic's talk page, and has reinstated the 'geopolitical organization' infobox on that article despite there being no policy or guideline-based arguments for 'geopolitical organization' having ever been used for either article from the inception. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not ignored the talk page, in actuality i viewed the talk page in question in which there clearly is no consensus to change to the 'war faction' infobox. Given that there was no consensus to make the change to the 'war faction' infobox, i merely reverted it back to what it was before the discussion had begun. I note that i have not engaged in any edit war, i have not broken the 3 revert rule, but do note that User:Iryna Harpy appears to be abusing the noticeboard here in attempting to muscle through what they themselves desire the infobox should be. As i stated above, multiple other editors on the relevant talk page objected to changing the infoboxes to 'war faction' and i posted my view there as well. There clearly is no consensus for change.XavierGreen (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I also will note that User:Iryna Harpy deleted an edit war warning i had place on their talk page just prior to her filing this complaint about me here.XavierGreen (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment (From uninvolved) The warning was on the user page, if that makes any difference. GAB 01:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear i put it there by accident, almost immediately after i had clicked on their username i saw that this complaint was filed here, so i must not have noticed i was not on their talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Xavier is back as an IP, clearly to avoid scrutiny. The same edit summary is used. RGloucester — ☎ 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several IP editors showing up there to continue the edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected two weeks by User:KrakatoaKatie. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ichsumit reported by User:Dksats (Result: Malformed report / No action)

Page: Sumit Kashyap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ichsumit (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:

(Non-administrator comment) 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. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ghost of hugh glass reported by User:MShabazz (Result: Indeffed as sock puppet)

Page: Social Justice Warrior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ghost of hugh glass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. These are just a few of the editor's recent reverts. They have repeatedly recreated a "popular culture" section even though it has been deleted by several different editors

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Social Justice Warrior#"Popular culture" section

Comments:
I don't know whether Ghost of hugh glass has violated 3RR, but they have been edit warring since they started editing the article. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive305#User:Ghost of hugh glass reported by User:96.253.53.16 (Result: ).

I've pinged the editor, but I will not notify them about this report because they made it very clear that I am not welcome at their talk page. — MShabazz /_Stalk 12:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• - Comment - I've left the required notice on their talk page. Onel5969 12:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. — MShabazz /_Stalk 12:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• "I don't know whether they have violated 3RR." Sure you do, you checked and I have not. Or else you would have reported me for it. Disagreeing is not edit warring. This is just a continuation of your harassment campaign against me, which you should be sanctioned for. I'm working to improve the article and you're trying to obstruct me. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Grow up. Tagging things that need improvement is not "obstructing you". — MShabazz /_Stalk 14:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • As usual, you lie about the facts (you've done far more than just tag things) and insult me while doing so. This report is nothing more than a continuation of your harassment of me and you should be sanctioned for it. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Keep it up. Your little temper tantrum is quite impressive. What would be more impressive would be some diffs to support your unfounded accusations of harassment. — MShabazz /_Stalk 14:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Glad we agree you lied about the facts and that you lie about the facts regularly. You've done much more than tag things. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - After taking a look at the edit history and the talk page, this appears to be a clear case of edit warring, over the addition of the cultural section. The place to reach consensus is on the talk page, not through constant BRD edits. The section should be struck until a consensus on whether or not to include is reached on the talk page, and closed by a non-involved editor. The editor has been informed of the 3RR rule on at least one other occasion, and replied that they now understood the rule. Onel5969 13:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I do understand the 3RR rule and I'm fairly certain I haven't violated it. It's not a 'no revert rule' it's a '3 revert rule.' If any revert is edit warring, the person who reported this is also guilty. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment Actually you're mistaken. While violation 3RR leads to an automatic block, edit warring is very much discouraged and users can most certainly be blocked for edit warring even if not exceeding three reverts within 24H. 3RR sets the red line for where automatic blocks kick in, it definitely does not condone making 3 reverts, especially not against a consensus to the contrary. Jeppiz (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

From WP:EW "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring" -- ok well multiple editors have done that, including the person who reported me here. Though my edits have mostly come with improvements, addressing issues raised. While they are just reverting. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ghost of hugh glass - AGF, I'm taking it that you simply don't understand the concepts of the 3RR rule, or of edit warring. One of the guiding principles of WP is consensus. When editors disagree, that process must be invoked, or else you have articles which become unstable through edit warring, which this one has. While other editors have multiple reverts, only you seem to have taken it beyond the level of disagreement and into edit warring. This is in part due to the fact that you are the only one in the edit history which has your viewpoint, while there are several other editors who disagree with you. Please attempt to build consensus on the talk page, before making the attempt to include the disputed material. It would go a long way to showing good faith on your part, if you deleted the disputed section yourself, until consensus can be reached. Onel5969 14:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Other editors are repeatedly restoring their preferred version of the article, which is how edit warring is defined at WP:EW. If I'm edit warring, then so are they. WP:EW specifically says that believing you are right is no excuse, yet you are excusing what they've done due to the fact that they agree. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I've blocked and tagged Ghost of hugh glass as a  Confirmed sock of DegenFarang (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Ghost of hugh glass has at least 5 reverts to different parts of the page in the last 24 hours or so: His comments here and on the talk page make it clear this problem isn't going to stop.--Cúchullain /c 15:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Outback1964 reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: 24h)

Page: First Fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Outback1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:33, 28 January 2016
2. 11:04, 28 January 2016
3. 11:13, 28 January 2016
4. 11:22, 28 January 2016
5. 11:22, 28 January 2016
6. 11:40, 28 January 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: talk page warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 3rr warning

Comments:

I came late to this incident, through my morning vandalism patrol. The above editor had already reverted 6 times, and while they did take the advice of another editor and "take it to the talk page", they have not waited for consensus to be reached. As far as I can tell, consensus about this cited material's inclusion is far from being reached. I've warned them on both the talk page and the user talk page, but that was after the 6 reverts, so if they agree to wait for consensus, no action may be needed. But I felt that with the plethora of reverts, it should at least be brought here. Onel5969 13:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. The user stopped reverting after warning. I suggest waiting for a day, and, if they do not resume, close as no action.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Mildly, there's a rough consensus on the article talkpage to remove some or all of this material as being irrelevant to the topic. Not to condone edit-warring but it would be helpful if those reverting the removal of the material also contributed to the talkpage discussion about why they feel this material should remain. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Follow up - Unfortunately, Ymblanter - they haven't stopped, I guess they were just off-line for a bit, see here. In fact, their comment on my talk page, would indicate that nothing short of a block is going to get them stop their disruptive editing. And, Euryalus, I wouldn't say there is a consensus on the talk page. There is discussion, and has been on and off for 2 years, about inclusion or exclusion of this material. I don't care to weigh in on that discussion, and my reverting is simply a matter of procedure, since this user is clearly in violation of the 3RR rule. Onel5969 21:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  Blocked them 24h. No idea about what the consensus is (I checked they did not use the talk page though).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness, Ymblanter, they did make 2 comments on the article's talk page here and here. Although, now they've begun to revert the information from an ip address: see here - I know it's them, since they left a message on my talk page from the same address (which I've deleted as nonsense). Regardless, thanks for stepping in. The sad thing is, they might have a point, but they simply need to learn how to achieve consensus. Onel5969 22:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Boomer Vial reported by User:217.17.137.178 (Result: Protected)

Page: Fast Low-Ionization Emission Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boomer Vial (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 reverting edits for no reason other than to be disruptive: first claiming "unexplained removal", perhaps having not bothered to read two clear edit summaries (, ), and then bizarrely claiming NPOV. Additionally leaving inane messages repeatedly despite clear request not to. The material I removed from the article and which this editor is restoring was either false or irrelevant or both. 217.17.137.178 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh, you were to busy leaving edits with summaries that were in violation of WP:CIV, such as this, this, and these . I left a clear message of why I reverted your edits, as well as an apology on my talk page for mislabel your edits as (Unexplained removal of contents). You're response were these clear violations of WP:CIV, which i warned you about. Please just stop. Your edits are in clear violation of WP:NPOV. Consensus is not editing Misplaced Pages to read to your standards. Boomer Vial 23:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected three days. There isn't a 3RR violation here, but there is an edit war. My guess is that Boomer Vial, a new editor since January 2, may have over-reacted to the removal of a paragraph, though the IP's removal was in good faith. The level of diplomacy shown by the IP in his above comment doesn't help the situation. Please use the talk page before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah report by anonymous user (Result=no violation)

Just look at the the Macross Delta page. He's done around 5 reverts this hour against an edit warring IP. I myself have done 2 reverts on the page. Requesting 24 hour block for Oshwah (and minitrout) and a protection of Macross Delta. 96.237.18.103 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 96.237.18.103. The reversions you see were for blatant vandalism, which does not constitute edit warring or count towards 3RR :-) ~Oshwah~ 00:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ok (: 96.237.18.103 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP vandal has been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23! ~Oshwah~ 01:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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