Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:08, 12 February 2018

• 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:Charanreddy1984 reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: Declined)

Page: Transistor-transistor logic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Charanreddy1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:47, 6 February 2018, edit by 157.49.131.192 endorsed by Charanreddy1984 at 6 February 2018
2. 06:40, 8 February 2018
3. 06:52, 8 February 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Declined Charanreddy1984 has not violated WP:3RR nor have they been warned about edit warring at all. NeilN

User:5.65.189.83 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Ian Fleming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824965344 by MarnetteD (talk)"
2. 17:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824964923 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
3. 17:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824964056 by Sagaciousphil (talk)"
4. 17:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 824962213 by Sagaciousphil (talk)"
5. 17:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 788759965 by Sagaciousphil (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ian Fleming. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also note parallel behaviour at Stanley Kubrick. >SerialNumber54129 17:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Contributions page. >SerialNumber54129 17:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN 17:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Real tlhingan (Result: )

Page: Williams FW41 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Williams_FW41&oldid=821372729

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Williams_FW41&oldid=824661981
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Williams_FW41&oldid=824783503
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Williams_FW41&oldid=825012731
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Williams_FW41&oldid=825025793

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Real_tlhingan#Williams_and_Haas

Comments:

This user is vindictive. He has created this page when it was too soon and the content was deleted by another user. Since then, 3 different users have recreated the content, now that we have more info, and he comes in every time to remove content without reading it.tlhIngan 01:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not vindictive. I originally created the article, but it was turned into a redirect for being premature. I now happen to agree with that assessment; I simply feel that whatever new information has since been added is insufficient to justify recreating the article. If you compare Williams FW41 to the articles for other Formula 1 cars that have yet to be launched—namely McLaren MCL33, Red Bull Racing RB14, Sauber C37 and Scuderia Toro Rosso STR13—you will see that these articles contain substantial details about the design and development of the cars. The "new information" that Real tlhingan alludes to is the name of a person associated with the design of the car. Real tlhingan's accusation that I have not read the article is completely unprovable; I have indeed read the article and I feel that there is no substance to it.

Furthermore, WP:3RR states the following:

"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"

However, the four edits Real tlhingan has provided happened over the course of three days and other editors have previously agreed that the article was created too soon. He has made no attempt to discuss the issue; after I posted a message on his talk page, he came straight here.

Am I zealous in keeping on top of the articles? Yes, I am. But I have not broken 3RR and so this ANI report appears to be an attempt by Real tlhingan to try to force me into leaving the articles alone so that they can stay a part of Misplaced Pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, three of these edits happened in the space of a couple of hours. I also see a clear WP:3RR violation around the same time on Haas VF-18:One, two, three, four. I will also note that the edit-warring doesn't only come from Prisonermonkeys. The reported also made a considerable number of reverts. Williams FW41:, , Haas VF-18:,,.Tvx1 16:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"I also see a clear WP:3RR violation around the same time on Haas VF-18"

I don't think the fourth diff you have supplied satisfies 3RR. Real tlhingan insisted that the article should have been created and I was willing to hear him out—but until such time as he provided that additional content, I removed anything that was unsourced and decided to let others make up their own minds about the encyclopaedic value of the article. There's a big difference between turning the page into a redirect and removing unsourced content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Majid.cscm reported by User:Power~enwiki (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Western Marine Shipyard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Majid.cscm (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:
A slow-motion edit war, no WP:3RR violation. It's possible other editors are edit-warring as well, but this user is an SPA attempting to remove negative info. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Disruptive SPA NeilN 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dert45 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: User blocked)

Page: Auschwitz concentration camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dert45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dert45 is a sporadically used account that has been removing from the lead since 2009 that Auschwitz was in occupied Poland. He often replaces "in occupied Poland during World War II", with "in areas annexed during World War II", or edits to that effect.

First removal: 10:15, 14 August 2009

Most recent:

• 11:06, 31 January 2018
• 16:53, 31 January 2018
• 21:40, 4 February 2018
• 08:38, 5 February 2018
• 21:16, 7 February 2018
• 12:20, 8 February 2018
• 19:23, 11 February 2018

Comments

Dert45 was warned on 8 February. He did not respond and has reverted again today. SarahSV 19:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 20:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Noodlefish96 reported by User:DantODB (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: The View (talk show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Noodlefish96 (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:

Comments:

User keeps reverting productive edits leading toward a GA, and refers to my edits as vandalism when they are properly sourced. DantODB (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Disruptive editing. NeilN 02:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User got unblocked and when straight back to reverting. DantODB (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think you would object to me reverting and asking you to start from the beginning so we can reach a consensus and talk about what should be added since we didn't agree before about what your reverted which included improvements I didn't want removed in your reverts. I don't mind you reverting back my edits but I would like to be able to agree with you on this some how. I'm sorry. Noodlefish96 (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Noodlefish96 You were unblocked on the basis of being willing to explain objections, rather than revert and ask me to explain my objections. I've already explained the issues with how the article was before I made my edits (i.e. inaccurate information, the lack of information regarding Michelle Collins, who was a permanent co-host, the violation of the MOS:TVINTL, etc.) but you went on and reverted all of it anyway. DantODB (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

DantODB Your reverts also included a lot of improvements which is why I wanted to start over and go from there. I don't mind you addressing those issues and I thought you would want to come to an agreement with me so we were both satisfied with what edits were made. Noodlefish96 (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Noodlefish96 Please self-revert or expect to be blocked for picking up an edit war where you left off. The block will be substantially longer this time. Acroterion (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Noodlefish96 It's not about what you or I want. It's about the accuracy of the information presented on the article. I don't understand why my edits would be reverted if they "included a lot of improvements." DantODB (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

DantODB You're asking me to discuss before I make any reverts you disagree with yet you're also reverting paragraphs and sections that included improvements from the past few months that other users felt were accurate. Noodlefish96 (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please take it to the talkpage, and please listen to advice from experienced editors concerning Misplaced Pages policy. Acroterion (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The editor kept reverting improvements after asked to reach consensus and reported me for edit warring because I reverted their edits after I asked them several times. Noodlefish96 (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have repeatedly justified my edits. The editor that reported me, on the other hand, has not done the same. I also don't understand this 'consensus' that is constantly brought up. DantODB (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I repeatedly explained to you to reach consensus (a general agreement with other users) on the talk page before you reverted my edits as well as so many other editors who made improvements to the article. You didn't listen to me and reported me after I warned you for edit warring. You did so because I reverted you after you wouldn't stop. I may have been wrong about calling that vandalism but it still constitutes as edit warring and violates key policy. Noodlefish96 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, then let's wait for an administrator to weigh in. DantODB (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

1. I'm not totally sure why the page is semi-protected, since both users are autoconfirmed.
2. I'm not totally sure why the previous report resulted in a 24 hour block, when you both seem to be edit warring, and the diffs were a series of four consecutive edits which in and of themselves don't violate 3RR, because they have the effect of a single edit.
3. I don't think either of you understand what edit warring is, because you seem to be posting the same types of consecutive diffs in these reports.
4. Go use the damned talk page, which to their credit, Noodlefish96 has at least attempted to do, and which DantODB has apparently opted out of in favor of having the discussion here instead. GMG 06:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo I have tried to but they keep reverting edits other editors and myself have made and won't take it to the talk page or let me revert back for the time being. I know what edit warring is there are diffs of his that violate the 3RR because they reverted my edits either partially or whole. I may have not reported them correctly but if you go the the edit history you will see as it is apparent he's edit warring. Noodlefish96 (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Consecutive edits of the type that could technically be carried out in a single large edit only count as one edit for the purposes of 3RR. But having said that, I count DantOBD at four reverts and Noddlefish at three for 12 Feb alone (all of six hours into the day), and by all account someone would be right to block you both.

Besides that, User:DantODB is not an editor of a month's tenure as Noodlefish96 is, he is an editor who has been around for ten years, and should probably not need to be told that he is expected to discuss changes on the talk page before filing noticeboard reports. GMG 06:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo I have been on wikipedia since 2006, I haven't had an account for 2 years, edit warring hasn't changed since then as far as I know. He reverted my edits and I reverted them back, I would only be blocked because of the conclusion the other administrators came to. I made the reverts back after warning him and explaining consensus needs to be reached because they weren't just my edits. He reverted paragraphs worth of content. Now I can't return the page to how it was before without him reporting me for edit warring because he won't take it to the talk page or come to a compromise Noodlefish96 (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence that either of you have actually discussed any of this in any meaningful way. I've blocked Noodlefish - when I asked him to self-revert, that included to self-revert and discuss, it didn't mean to start editing again after a little while as if nothing had happened. DantODB needed to participate too. Noodlefish has confused the GA review comments with some sort of nonexistent administrative process. I'd be correct to block DantODB too, given the most recent reverts. The best way forward for the article is to fully protect and to allow talkpage discussion to take place. Acroterion (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Umm... Acroterion ... I don't seem much sense in blocking one side and not the other, when the other has four reverts in the past six hours. I don't see much sense either in expecting there to be any meaningful discussion when one side whose version the article has been retained has so far not engaged in the talk page at all, and now has no incentive to, because they've so far gotten the other side blocked at ANEW twice, without needing to do anything but file a report. That looks a lot like using ANEW to settle a content dispute. GMG 08:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been reviewing this whole mess - my first concern is that Noodlefish blew past my request to self-revert by waiting a little while and reverting their self-revert. They ignored my request and NeilN's unblock condition that they discuss on the talkpage - the token gesture there is far below what's expected. Having dealt with that, I'm blocking DantOBD, as they're no better at communicating, and they should have known better than to revert the revert. I'll hold off on full protection so other editors can have a go at sorting out what needs to be done. Acroterion (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Due to the asymmetry in blocking terms, I will impose full protection on the article before DantOBD's block expires. While symmetry in blocking would solve the issue of one editor gaining the upper hand, I specifically blocked Noodlefish for disruptive editing by ignoring or gaming my request and NeilN's unblock condition. DantOBD simply reverted a fourth time. Acroterion (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: My first block of Noodlefish was for disruptive editing (calling good-faith editing vandalism, blanking questions about their objections instead of answering them) not edit warring. I semied the article to remove the temptation of logging out and continuing the edit war (look at the history). --NeilN 11:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. GMG 12:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dimple22 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page

Kartik Aaryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dimple22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 06:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 06:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 05:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC) to 06:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 05:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 05:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Kartik Aaryan. (TW)"
2. 06:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Hi krimurk */"
3. 07:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Krimurk */"
2. 07:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Krimurk */"

Comments:

Repeated addition of copyrighted image to actor's article, despite warnings. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dantebish reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked indefinitely. )

Page

Dr. Phil (talk show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* AnchorNotable episodes */"
2. 09:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* AnchorNotable episodes */"
3. 09:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "NOTEABLE PERSON WITH CREDIBLE SOURCES...VERY COHERANT"
4. 09:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825248063 by Velella (talk)"
5. 08:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* AnchorNotable episodes */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dr. Phil (talk show). (TW)"
2. 09:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dr. Phil (talk show). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Move cmt, reply, remove a couple of old forum type comments"
2. 10:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC) on User talk:Bonadea ""

Comments:

User is a single-purposed account promoting one individual across several different pages. Dr. Phil is the only page where they have broken 3RR, but they have revert warred elsewhere as well. They were blocked for disruptive editing and the block expired a few hours ago, but note that the edit warring happened after the expiration of the block. bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC) I am not "promoting" anybody. I am using wikipedia for the purpose it is meant for, to list noteable people and things and Dr. PhiL himself thought Sexy Vegan was noteable enough to post on his instagram which he has never done for any non celebrity guest including the Cash me Outside girl. I site www.drphil.com and imdb which are both obviously extremely credible sources for a Dr PhiL related page. It seems as if Bonadea is a Sexy Vegan "hater" who is aware of the person and dislikes them. Either that or didn't bother to even review my sources which included Dr phiL himself posting Sexy to his instagram! i have a full time job and cannot afford to spend all day having my edits reversed. If you google Sexy Vegan the entire first 5 pages are him and those are even generic terms and he legally changed his name to that and that in it of itself is noteable. So, to be frank I don't have all day to argue with low IQ people. I am a very intelligent person. yes, I have typos sometimes because I work for NASA and don't have all day to spend on here...I am very very busy. Sexy is noteable and if wikipedia doesn't want to include him it just means wikipedia is not a legit source.

• Blocked indefinitely There are numerous problems, of which edit-warring is just one, and it appears that the editor is unlikely ever to become a useful contributor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:scbritton (Result: )

Page

Proud Boys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825338044 by Darkness Shines (talk) The intent of the tag is to open a discussion. I am editing in good faith, you appear to be protecting your narrative."
2. 20:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825337175 by Volunteer Marek (talk) That is also not the reason the tag was added. You are edit warring."
3. 20:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825336673 by Darkness Shines (talk) Removing the tag does not resolve the issue."
4. 20:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825336034 by Volunteer Marek (talk) WP:IJUSTDONLIKEIT was not the reason for adding the tag."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Proud Boys. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC) "/* NPOV-Lede */ +"

Comments:

Multiple users are reverting addition of POV tag as a way to avoid violation of 3RR rule. No meaningful discussion was held on talk page; addition of tag was simply reverted repeatedly. 3RR warning was given to all participants.

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