Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:03, 17 October 2012

• 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:JasonnF reported by User:RJFF (Result: Warned)

Page: List of libertarian political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JasonnF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:
• 11th revert:

JasonnF has not breached the 3RR in 24 hours, but engaged in a long-term edit war for more than a month.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (twice!)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_libertarian_political_parties#Explanation_for_revert

Comments:

The article has previously been full protected due to a report here at AN3 at the end of August. At that time, Amatulic said he was protecting the article in lieu of blocking both editors. Yet here we are again. Each side has reverted about 11 times over a 7 week period. I think both editors should explain why they should not be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC) The last time around the dispute was the same, but RJFF was not involved. EdJohnston (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss the conflict on the talk page. I have provided rationales for my reverts. Every time I waited some days for JasonnF to answer and counter my arguments. But all JasonnF did was reverting immediately (within hours) without providing new arguments or seriously trying to talk and to find a solution. --RJFF (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I have not been here before about this conflict. The last war was between JasonnF and User:One Night In Hackney and it was One Night In Hackney who reported JasonnF. --RJFF (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, UKIP had always been on this list until they were removed by RJFF who has undone over 20 edits from various editors adding them in the past year but not removed any of the other parties which are all unsourced. It is hard to find reliable sources describing any political party as libertarian because it isn't a term generally used by the mainstream media, if self-described Libertarian parties with Libertarian policies aren't allowed to be listed then the whole article needs to be removed. Sorry for the late response, my girlfriend uses my computer (doesn't edit) and must have cleared the new message alert.JasonnF (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. I advise RJFF to use caution also, even though his side of the dispute seems to have more support. If you believe this issue is important, consider opening an WP:RfC on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit war on Scottish Knights Templar

Page: Scottish Knights Templar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Balantrodach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an edit war going on at Scottish Knights Templar. At least two editors are promoting their own groups - at least one using anon. IP addresses. Notes have been left on the article talk page and their talk pages to no effect. Maybe the article should be locked to allow a cool off/realization that they are way outside the Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages? Thanks. Sannhet (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have indefinitely semi protected the page as there is a long history of single purpose accounts and IPs engaged in conflict of interest editing on that page. I have also topic banned Balantrodach from further editing the page because they have apparently admitted to editing on behalf of the organization, and their edits appear to be problematic. Jehochman 12:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am revoking the topic ban because it is a ridiculous response. Jehochman has failed to establish whether there is a COI here; the sole basis for his decision is that the editor seems to be POV pushing on a single article, which happens on lots of articles. The proportionate response here is clearly to hand out a 24 hour block for edit-warring and see where that gets us. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans are appropriate for disruptive editors in one topic area while still allowing them to edit in others. In that sense, it's a milder sanction than a block.

In this case however, without a community discussion on the talk page or WP:ANI, or ArbCom decision, or any other reason described in Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Decision to ban, that an admin cannot impose a topic ban on someone for being disruptive. I don't know if this editor has been the subject of past discussion other than here on this page. But now that he is, I would support the topic ban. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:ANI as Jehochman is right about WP:COI Quaerere Verum (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see where a COI has been admitted to or established; a COI isn't necessarily a reason for topic banning someone though, it is the nature of their edits which need to be looked at. I do see some extreme unsourced POV editing that needs to be addressed however. The editor only edits on a 2/3 articles, so a topic ban is effectvely an indefinite block in his case to all intents and purposes, which I don't really agree with at this stage. At the moment the disruptive editing patterns can be dealt with through a couple of short term blocks and see if that alters the dynamic of the situation. If the editor refuses to discuss his edits or address his editing patterns then he probably shouldn't be editing at all, so an indefinite block would be the way to go. But I do believe the first sanction should be a proportionate one, and the editor should at least have the opportunity to address our concerns. If he blows it he blows it, but at least he gets the chance. Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ANI. You have not revoked editing as you are not an Admin and have not discussed this with the Admin Jehochman ? Quaerere Verum (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not able to revoke blocking because I don't have those set of privileges, but as pointed out above, a ban can only be enforced by a consensus. I don't have to be an admin to point that out. Betty Logan (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• If you didn't have the privilege to revoke the block, then why did you write that you did? Quaerere Verum (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:201.21.238.38 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

Page: 2012 in film|}}
User being reported: Template:201.21.238.38}}

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple editors reverting IP for adding unsourced names of people w/o wikipedia articles; no real issue to discuss, though the user has been warned on his/her talk page.

Comments:

Note also the edit summaries in reverts 4 and 5 which are borderline personal attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of hours 'You bastard' is not even borderline. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Semitransgenic reported by User:Adjwilley (Result: Article locked, stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: User added (redundant) material about Armstrong being a drug cheat in this edit on October 12. The diffs are a little messy because paragraphs were being moved, but if you search for "serial drug cheat" in the diff it will help. (the words were added and removed 5 times)

• 1st revert: 21:38 13 October
• 2nd revert: 22:47 13 October
• 3rd revert: 14:15 14 October
• 4th revert: 17:31 14 October

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was notified on their talk page that their edits were against a consensus on the article talk page and was invited to participate in the discussion. (14:24 14 October). They were also invited to participate on the talk page in edit summaries and warned of edit warring on the talk page . User was not officially warned on their talk page, but they're old enough to know better, have been templated for 3RR in the past, (2011) and already have one block for edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion has been ongoing since Oct 12. Here is the relevant thread. (User would not participate in discussions until today.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

False charge, diffs demonstrate that I addressed chronology and repetition issues.These are not all direct reverts of content. Content was improved, and WP:RS cites were added. Additionally, per WP:LEAD, it's supposed to provide a "summary of its most important aspects... should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." This criteria is currently unfulfilled. The reality is, multiple WP:RS sources attest to the fact that Armstrong is now considered cycling's biggest drug cheat, it is not a BLP violation to clearly state this in the lead. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. I lean toward declining this report, not necessarily because Semitransgenic did not edit war, but because there has been a lot of disruptive edit-warring in the article, which is what led to my locking the article. Honestly, rather than rehash who did what to whom and who should have done x, it would be better if the involved editors would focus on achieving a consensus on the content during this period.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I also meant to add, following suggestion, that I have no interest in "edit warring." I attempted to add valid content to the lead, some viewed the material as premature, that's fine. However, right now, relative to the depth of content in the article, the lead is unnecessarily short. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected
• Stale

--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Michaelt54 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 1 week)

Page: Pat Robertson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michaelt54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:
User was previously reported here, and has continued the exact same behavior across other articles. He doesn't seem to get edit warring or consensus, thought the first has been explained repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not edit warring I provided my resarch and cited my source.--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You cited the article, which is original research. Please actually read WP:Edit warring, you have been reverting against consensus instead of waiting until discussion is over. You have also violated the three revert rule. This was spelled out to you last time and this time, and the guidelines and policies were linked and provided for you to read. Refusal to get the point is disruptive editing, no matter what you're trying to add. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

NO YOU ARE WRONG! I added a Citation to the aritle. I tryed to disscuss it with you and you were critizing and attacking me. I was not disrutptive editing I made my point with a cited source.--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You added a citation later, after your previous post. What part of the three revert rule do you not get? Your refusal to accept that social contract, or even appear capable of understanding what it means, is disruptive. Multiple warnings have been left on your page asking you to not revert more than three times. What did you do? You reverted more than three times! If you were not writing your messages, I would have to ask if you are illiterate! Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I tryed to disscuss it with you who says it's consensus? you? See there you go Attacking again. I was not disrupting I said I was sorry for adding the american christians Category. I now Know It's Redundant but I am not wrong to add the american charistaics category. I made my point with a cited source. The american charismatics category is a new category.--Michaelt54 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC) You also broke the rules by edit warring when i was trying to talk to you about it. You riverted 3 times--Michaelt54 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually read WP:3rr. I reverted three times, not more than three times. You crossed 3rr, I did not. Multiple editors reverted you, none restored your edits. That's an indication you were editing against consensus.

(edit conflict)Once again, what part of do not revert more than three times is so hard to understand? I keep linking to WP:3rr for a reason. Refusal to get the point IS disruptive editing! See WP:IDHT. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:190.233.233.167 reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: Block, semi)

Page: Compulsory voting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.233.233.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
This is Jackie d. alarcón (talk · contribs) evading his block. Again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like they're now using User:190.232.175.153 to continue edit warring. I've put in a request at RPP. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Other admins have blocked the IP and semiprotected the article. The IPs are believed to be socks of User:Jackie d. alarcón. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Whoop whoop pull up reported by User:Plasmic Physics (Result: Protected)

Page: Mercury(I) hydride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whoop whoop pull up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

See ], User talk:Plasmic Physics#Use of rollback. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No 4 of those were within a single 24-hour period, but I think full protection would be the best solution to this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is in the process of expansion; a full protection order may not be the wisest option in that light.

Please note: the chembox does not acurately represent the article topic. It has been retrospectively incorrectly modified to its current state by the same user, to reflect his views. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the previous comment, the chembox has been corrected. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protected – Article fully protected three days. If any blocks had been issued, they would need to go to both Whoop and Plasmic. Plasmic Physics is warned against any further violation of his topic ban from chemboxes, as imposed at this ANI. The references currently in the article don't support Whoop's version. It would be sensible for him to look for reliable sources that show this compound only exists as Hg2H2, as he is claiming. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Plasmic Physics didn't correct the chembox to be consistent with the article text; I did. Double sharp (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction, and defense are appreciated. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User:217.39.37.185‎ reported by User:RatWeazle (Result: Declined)

Page: Fun House (UK game show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.39.37.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor was warned about his behaviour in the edit history, I can only apologize if that was inappropriate but he has clearly been warned.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion occurred in the edit history, I apologize if it was an error on my part to let that happen.

Comments:l
This user has repeatedly disruptively edited this and by his own admission other articles by adding a flagrantly irrelevent reference that points to a google archive of a newspaper. this newspaper was published years before the program in question was ever broadcast and cannot possibly contain any relevent information. The editor has used the exact same link to make references in other articles, it is obviously impossible for 1 link to contain such significantly different information.l

I apologize again if the way i initially dealt with this was not totally correct, it is the first time i have reported something. RatWeazle 00:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Declined. Although the IP appears to be comfortable with edit summaries, they are not a substitute for actual warnings and particularly not for content discussions. My suggestion is you start a topic on the article talk page about the problem you see with the IP's reference, invite them to come to the talk page, and see if you can sort it out. I can't tell myself what exactly the IP is sourcing to because there are a bunch of Evening Times issues, and I have no idea where the IP believes the information is located. That said, it is a bit ironic that you are complaining about the addition of a reference to an otherwise completely unreferenced article, including the number of episodes in question.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Mocctur reported by User:RJFF (Result: )

Page: 2012 Nobel Peace Prize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mocctur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Mocctur has not yet breached the 3RR, but he/she massively fuels an edit war in which several other editors are involved (admittedly including myself). He/she has shown no interest whatsoever in discussing or finding a compromise to end the edit war. Two of the reverts were after my warning against edit warring and my attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page. His/her only reaction to my talk page posts was to revert again and again. Mocctur has recently engaged in other edit wars, too: at UK Independence Party (history) and Europe of Freedom and Democracy (history) (without breaching 3RR if you regard each article individually, but if you treat them together, the image becomes very disruptive). --RJFF (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Film Fan reported by User:Schrodinger's cat is alive (Result: )

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

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Comments:

Three editors have now had their edits reverted by this user. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I actually had the block screen filled out a half-hour ago, but I'm busy this aft so I cancelled it. Film Fan has a habit of deciding they are right, no discussion necessary; arguing via edit summary; refusing to compromise or give way; & cetera. Won't bother me if another admin goes ahead with a block, and advise FF that when they return there is a Talk page associated with article pages, and a pointer to WP:BRD. Franamax (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

SchroCat was the one who began the edit warring and then kept reverting my correct edit. If anyone should be blocked it should be SchroCat. Film Fan (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Jsigned, you do need to read the project pages occasionally, in this case WP:BRD. It sure looks to me like you were the one seeking to make a change. The onus is on you to discuss it and get consensus, not just bull it through no matter what. You started the edit-warring when you reverted back to your first change instead of starting a talk page thread. Franamax (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

An edit war isn't started by the editor who reverts an edit, it is started by the editor that reverts a revert, and in this case that is you. You may or may not be correct, but looking at the edit history as it stands three editors have reverted you and as yet you have not gained any support for your position. I strongly suggest you revert your must recent edit as a show of good faith to the adjudicating admin and start a discussion on the talk page, which is what you should have done after the first revert. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring