Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:16, 7 September 2014

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

User:DonEladio reported by User:Yobol (Result: Protected)

Page

Vaccine controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "/* MMR vaccine */ MEDRS has no bearing on news stories. Removed the Blaze and inserted CNN in its place and added additional information"
2. 16:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624171393 by Yobol (talk) undoing whitewashing. See talk page on THIS article"
3. 16:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624175067 by Dawn Bard (talk)consensus? I'm not part of your consensus."
4. 16:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624177448 by Yobol (talk) Count zero editors willing to respond on this article's talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I'm trying. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: Article protected one week. Use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Is there any particular reason why DonEladio didn't receive a block? Their refusal to listen to advice and continue to repeat contested edits constitutes very aggressive edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DonEliado was only one of the three editors who broke 3RR, and his reverts were stale. If he resumes you can file a new report. Protection is sometimes better than multiple blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User:91.154.96.7 reported by User:IPadPerson (Result: Semi)

Page

Gwen Stefani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623663915 by IPadPerson (talk) Reverting without proper reason. Vandalism."
2. 11:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624073680 by IPadPerson (talk) Are u blind? Why are u reverting stuff? They are sourcered!"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC) to 18:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624157161 by IPadPerson (talk)"
   2. 18:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624166451 by 91.154.96.7 (talk) Why are you removing info, which is sourcered. What is your reason?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gwen Stefani. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is fraudalently adding the same disruptive material while ignoring my request for IP to knock it off. I suggest that he/she be blocked so that person can leave me alone and stop with these threats. IPadPerson (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Edit warring by IPs who don't use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal and Bill the Cat 7 reported by User:Amortias (Result: Protected)

Page: Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Link to revision history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result: Article protected one day by User:Samsara. Please include diffs in your reports. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Pincrete and User:UrbanVillager reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Both warned)

Page: The Weight of Chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and UrbanVillager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: The disputed text identifies the film as "Canadian". The edit war over this particular text is many years old, and even the most recent battle has been raging for months. I don't have time to go all the way back in the page history to find the original version reverted to. The diffs below cover only the last month.

Reverts by Pincrete (in the last month alone):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The two users have already warned each other about "edit warring" and "vandalism" multiple times via edit summaries (see above diffs) and on the article talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: … … Additional attempts at resolution (added by Pincrete) Here :- and Here:-

Comments:

Preliminary response from Pincrete, I hope that I am editing in the right place, if not please move this post. I am glad that this matter has come to a noticeboard and intended myself to initiate admin. action. As a preliminary response I wish 1). to draw attention to my many attempts on talk to resolve this, prior to, and in spite of 'vandalistic' reverts (I characterise these reverts thus as they include restoring ungrammatical English, removing text which has been in the article for more than two years unreferenced (some of it covered by BLP) , seemingly, for no better reason than that I had added long overdue references) … … 2) to draw attention to the fact that I ALREADY called a 'truce' prior to this matter coming to this noticeboard, my reasons for calling this 'truce' were that UrbanVillager, had extended his vandalism into removing whole sections of the article (criticism section), then - grudgingly - restoring his 'modified' versions, which again actually factually contravened BLP. These 'revisions' were written prejudicially and there had been long term consensus regarding reliability of sources for the whole section. (I called a 'truce' only, and explicitly because I saw the need for admin intervention, not because of any valid arguments) … … 3) I also draw attention to the 'edit reasons' given by UrbanVillager, which are frequently abusive, blame people who are not responsible for content and which - on at least one occasion - have been overtly racist. … … 4) I acknowledge engaging in an 'edit war', but did so ONLY when every possible avenue of resolution was exhausted, and when the clear wish of the majority of editors was being over-ruled and every conceivable compromise was simply ignored. 5) I have NEVER sought to impose a prejudicial claim as to the nationality of this film, merely to assert that we either give weight to ALL RSs, or, - even simpler - omit mention of nationality. 6) I am unsure whether User:Bobrayner has been notified, however since he has been a party to this dispute, I intend to notify him. … …Lastly, I draw attention to my own edit record, which - prior to this event - amounts to almost NEVER having used the 'undo' button. I will post more fully when there is time.Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute anything, the evidence is there, though I would've appreciated a warning before this was reported here. The main reason why I reverted was because Pincrete kept removing the word "Canadian" before "documentary film", even though The Weight of Chains was produced by a Canadian production company, the film credits themselves point out that "This is a Canadian film" and there are credible sources (I listed around 7, some were removed by Pincrete) that testify that the film is Canadian. Considering the fact that Pincrete has, more than once, pushed his or her POV in regards to Boris Malagurski-related articles, I simply lost my patience and kept reverting as I saw the removal of reliably sourced content as vandalism. However, I did remove sourced content myself - the "Criticism" section - but the sources listed there were blogs (yes, blogs), so I thought that was unacceptable for Misplaced Pages. If I made a mistake, I deeply apologize and await Misplaced Pages's punishment with respect. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both Pincrete and UrbanVillager are warned that they may be blocked without notice if either of them they reverts again before consensus is reached on Talk. Consider asking for assistance at WP:3O or WP:DRN. More advice is at WP:Dispute resolution. The topic of this film is covered by WP:ARBMAC. That decision allows giving article bans if it is found that an editor is unable to work in a neutral manner. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Original 2 week block reinstated )

Page

War in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624301631 by 91.134.65.79 (talk) Unexplained"
2. 15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624301189 by NeilN (talk) Maybe read the source? "The Ukrainian government and pro-Russian rebels have signed a truce deal to END almost five months of fighting.""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user was recently placed under WP:1RR. He had previously edit-warred at War in Donbass, despite being aware that his edits were subject to discretionary sanctions there, and hence was blocked for two weeks. As a condition of his unblocking, he submitted to being under WP:1RR. Today, he has already broken this restriction. He clearly has not learned any lessons at all from his recent experience. Perhaps a topic ban under discretionary sanctions is in order. RGloucester — ☎ 15:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I already brought this to the talk page, so I don't get why Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page is blank. I don't understand how this goes against WP:1RR was I reverted two separate edits. 15:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should've read the guideline cited by the unblocking administrator, DangerousPanda, which he told you to read carefully. As it says at WP:3RR, linked at that guideline, "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". It doesn't matter who's edit it was. You can only revert one edit, in total, for 24 hours. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 days I have taken the original 2 week block, subtracted 2 days previously served before accepting editing restrictions. Next block escalates to 1 month the panda ₯’ 20:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User: Damián80 reported by User:Dswq78 (Result: Semi)

Page: La impostora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
En otra piel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Damián80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs between 2 revisions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dswq78 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Hello! I need an administrator. Damián80 is taking information from page and when someone is trying to stop him then he undoes edits. Also he is warring in page En otra piel for same information too. Please stop him. I am just witness there. But please help! Dswq78 (talk)

I also add here a page, where you can see how much that user eliminates information, section:Elimination of information

Aug 14, 16:19. A vida da gente. -3,948

Aug 14, 00:35. Quererte así. -1,059

Aug 14, 00:01, Libre para amarte. -10,061

Aug 13, 23:56, La impostora. -1,531

Aug 12, 23:21, Los rey. -15,955

Aug 12, 22:51. Vivir a destiempo. -20,955

Aug 12, 18:52. La que no podía amar. -3,875

Aug 12, 14:00. Lo que la vida me robó. -7,223

Aug 12, 01:07. Santa diabla. -3,672 and much more.Dswq78 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I have nothing to say, obviously it is Sky0000 again. Who created a new puppet. I ordered a verification of accounts. I recommend you read what it says here.--Damián 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That person's behavior is incredible. Sky0000 account creation was blocked, how he could do a new account?. And in En otra piel there is a section about United States Broadcast. That broadcast is allowed and other countrys' are not? Also what that sockpuppet investigation matters here? I was not warring there. That person has to see a psychiatrist immediately. Dswq78 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Just to let you know, the personal attack is inappropriate. Do not cast aspersions about another editor's mental health. LazyBastardGuy 00:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by IP socks. The submitter of this report, Dswq78, has been reported by User:Damián80 at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky0000, which seems logical. Whoever closes the SPI can decide if Dswq78 is part of the gang. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked)

Page

Battle of Borodino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622032889 by Charlesdrakew (talk) see Talk, stop deleting sources, your opinion is neither "consensus" nor a source"
2. 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624436808 by Charlesdrakew (talk) no, it isn't stop lying"
3. 17:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624437638 by Alexandru.demian (talk) vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Battle of Borodino. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resumption of previous edit war over this issue. Talk page consensus is very clearly against the change being made. Charles (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for long-term warring. The editor has reverted the outcome of the battle six times since mid-August, and shows no inclination to listen to anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User:184.16.64.8 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Semi)

Page: Sailor Moon Super S: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.16.64.8 (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:
This user is the same one who cause disruption to the Sailor Moon (English adaptations) article (which was merged) by using an IP (both IPs are located in Indiana and Fireball24fire (talk · contribs) () and it was protected for a week as a result. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. If these IPs are causing trouble elsewhere, consider an SPI. The geolocation is distinctive. Are you sure that User:Fireball24fire is the same person? Their edits seem better. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:172.2.66.148 reported by User:Arxiloxos (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Template:New Orleans Saints roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 20:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 00:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Template:New Orleans Saints roster. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has reverted two editors (twice each), no edit summaries or explanations. Arxiloxos (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts; warned prior. Kuru (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Tutelary (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Well, no. We don't use POV terms unchallenged. Find a way to write it so it's not in Misplaced Pages's voice."
2. 16:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC) ""Social justice warrior" is not NPOV."
3. 15:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "We don't republish claims that someone is a "social justice warrior." It's a pejorative label."
4. 15:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ This is entirely separate from the Quinn issue. Also, you realize that "social representation and cultural meaning" *are part of the content of games*? Cultural meaning is not a "social issue.""
5. 15:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Um, no, First of all, we cannot describe someone as a "social justice warrior" - that is a pejorative, non-self-applied term. Second of all, the accusations have been laid by many others than just feminists."
6. 15:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Responses */ Nothing in Breitbart can be used to support any claim about a living person. Doesn't matter that Al Jazeera put his tweet in a list."
7. 15:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ Add sourced statement from Kain."
8. Consecutive edits made from 15:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC) to 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "There's nothing in the source about "left-wing ideology." Include Kotaku's refutation of this claim."
   2. 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ write to source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on GamerGate. (TW)"
2. 16:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ r"
3. 16:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ add"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The removal of material sourced to Breitbart which makes derogatory claims about a living person is self-explanatory - that source blatantly violates BLP as an unreliable source.

We cannot describe people as "a social justice warrior." That is a pejorative, non-self-applied epithet, and Tutelary has been repeatedly attempting to revert into the article the uncontested statement that people are "social justice warriors."

The fact is, nobody else wants to try and maintain this horrifyingly-BLP-issue-filled article that involves multiple ill-founded and outright-disproved claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring