Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:24, 28 January 2019

• 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:AZSH reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Ras el hanout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AZSH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14 january, 02:40
2. 15 january 01:24
3. 15 january 02:19
4. 15 january 03:01

Four reverts within 25 hours 10 days ago, and now :

1. 25 january 01:40
2. 26 january 00:19
3. 26 january 01:23
4. 26 january 01:30

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and several other users warned AZSH in recent times :

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , , , , etc ...

Comments:

This user edit-warred against another user some 10 days ago (see the above diffs) with 4 reverts within 25 hours, now he's edit-warring against me, with 4 reverts within 24 hours and refuses to give a legit explanation for his removal of sourced content. Moreover, he told me that "they don't need me" for the thread, thus refusing to engage in a constructive discussion : . I would welcome the eye of an admin in order to stop the disruption caused by the reported editor. Best regards.---Wikaviani 02:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:103.204.87.39 reported by User:DBigXray (Result: Protected)

Page

Jagdish Tytler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Restore last good, no BLP vio"
2. 05:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 880230474 by DBigXray (talk) notable event relevant to investigation details"
3. 04:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 880207862 by Kautilya3 (talk) I hear you are tag teaming and has no prior history here but WP:BRD.."
4. 16:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 880034627 by DBigXray (talk) no consensus for this"
5. 16:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC) "remove undue information per talk page, a CBI statement needs no separate section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Undue weightage to the accusations and removal of the subjects statement */ re"

Comments:

This IP user is showing WP:OWNERSHIP issues and repeatedly reverting to his preferred version of the article. He has thrice removed reliably sourced content citing frivolous reasons and has twice restored WP:BLP violations (poorly sourced statements attributed to a living person) DBigXrayᗙ 06:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• This IP is clearly a sock of somebody or other, not to mention the clear WP:personal attack in the diff 3. What do they mean by "I hear". Hear from whom? They have no prior interaction with me. (By the way, the subject, Jagdish Tytler, is in the news. Plenty of people with "no prior history" would be watching this page.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• I also notice that the IP has requested full protection of the page, repeating the same ridiculous WP:aspersions naming me, and then did a revert: 05:32, 26 January 2019. A clear effort to game the system. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Also It would be interesting to know how this IP and Qualitist reached this page in the first place, immediately after I edited it, and only to revert my edits. (diff, diff, diff)--DBigXrayᗙ 15:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days by User:Oshwah. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The IP 103.204.87.39, who has certainly made a lot of reverts, has opened a thread at WP:BLPN that may be of interest. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Indygirl15 reported by User:-sche (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Emma Sulkowicz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Indygirl15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: the user's first instatement of their version / "she" pronouns (in a bio of a person who uses "they" pronouns)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

10. (continued edit warring even after being warned on their talk page by me and by another user)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned by me and by another user

Comments:

Clear case of WP:NOTHERE (and DIDNTHEARTHAT)? -sche (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The comment here is a clear indication that the editor intends to continue with these edits, as they have. Meters (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and warned of discretionary sanctions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Damonshady reported by User:RhinosF1 (Result: Blocked per SPI)

Page

Jean Wyllys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Check the talk page"
2. 12:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "What are you talking about?? And why are you reverting to a version full of typos and outdated information? Nothing new was added so no need for sources!"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC) to 12:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 11:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Previous revert was disrespectful to people who spent time making good faith, productive edits. No reason to revert at all!"
   2. 11:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Wording"
   3. 11:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Repositioning // This section still need some work done in order to achieve a neutral point of view"
   4. 11:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Controversies */ can someone more experienced fix this section? It gives to much weight to one side and doesn’t have sources"
   5. 12:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Controversies */ fixed typo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jean Wyllys. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Invloved in large dispute with User:Coltsfan - has been reported to SPI by them. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I refuse any involvement in sockpuppetry and I’m sorry if I violated any rule. I made good faith, productive edits and this guy is reverting me for no reason! Can someone be reasonable and check my contributions? I have no intention at all to disrupt Misplaced Pages. I didn’t add any new information that requires a source. I even tried to get reasonings from him but nevertheless, I’m being accused of using multiple accounts? I’m not even pov pushing, I don’t have any agenda! Just tried to contribute to WP but it seems I’m not welcomed here. Actually I don’t even care about being blocked, I just ask you please to check my edits and decide for yourself if they’re disruptive. --Damonshady (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Already blocked at SPI as a sock. GAB 16:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Coltsfan reported by User:RhinosF1 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Jean Wyllys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "changes made ignoring or extrapolating the sources; WP:OR and WP:DISRUPT"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC) to 11:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 11:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "non constructive changes that don't agree with the sources or don't have any"
   2. 11:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 02:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jean Wyllys. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

As per my report a moment ago - this is the other user invloved. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@RhinosF1: Three changes were made by me (only two being me reverting someone, no 3RR here) and then things were taken to the talk page. You even put in the diffs there that were about spacing in the paragraphs, not changes in the content. That's hardly a EW, under any light. Coltsfan (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to discuss but I've added information on yourself to allow the full case to be seen. RhinosF1 (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User: 1Goldberg2 reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: indef)

Page: Greta Thunberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1Goldberg2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Bold edit and WP:BLP violation in which ed changed Greta Thunberg from saying she's a "climate activist" to a "climate prostitute"
• 1st re-revert to restore "prositute"
• 2nd re-revert to restore "prositute"
• 3nd re-revert to restore "prositute"
• 4th re-revert to restore "prositute"
• 5th re-revert to restore "prositute"
• Other vandalism, not 3RR shortly after the last diff above user changed first sentence of the lead at global warming to "Global warming is fake..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning and Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Due to the vandalism and BLP vio I did not bother issuing a 3RR notice before filing this report. I did, however, leave a DS alert about Climate change on the user's talk page. I don't think they have any contribs after I left the DS notice. DONTBITE is great when inexperienced users make oopsies but this case presents abundant objective evidence of bad faith, so I skipped the handholding. After posting the DS alert, this user added an inflammatory comment in this thread (see below, or if it later disappears see DIFF here). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• That was not mistake. I politically attacked this disgusting left for her lies. And there is no global warming--1Goldberg2 (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely I can't see that as anything but a severe BLP violation and simple vandalism. Blocked until they can return to rationality. Kuru (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Ljuvlig reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Accession of Macedonia to NATO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "It's not balanced having two pics saying "fuck", "kill" nato, atleast one pro and one con if a of the photos is gonna be up."
2. 15:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "It's no idea to threaten by writing on my talk page, you are changing your story, first you say a majority are against then you say some are, based on what? Nothing, no sources, just cause you feel that Nato isn't good for Macedonia doesn't mean grafiti is acceptable."
3. 15:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Where are the sources that you say are true, that the majority are anti-Nato. The Wiki text says otherwise."
4. 15:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "No they are not, it says a bit further up that "NATO membership in general is supported by 85.2% of the population." This is anti-nato propaganda. And makes the article not neutral."
5. 15:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Not relevant, graffiti from some random person(s) shouldn't take up the articles points."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Pics in article */Cmt"

Comments:

• Made another revert . Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jimka1 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: blocked)

Page

Sofia Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jimka1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 880325530 by SovalValtos (talk) )As before, none of you bother to discuss this in the talk page. Please take a time just for once to refer to Garretka (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC). Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sofia_Airport"
2. 13:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 880262024 by Charlesdrakew (talk) Not really cool by threatening user blockage. You had previously said to discuss this in the talk page and none is being involved in this endless and pointless spam theory. Go along and block, at least the other users are aware of this bizarre meddling."
3. 17:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 880120104 by Charlesdrakew (talk) In the talk page, a professional pilot has given both yourself and your lad suggestions but you passively chose to ignore. Instead of passively undoing articles, give us examples. References have been borrowed from other nearby airports."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Three reverts today and many more in previous days including four on one day. Persistent spammer and original researcher. Charles (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Also appears to be editing under Special:Contributions/95.111.103.6. Ajf773 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked for 48 hours. Worth keeping an eye on, because disruptive edits may continue when the block expires. Has been editing since 2007 but has never posted on an article talk page. Also blocked the IP for 3 months. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• As a footnote to a necessary block, I'd observe that Sofia Airport has been a trouble spot for edit warring. It was fully protected 8 times in 2018. It might be helpful if editors would open discussion at WT:AIRPORTS when they find themselves repeatedly in disagreement on the airport's own talk page. The WP:AIRPORTS project has a few guidelines but I notice lots of repeated disputes. For example, about upcoming flight schedules that have been announced but haven't yet started. So, perhaps the WikiProject could add some more guidelines. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

User:SureshK 67 reported by User:Wario-Man (Result: Blocked)

Page: Saka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SureshK 67 (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:
The reported editor reverted edits by me, User:Teishin, and User:HistoryofIran without consensus or providing valid edit summaries or comments on talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I added references for my edits but they are continuously being removed by User:Teishin, User:HistoryofIran, User:Wario-Man. Then I presented my side of argument in talk page and reverted section to earlier version before dispute until consensus is reached but it is being reverted too with edits of User:Teishin which were added after the dispute began.SureshK 67 (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

1) You have violated 3RR rule and involved in edit warring. 2) You just restored older revision when you saw three other editors didn't agree with you and you failed to push your desired changes. And you did it after breaking 3RR and reverting other editors' edits. 3) Your edits were problematic. Even the part you call the sourced one; was just your personal opinion + citing a random book that did not support it. You just don't like Michael Witzel and Christopher I. Beckwith's opinions and tried to discredit them by using odd wording and adding your very own POV. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no instances of the word saka denoting a race in Pali Canon. The two authors are just publishing their own opinion pieces without providing any evidences from Buddhist scriptures themselves. You are presenting them as facts on the article. It is you who are being biased. The source I added clarifies that buddha's clan were never called saka in any of the buddhist scriptures.SureshK 67 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps useful to this discussion is this discussion on the same topic, on another page, that went into arbitration. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Shakya#Ethnicity The first edit of user:SureshK 67 I changed was because the syntax of the sentence was so faulty as to have unclear meaning. I changed the sense of the sentence back to what it was previously. I was never alerted on the Talk page that there was an issue going on with this topic and that I was involved in it. Teishin (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 36 hours. The same user made a long series of reverts in early January at Mount Kailash while never using the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:39.33.42.140 (Result: no violation)

Page: Human rights abuses in Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:27, 25 January
2. 00:50, 28 January

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

Comments:

Article was put under ECP and 1RR by EdJohnston because of edit warring by DBigXray. This is a clear violation of that 1RR as disruptive revert (by adding misleading edit summaries) concerned same thing at least 2 times under 55 hours. One can clearly see that DBigXray is removing content what he falsely claims to be a copyright violation when the content in question was properly attributed to Ministry of Law and Justice of India and is freely available. He is removing more than what he claims as copyright violation which speaks of the recklessness. He has been also misrepresenting the references per discussion on talk page. 39.33.42.140 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall putting this article under a WP:1RR restriction. Please link to any evidence of this. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

IP probably mistaken you with El C who put this article under 1RR restriction and the page notice is also clear about it. FWIW, you had warned DBigXray earlier for violating the 1RR back in July, over this same article when he was edit warring by falsely claiming edits as "vandalism". This time he is falsely claiming them to be copyright violation to justify edit warring.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• EdJohnston with the replies above it should be pretty obvious that we are dealing here with an elaborate sock/meat farm, who seem to be passing notes off-wiki and even then they are botching up what they should say and what they should not. Also I note that no one is explaining how this is a 1RR violation. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, but clearly there has been no violation of 1RR as there was more than 48 hours between those two reverts. Please continue to discuss and do not replace the disputed material until there is consensus on the talk page. If protection is needed, please use WP:RFPP — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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