Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:38, 27 July 2022

• 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:37.145.62.194 reported by User:KNHaw (Result: Semi)

Page: Aswan Dam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.145.62.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff - Note comment in revision log
4. diff - And comment again...
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: primarily here but a welcome here too

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff of talk page posting notice and link to talk page

Comments:
Originally posted above without using proper form - this is a repost.

Above anon IP is making repeated edits to Aswan Dam with an English language source that does not support their claim and a Russian language source. Attempts to reach out to user here have resulted in personal attacks. Editor is also using a second IP, but per wp:good faith I assume this is not an attempt at sock-puppetry but just posting from a different location (e.g. home vs. school). There have been reverts and counter reverts over multiple days that fall just shy of the three revert rule (wp:3rr) because they're spread over a longer time but this is clearly becoming an edit war. I previously reported this to wp:aiv and was told to take it here.

I have notified user per the an3-notice template and also posted to the article talk page to begin the discussion here.

Can someone please help us out on this?

--KNHaw 04:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months due to long term edit warring. Please note that sources don't have to be in English; we would normally accept good-quality Russian sources if any can be found. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  OK. Thanks. I'll take further use of the Russian source on good faith and extend an olive branch to the editor.

  For the future reference, do we have written guidance on foreign language sources? I mean, how do know a source is "good-quality" if I literally can't read a word of it? Is there a notice/help board where I can request someone with fluency to review? KNHaw 20:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• See WP:NONENG. Though if a Russian firm built the dam, be aware that national pride might have influenced some reporters who covered the issue. The Aswan Dam is a big enough issue that normally you would expect to see it written about in English-language books by this time. So if you search in Google Books you might come up with some English-language results. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I appreciate your help with this. I had poked through wp:sources but hadn't thought of wp:var. It's good to see the policy laid out like that. KNHaw 00:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Engprat reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: Sock blocks)

Page: The Boys (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100155528 by Alex 21 (talk) This is not a sock edit, my friend engprat and I both agree on this and found evidence"
2. 22:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099869666 by Alex 21 (talk) Please don't change this, because this show is one of my favorite shows and I want it to reach a wider audience. I also heard from pretty much all critics that its the best superhero show, and that it's one of the best written shows also."
3. 20:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "The show has received critical acclaim according to most media critics "
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC) to 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "There was a sentence error that needed to be corrected"
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC) to 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "The series has received critical acclaim with its first season getting 85% in rotten tomatoes with over 110 reviews, and the succeeding seasons each got 97% with over a 110 reviews."
   2. 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "There was a sentence error that needed to be corrected"
6. 14:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Boys (TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Alex_21&oldid=1100076451#The_Boys]

Comments:

The editor has now also violated WP:MEAT, by requesting that their "friend" Eaglestack98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make the same edits; edit and MEAT violation. -- Alex_21 _TALK 13:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_boys_2019/s03
2. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_boys_2019/s03

• Result: It is  Confirmed that User:Engprat and User:Eaglestack98 are being operated by the same person, so both accounts are blocked for socking. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Novishock reported by User:MartinezMD (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Jorge Rafael Videla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Will not engage on talk page. Discussion there already present on the topic. Editor has prejudicial point of view "yanquicentrista" (yankee-centric) and does states he will not engage in discussion on the topic in his edit summary. MartinezMD (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• 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. Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

User:DannyWard888 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DannyWard888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100372609 by Ingenuity (talk)"
2. 15:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100372122 by Ingenuity (talk)"
3. 15:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 14:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 14:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warning given on talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

User:1234567890Bobdob reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Blocked)

Page: McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1234567890Bobdob (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:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

They've been making the same argument since the 1st, theres just no indication that they hear the objections of other editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Editor is now making explicit personal attacks on my talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@1234567890Bobdob: seriously dude stop... Being that disruptive is going to get you indeffed, if you want to stick around you have to play by the rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week by User:Favonian. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

User:2.99.212.62 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked 48h)

Page: Jonny Bairstow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2.99.212.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100427568 by Spike 'em (talk)"
2. 21:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Restoring the VASTLY IMPROVED version of the lead. Again, in the face of WP:OWN and WP:EW."
3. 19:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "restored the VASTLY IMPROVED version of the lead → no single sentence paragraph; no bare URL; no citations in lead that should be in narrative; better English; no WP:OWN' etc., etc."
4. 03:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100244684 by The Raincloud Kid (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"
2. 21:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Edit war */"

Comments:

User throwing around 3RR warnings, but continues to edit war themselves. Spike 'em (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• EvergreenFir partially blocked the IP for 24 hours. I've converted that block to a sitewide block for 48 hours after the personal attack the IP made here (since reverted by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Partial block for two weeks)

Page: 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FobTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. May - initial edit war
2. after 31 hr block
3. June
4. July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: First, second, third, all my edits in talk

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Long time edit warrior committed to drawn out edit warring. Returned to edit war immediately after previous block ended back in May before the report by User:UtoD had even been archived. Never stopped since, albeit after waiting a few days in between reverts. Recently mass reverted to a "safe version" (their version) in response to me removing blog sources added by them. Responded with deflection in reaction to notice about usage of blogs: . Current mass revert once again ignored all consensus building in talk, and only occurred after User:Chanakal advised them to be careful with their reversions, still resulting in a lazy deletion and combined section where further information links are at the bottom.

Several previous blocks and warnings by multiple users can be seen on their talk page which is almost exclusively composed of warnings and report notifications. See previous block back in May, comment and comment by User:Floydian, comment by User:CurryCity, my own comment. Ignores talk and consensus building. Copy pasted a single reply to two different sections: , . Ignored all calls by User:Simpleshooter99 to resolve dispute through third party opinion: , , , . Qiushufang (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Initially User:Qiushufang and User:Thriley were supposed to be brought in as a neutral third-party over the debt trap controversy . There was initially a consensus version or safe version agreed upon by myself, User:Qiushufang and User:Thriley where debt trap would just be a paragraph inside External Debt as this would not overshadow the other Causes like Tax Cuts, Agricultural Crisis, Tourism, etc. However User:Qiushufang added content directly from Debt-trap diplomacy resulting in this bloated version which is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACKING. So I placed Debt Trap back inside External Debt, which preserved most of the other copyedits and grammar fixes as per User:Chanakal's concern, while going back to the safe version on debt trap while also including a link on that subject's own page directly. FobTown (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You can't "charge" someone with WP:COAT, it's not a WP. See similar behavior of deflection by Fob in the report by User:MarkH21 back in May 2020. Fob has not changed. Qiushufang (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Have noticed that User:Qiushufang is involved in edit warring on Debt-trap diplomacy, with similar charges of WP:COATRACKING too. FobTown (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

FobTown has just cut content from their initial reply and used it as a second reply: . I honestly don't know what to say at this point. Qiushufang (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I planned to split out that as a separate section but then you replied immediately. FobTown (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have been dealing with FobTown for almost two years now. The behaviour listed above is the same experience I've had time and time again, as well as the continual insertion of wordy, unsourced material into good an featured articles; I've pounded my keyboard in utter stress and frustration many times. I've seen several editors who provide meaningful contributions get permabanned for far lesser infractions, much less a multi-year history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The only reason they have managed to slip by almost unnoticed is that they edit niche topics that aren't patrolled by administrators, or by people willing to compile a bunch of diffs to create a report (such as myself). Although they occasionally show signs of "getting it", FobTown's talk page says enough. I would like to put forward a 30 day block, site wide. After that period, they should be placed on a 1 Revert sanction for a full year. Time to force the hand on discussion rather than reversion. - Floydian  _¢ 11:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  In fairness of our last dispute in May 2022, I was the one that had to initiate the talk page discussion for Ontario Highway 5, which was just over the clarify of the 427 photo. I didn't remove the 1955 black and white photo that you added, even though you tried to justify that as a replacement for the removed 427 photo. In response to sourcing issues in Ontario Highway 403 over the 401-410 construction, I have found supporting material to rectify it. I felt that you decided to make our Ontario highways disputes personal when you jumped into Peng Shuai and chose sides without considering the material in question, this was later settled by an RfC FobTown (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also don't appreciate you mischaracterizing all our disputes, especially those that are one-on-one where other editors were not involved at all. Example is Ontario Highway 427 in February 2021 which was over which photos you deemed "high quality" or aesthetically-pleasing but which fails to show the key attributes of the freeway . I left your art photos in the article, but you kept vetoing the ones I wanted to add over issues of "white balance" or "driver perspective". And for Queen Elizabeth Way I thought it was okay to describe the type of interchange just by looking at an aerial view or map (i.e. stack, parclo A4). FobTown (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks from editing the article, per most other blocks imposed on this user in the last year or so for similar conduct. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Withaker10 reported by User:KoA (Result: Blocked)

Page: Vandana Shiva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Withaker10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:02, July 25, 2022‎ (first addition)
2. 13:10, July 25, 2022 edit warring content back in
3. 07:35, July 26, 2022 formal 1RR violation after notice

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
Article is under 1RR, this brand new account started edit warring content in, was formally warned of the discretionary sanctions, and continued edit warring anyways in the last diff. Entirely non-responsive on their talk page or edit summaries. Could have gone to WP:AE, but I figured this board would be more appropriate for low-level disruption like this. Technically the second diff isn't a 1RR violation because they weren't notified yet, but the third definitely was. KoA (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Just an FYI: The second diff isn't a violation whether they were warned before it or not, as it was their first revert. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that first revert is considering WP:GAMING of 1RR (or just 3RR) based on the Arb discussions we had when crafting the DS. The expectation was that if someone just tries to "use up" their single revert for the day, it's still a violation considering that the person is expected to follow WP:ONUS policy and get consensus for the edit. That's what brings the last revert into clear violation territory in multiple aspects rather than just crossing the bright line. KoA (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Got a response on their talk page finally, doesn't really look good You can block me, tbh. But it seemed weird to reference a criticism without context from a source whose trustworthiness has been put into doubt. If I violated rules, I accept it. KoA (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for violation of the WP:ARBGMO 1RR restriction on Vandana Shiva. This page is a GMO-related article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Raleigh80Z90Faema69 reported by User:Turini2 (Result: )

Page: 2022 Tour de France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

2. partial revert with below
3. partial revert with above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: I've tried to keep details regarding climate change protests on the 2022 Tour de France factual and to a neutral point of view, keeping it to the facts. This user has been reverting or editing the paragraph to what I would consider to be not a neutral perspective, and has not heeded my suggestion not to revert and discuss on the talk page instead. I did suggest that they were not able of having of neutral point of view, given their talk page comments and their edit summaries. This article is currently linked on the front page. (N.B I have not done this before, so apologies if any procedural errors) Turini2 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Having been keeping an eye on this chain of events, user does seem very fixated on maintaining their ideal version of the article. All content that can be construed as positive regarding the protests is being kept wiped,but needless statements such as 'No riders expressed support for the protests.' and 'So-and-so called the protestors imbeciles' are being maintained... All the while paradoxically stating that the article should be neutral and should focus on the race itself. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted (just to clarify, which user?) Turini2 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Marrew reported by User:Headbomb (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: International System of Units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 17:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100579166 by Jc3s5h (talk) Please stop replacing the actual definition of 'C' (speed of causality) with something that is NOT a constant under the list of defining constants. It adds confusion to for people studying optics, an entire field based on the fact that the speed of light is not a constant."
3. 16:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100496102 by Dondervogel 2 (talk) Speed of light is *NOT* a constant. (If it were, the entire field of optics would not exist). This value is the speed of light *in a vacuum*, otherwise known as the speed of causality."
4. 03:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099367321 by 172.82.46.195 (talk) The 'C' literally stands for causality; not light (who's speed is NOT a constant). Specificity is important."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on International System of Units."
2. 22:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC) "/* July 2022 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

2. Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Is_"speed_of_light"_misleading?

Comments: This is ongoing, please, someone, use that block button or something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This ongoing trolling should be stopped. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC).

• Blocked – for a period of 24h. Favonian (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Fostera12 reported by User:Ab207 (Result: )

Page: Pan-Indian film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fostera12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:23, 27 July 2022
2. 15:33, 26 July 2022
3. 14:36, 26 July 2022
4. 14:23, 26 July 2022
5. 14:18, 26 July 2022
6. 14:10, 26 July 2022
7. 14:04, 26 July 2022
8. 13:58, 26 July 2022
9. 13:53, 26 July 2022
10. 13:39, 26 July 2022
11. 13:34, 26 July 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , now moved to article talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
The user seems to be adamant to completely change the article to their preferred wording. In addition, they have also nominated the page for deletion as it is not in their preferred version. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Jayanthkumar123 is party to this war as well. Would you oppose adding/allowing me to add them to the report fields? GabberFlasted (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Again this user Fostera12 is making edits on the article in spite of a discussion going on and a notice on their talk page. Thier (Fostera12) edits are according to their assumptions. For example , in this revision his reason is to the edit seems to be personal. In this edit , Fostera12 is saying that while the article is assessing notability, the article can be improved, the term did not start off with Telugu cinema, the article is written like an advertisement, there was enthirn before baahubali, let us not get into it, but most of the sources clearly say that the term is emerged from Telugu cinema/Tollywood. In an other edit , they (Fostera12) mentioned that there was enthirn Enthiran before baahubali, let us not get into it, but how's that even realted to the article. Such kind of edits are disruptive. Also, there's another case where they have made disruptive edit which is an evidence of their lack of editing skills on wikipedia. See here , in this edit they have removed sourced content saying that added correct citation for 12th IFFI, it was not screened at cannes, but the film Pushpaka Vimana (1987 film) was indeed premiered at the Cannes film festival according to already added sources and the new one which is added by me . He is also involved in a edit dispute of S. S. Rajamouli...Thank you...Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

These are matters of a content dispute. This noticeboard is not to solve content disputes, but rather to address ongoing edit wars. See WP:EW for the general concept of edit warring, and the bright line rule that identifies what is almost always considered edit warring. The problem here on this noticeboard isn't correct or incorrect information, it is the breakdown of communication and cooperative editing, wherein the editing process is disrupted by large-scale and high-frequency reversions and rollbacks. Let me be clear in that I am not taking a side here, not that what I believe matters anyway. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring