Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:49, 11 October 2011

• 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:Maple08syrup reported by Cameron Scott (talk) (Result: 1 week)

Page: Yuri Dojc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Maple08syrup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 04:35, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "Recent significant public news concerning about the subject")
2. 05:33, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 05:35, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 15:35, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 454697989 -recent events is referenced and it ia a legitimate part on the subject and properly referenced, no matter how unpleasant. The subject wants to be a public figure, he has to endure the heat in the kitche too.")
5. 15:49, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 454720960 Wrong! please do not play games, "inforrm.wordpress.com" is published by TheGuardian, affiliated with Guardian News and Media Limited, the mosty reliable source in GB. It seems that u r practising unwarranted censorship.")
6. 16:03, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 454723138- Please read the blog publication, it is written by a news organziation, have u ever heard about The Guardian, premier news organziation in UK?")
7. 16:27, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 454725872-Please stop the censorship, it is the unAmerican way. The addition to YD conforms to the rules, thrue event about the subjsct, referenced by highly reliable independent source")

• Diff of warning: here

Seems to be a user with a grudge, was blocked once for BLP edits to this article - now editing warring over BLP material.

—Cameron Scott (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Maple invited to discuss on article Talk page here in discussion I opened here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Regardless of whether the source is reliable (which is arguable), the user is completely ignoring 3RR and the addition has BLP issues anyway, because it has no context whatsoever. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User:94.168.204.89 reported by Sjö (talk) (Result: 48 hours)

Page: ReCAPTCHA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 94.168.204.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 18:45, 9 October 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 19:21, 9 October 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "undoing vandlaism. there is no defamation and this is not a living person i also do not like your threats sir")
3. 19:25, 9 October 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "undoing vandalism, forced labor is slave labor sir, please refer to a dictionary")

1. 20:05, 9 October 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "new edit not a reversion reset the count nazi's") (unsure about this one, which is a revert of the content but not the exact wording)

• Diff of warning: here

• Even if maybe this is not the right venue I'd like to add WP:CIVIL complaints: and . Also see the "get a brain and make sure it is turned on" comment here.

—Sjö (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

D Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Drugsarebad89 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drugsarebad89 (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (I'm uninvolved; no attempt on the actual article talk page)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Kuru (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Byelf2007 reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Austrian School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Byelf2007 (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 article talk page: Talk:Austrian_School#Caplan.2FKlein_.22criticisms.22

Comments:

User:Byelf2007 has been insisting on his edit, despite the objection of 3 editors. BigK HeX (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours For the record, it is helpful to point the user to the editing warring policy page, not simply stating "stop edit warring". Okay, I see the much more comprehensive warning given by Lawrencekhoo. He has indicated that the read the policy, however, and even reverted again after reading that and this report. Kuru (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Byelf2007 reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: as above)

Page: Austrian School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Byelf2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Slower edit warring over the last few days:

Heating up to a break in 3RR 'bright line':

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Byelf2007 was warned during a previous edit warring incident, when he wasn't reported. Byelf2007 removed then reinstated the notice with edit summaries that shows that he understands the 3RR 'bright line'.

Byelf2007 was also warned many times about edit warring in edit summaries (e.g. ) and on the article talk page (e.g. , ).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Discussion of these issues occurs at:

• Talk:Austrian_School#Blaug_and_macro
• Talk:Austrian_School#Caplan.2FKlein_.22criticisms.22
• Wikipedia_talk:ECON#Blaug_on_methodological_individualism

Comments:

LK (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate report; covered above. Kuru (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi reported by User:Takabeg (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kermanshahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

His edits are POV pushing and he continuously removes {{citationneeded}} in accordance with only his POV. As we can understand from Talk:Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict, his prejudice against users who try to stop his POV pushing edits and try to prevent his attempt starting needless edit wars, is very serious. He is not open to discussion, because he ignores sources and explanation of other users. This inclination can be detected not only in this talk page, but also for other talk pages. For example, he didn't participate in discussion on Van Province, and shouted vandalism, even he put wrong information (Êlih is Kurdish alternative name of the city of Batman, not of the Van Province). Moreover, he obstructs constructive discussion by accusing other users with POV pushing wording such as "Kemalist", "pro-regime", "Ataturk lovers" etc. Takabeg (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• Here is an example, I tried to cite sources for a POV clarification, but the user consistently denied my sources and called such as "despite what your government may want to call them.", "I will not let your anti-Kurdish biases affect the article.", "I do not need any such sources" etc. while I tried to reason with the user. Reasoning with this user is not possible, even after stating all the facts with reliable sources, he jst reverts them. Khutuck (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 10:12, 10:05, 09:40, 21:15. He's been warned clearely about 3RR before on his talk page. Even though the block log is lengthy, I do not see any for 3RR in the past, so 24 hours for first offense. Kuru (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, haha, very funny. You do know that that "lengthy block log" was for sockpuppetry I did not commit and for which I was cleared. But OK, I'll make sure to only revert these attacks against articles twice a day, from now on.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Redtigerxyz reported by User:GoldRock23(Result: no violation)

Page: Hindu deities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Revision as of 12:05, 8 October 2011 (edit) (undo)

GoldRock23(talk | contribs)

• All of these edits are either reverts or edits that conflicted and deleted information from my edits

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 12:08, 8 October 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by GoldRock23 (talk): Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Venkateshvara are not avatars, can't understand why avatar word was used. (TW)")
2. 15:51, 8 October 2011 (edit summary: "revert removal of references")
3. 15:57, 8 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* Popular deities */ they are considered "aspects" of Brahman, not avatars (a term used for earthly descent)")

• These edits are under 5 hours outside the 24 hour time period:

1. 16:53, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "move para to 330 million gods")
2. 16:54, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* 330 Million Gods */ remove POV pushing and state other theory")
3. 16:56, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* Popular deities */ avatar of Brahman is WP:OR")
4. 16:59, 9 October 2011 (edit summary: "remove WP:UNDUE weight")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Popular deities

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Popular deities

Comments:

First, I made edits telling Redtigerxyz to please stop editing the article until we had resolved the matter on the talk page. This failed to work, and so I made an edit that incorporated both sides of our argument (see article history). Redtigerxyz changed this, too. After warning him, he has explained this away as WP:BOLD,Revert,discuss cycle, but on no occasion has he discussed his edits with me before performing them. He has failed to provide references that state I am wrong in performing my edits, and I have referenced the fact that the usage of two different words we have argued about using can be interchangeable (both can be correctly used as the majority wiew of Hindus). I'm stuck on how to reason with him, as he is refusing acknoledgement of my references. Thanks, GoldRock23 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• No violation Consecutive edits without any intervening edits count as one. Kuru (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Penom (Result: Protected)

Page: Abdullah Ibn Saba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wiqi55 (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
Wiqqi did 5 revert in last 24 hours. It is not a new issues. I have already raised the issue 2 times on the talk page and addressed the article problems but he does not participate in discussionsPenom (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Protected it's either block neither, or block both, because both have violated 3RR. Protecting for 3 days. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not broke 3rr, on the other hand he reverted 5 times in 24 hours. What can I do when I raised the issue on article talkpage 2 times and he does not participate in those discussionPenom (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Your edits at 15:03 and 23:40 October 10, and 01:28 and 02:09 October 11, were all reverts. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Brandon reported by User:TEHodsonTEHodson (Result: no action)

Page: Running Up that Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ] (] · ] · ] · ] · filter log · ] · 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 article talk page:

Comments:

I can't understand this form, I'm sorry. User:Brandon is insisting that a band member Tweeting that it was his band's version of Running Up that Hill playing over a TV show is a reliable source, and won't grasp that someone Tweeting "that was my band!" isn't a reliable source. I've left him messages, and discussed it on the Talk page, but it's not helping. We need someone to explain this to him. And he's been rude. Please help. --TEHodson 04:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - TEHodson was well-intentioned but misguided in this edit war. Although they've violated 3RR, I would ask that they be spared a block for this incident so that I can work with them. Thank you, Swarm 05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for not blocking me. I read carefully the 3RR rule, and I understood it to say that there was an exception made if one party was reverting because of removing improperly sourced material. I therefore continued to revert. If that was a misreading of the exception clause, I apologize. I also followed all Talk procedures and even took to the web to try to find a reliable source for User: Brandon. I don't usually revert more than 3 times specifically because of the rule.--TEHodson 05:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed a misreading of the policy; this does not appear to be a BLP related issue. I don't see that Brandon has reverted four times, but you have. If you will cease any edits to the article for a while and resolve the issue on the article's talk page (as you seem to be indicating you will), then there is no need to block, or in this case protect the article (my first choice). Please note that any other article edits will require a less passive result. Kuru (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Tstanton009 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: )

Page: Daniel Mark Fogel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tstanton009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 04:56, 11 October 2011 (edit summary: "Agenda, Nomo? These sources are perfectly acceptable. You seem to be promoting a one-sided perspective by consistently removing sources supporting a balanced story on this subject.")
2. 13:26, 11 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 16:38, 11 October 2011 (edit summary: "I have read. And you aren't allowed to define consensus on this topic unilaterally. Please try addressing any issues you have individually. Otherwise, there is a strong case of vandalism here. We can always call for assistance from an administrator.")
4. 17:13, 11 October 2011 (edit summary: "Removing references to Shumlin again. Nomoskedasticity, let's work on achieving consensus here rather than having an editing war. See you in talk.")

• Diff of warning: here

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

Note that the editor has now found the talk page and is contributing (though his/her edits are making a hash of threading, as the current state of the talk page shows ) -- but he/she continues to implement the desired edits and is unwilling to wait for discussion to actually achieve consensus. In any event, the diffs above clearly show four distinct reverts in the last 24 hours, with #s 1 and 3 substantially overlapping an earlier edit (soon rejected) by another newbie editor (here -- it's harder to see the overlaps in the diffs, but it's the same attempt to add about "grandstanding" by Peter Shumlin). —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring