Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:22, 26 April 2013

• 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:Fgmoon353 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Cardiovascular disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fgmoon353 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. Added by Zad68 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User was reverted twice by myself and once by ClueBot. He continues to remove content supported by review articles. His edits are a little hard to follow. In this one for example he changes the conclusions to "Clinical trials on elderly women with prior CVD events, showed that supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids (a type of polysaturated fat) does not appear to regularly produce desired outcomes." from "however supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids (a type of polysaturated fat) does not appear have an effect" Yet the trial doesn't support the changes . The mean age in some one of the included trials in the meta analysis was 49 and there is no comment that the trials did not include men. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User Jmh649 did not engage me he simply reverted back, case closed. When I pressed him for information on why reverting he stated 3 issues, I addressed those in good faith, and then I reverted back while editing those concerns. This issue he presents as an example I can also change. I must have been confused with another study I was reading. Something else he could have added to his concerns instead of 'revert warring' with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgmoon353 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added this latest revert, which was without Talk page discussion or even an edit summary. It's a revert of my revert of Fgmoon353's, which I explained in full here on the article Talk page. This revert of Fgmoon353's is an identical change to Fgmoon353's previous edit but makes one small adjustment for one of the issues raised, the rest are still unaddressed. This appear to be a continuation of edit-warring as it's simply reverting without discussing. Zad68 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User:InedibleHulk reported by User:217.147.94.149 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Domestic terrorism in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: InedibleHulk (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:
User InedibleHulk is attempting to keep all mention of the Boston Marathon Bombings out of the article using the ruse of BLP violations against the accused suspects. He may have a point about the BLP issues, but if we look at the diffs we can see that his edits go beyond merely clearing those problems. His actual contention is that the bombings cannot be classified as terrorism. He will use BLP as an excuse to justify his reverts, but in fact he is actually edit warring against all mention of the event and refuses to collaborate with other editors. 31.24.33.221 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't a guy have two valid objections to something without one being a ruse? We have a definition of terrorism in this article, which says it requires intent to disrupt, coerce or intimidate. All we have now is speculation on the suspects' motive, based on claims from anonymous sources. So calling it a terrorist attack is a guess. "Act of terror", sure, that's a phrase, not a legal definition. Also not what the article's about.

Calling it domestic terrorism is where this begins to cross the BLP line. This implies an American did it, which has not been proven, let alone precisely which American(s). The guy's been vilified, shot, sedated, interrogated and charged, but has not been convicted, or even made his first court appearance. He should be presumed innocent here, like any accused person. Given that, I feel my deletions are exempt from 3RR.

The edits in the third diff are for various separate reasons, explained in edit summaries and on the talk page. Not sure if those should be considered here, but if so, let me know. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for a week. There seems to be a lot of editing by different IPs and by newly registered accounts. Don't know if there's socking going on as I don't have time to look at it right now. There are BLP issues involved with unconfirmed and unsourced material, so I'm protecting the article against the editor(s) trying to add the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

User:68.230.113.87 reported by User:Revent (Result: )

Page: Raquel Evita Saraswati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.230.113.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Difficult, since prior drive-by anti-vandalism editors have reverted similar deletions from the same page in the past.

The IP editors entire Contribution history is attempts to delete the exact same paragraph from this article. Special:Contributions/68.230.113.87

The attempted vandalism is the deletion of an entire paragraph, which mentions the major reasons for her notability. The article admittedly needs a major edit, which is not my forte. The person who has been deleting it has made an (unsourced) claim that the source cited for her marriage is invalid, but instead of editing the paragraph to remove the disputed information, he has been deleting a paragraph of basic, uncontroversial biographical information. While I have done /far/ more than 3 reverts to this page today by now, I believe the majority of them were legitimate anti-vandalism reverts (the uncommented deletion of an entire paragraph of content by an IP user). Unfortunately, the actual issue with the article only became clear though edit summaries. I repeatedly asked the person to move to the talk page, but unsuccessfully.

Talk:Raquel_Evita_Saraswati

The majority of the text is my attempts to resolve this, but you can also see a comment by a previous editor (in 2008) objecting to the removal of the exact same information (former name, marriage, etc.)

Unfortunately, some of my comments there were responses to statements made in the edit summary, since the person in question refused to move to the talk page.

Comments:

As I said, I might have inadvertently violated 3RR myself here, though it was not my intention. It's a judgement call, as far as which of my reverts were legitimate anti-vandalism. In my defense, I repeatedly stated in edit summaries that my reversions were based on what appears to be vandalism that long predates my involvement.

Revent (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Stormfighter14 reported by User:Jingiby (Result: Blocked)

Page: Bulgarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stormfighter14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have noticed some racialist and anti-Turkish comments and POV-like edits, added by an newly-registred Stormfighter14 (talk · contribs) as: "Bulgarians are purely White European and not Turkic", Bulgarians and their Aryan brothers, Bulgarians are white europeans and that fact isn't even mentioned in this article which in fact is horrendous, "This article sounds very Mediterranean" etc. I have warned him, several times, but he has readded the same info, without any reliable scientific sources, again and again and deleted the terms Mediterranean and Middle Eastern from the article. He also accused me as a lier here. Misplaced Pages is not place for propagandize racialist and pseudo-scientific theories. I do not know how to communicate with that person. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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:

He just has removed the added by me tags for unreliable sources etc:

1. Jingiby (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I have blocked Stormfighter14 for a combination of edit warring, personal attacks, and POV-pushing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User:141.217.232.53 reported by User:Anastomoses (Result: )

Page: Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 141.217.232.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&oldid=548024859

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I have exceeded the "3 revert rule" because the individual appears to be using multiple IP addresses from Detroit area to vandalize the BAPS page and the Jay Sadguru Swami page earlier today (for which 2 of his/her IP addresses were blocked and the article placed under protection); also he/she is posting libelous material citing unverifiable sources (public blog). I have attempted many times to post on the article talk pages of BAPS and Jay Sadguru Swami, called the editor's attention to wikipedia policies, warned about disruptive edits, and posted on user's talk page, only to get bizarre uncooperative responses. The user also tried to delete my article talk page post and when I posted again to point this out, he deleted this post and referred to me as a "lunatic" and accused me of deleting posts. See: and I was redirected here after trying to report this as vandalism (earlier today on Jay Sadguru Swami for which another admin locked page and blocked IP addresses citing vandalism). Please help!

Anastomoses (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Drsmoo reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: Stale)

Page: Richard A. Falk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drsmoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This article is protected under WP:ARBPIA as a 1RR page. Drsmoo is a long-time editor in this area and knows the rules. He was notified about them in 2009 and blocked from editing under WP:ARBPIA for 72 hours for other related actions in 2011. Yet his response here was "LOL, excuse me? Neither of these were reverts. Who knew a single edit of a section on Misplaced Pages was edit warring. Stop trying to start fights." as if he had never heard of the policy. When I explained the policy again he gave a similar combative reply here.

He removed material that has been discussed in depth previously on the talk page in Family background and UN Watch sections. Given his combative replies, I didn't feel much like starting a whole new section on it, besides the mention in another thread. CarolMooreDC🗽 05:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Stale King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you King of ♥ ♦

A short comment: I'm sick of being Harassed by CarolmooreDC. I think I would be forgiven for assuming that two non-revert edits in one day wouldn't be a violation, as CarolmooreDC has done the exact same thing, on the exact same article, multiple times — including yesterday.

April 24:

January 26

Please correct me if edits like this are considered reverts, and I'll be sure not to make more than one on a contentious page per day. This report is part of an ongoing spate of harassment from CarolmooreDC who's hoping "it's like the lottery and if I complain to the right forum on the right day and the right admin(s) see and recognize the perniciousness of your editing history, they will ban you permanently from this article." (P.S. please feel free to look through my editing history for anything "pernicious") or to annoy me until I stop posting. She has reported me roughly around twenty times with nothing coming of it, and it's ridiculous to be honest. I've yet to go to a noticeboard to report her for harassment, as (and perhaps this is why she constantly makes new reports) I find the process tiresome. However I will if nothing changes. Drsmoo (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That is over three years old. Unless you have evidence of similar recent behavior, it is inadmissible. In any case, I think there's nothing more to do on this page; please start a WP:ANI thread if you feel it is necessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

How can something be stale after 28 hours? If you want immediate reports, you should NOT ask us if we left a 3rr/1rr/etc warning. - Or if we tried to discuss it on the talk page. Where's the best place to take this complaint about an inaccurate admin ruling?

• Dr. Smoo second revert: 23:49, April 23, 2013
• My 1rr Warning (where I asked for a revert): 00:47, April 24, 2013
• My complaint 03:19, April 25, 2013‎

Also, User:Drsmoo's "examples" of my 1rr violations again show his misunderstanding of policy; revert of vandalism by a named long term abuser doesn't count; fixing my own ref error doesn't count. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment: I see now that Misplaced Pages:3rr#What_to_do_if_you_see_edit-warring_behavior says: A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page. As I said on talk, "If a warning is NOT a requirement, then your introduction and template should say so." Obviously I will not be doing it again unless I really think it's a naive person, and I don't run into too many of those any more. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, for the record, per talk page explanations, "stale" refers not to the 28 hour reporting time but the fact that User:Drsmoo didn't do any other edit warring in the article during that period so no " preventative measures" to stop him were necessary. Learn something every day. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:H1p3ri0n reported by User:Jtalledo (Result: Warned)

Page: Jean-Philippe Guillemin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: H1p3ri0n (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:

User restored article that was originally merged into the Zenwalk article after an uncontested request. I have attempted to explain to the user that the original merge was not contested, but instead of initiating discussion, user continued to restore article. After restoring the article to prevent a full-on edit war, also attempted to explain to user that it was not worth noting that the subject of the article (who has a similar pseudonym as the user) played jazz guitar since the only reason he is notable is due to the Linux distribution he is associated with. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I have restored the redirect, which has been in place for three years. I have warned the editor that they need to discuss restarting the article and that if they persist in edit warring, they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Alhanuty reported by User:GhiathArodaki (Result: No violation)

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

Comments:He is edit warring in the Syria Article , see the history of page , i warned him , but he ignored the warning , showing that he's opinion is the correct , and that makes the article biased, the dispute about the article was ended ,and the result was keeping the flag and coat of arms , also the national anthem and the name of the country , but he every time vandalism the page.

LOL,I never edit warred,secondly no consensus is reached Alhanuty (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And to keep you update 5 are with putting 2 flags and 5 are against itAlhanuty (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The article is under sanctions, meaning the relevant edit warring rule is WP:1RR. No one has violated that rule. What I do see is a great deal of disruptive editing and personal attacks by both of you. GhiathArodaki accuses Alhanuty of vandalism and writes incoherent diatribes on the article talk page. In an edit summary, Alhanuty accuses another editor (in all caps, of course) of being a meat puppet without a shred of evidence to back it up. And threats abound everywhere. At this point, I'm tempted to block both of you as neither of you has shown any sign that you know how to behave. Meanwhile, the article, and the Flag of Syria article, are both suffering intermittent disruption (and are not necessarily consistent with each other). As to whether there's a consensus as to what belongs in these articles vis-a-vis the Assad government and the rebel government, I'm not going to wade into that quagmire.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The evidence is when I revert an edit by an editor,another editor supporting the editor that I reverted his edit comes and returns everything as it is before I edited Alhanuty (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that another editor disagrees with you is not evidence of meat puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Also one of these editor wanted to put israel as a rebel supporter,and his attempt failed so,I suspected meatpuppetry Alhanuty (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation Nothing more to see here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple removals of clean-up tag in Gun control (semi-protected article)

== User:Gaijin42 reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result:

• Blocked – for a period of hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)) ==

Page: Gun control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gaijin42 (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:
Gaijin42 is removing a tag for disputed content which remains in the article. Other editors are not repeatedly removing the content, only asking for validation as RS material. Gaijin42 makes hostile comments, including her most recent Edit Summary on Gun Control, "GFY" which I take to be an entirely inappropriate obscenity. This is a difficult and contentious article. Other editors are trying in good faith to resolve disputed issues. This edit war is particularly unfortunate since the editor appears to be willfully hostile, per the above Edit Summary. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours While he was not properly warned (the warning came after all the reverts), he's been here since 2006 so I presume he's heard of the 3RR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring