Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:29, 27 June 2016

• 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:EthiopianHabesha reported by User:Zekenyan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Habesha people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EthiopianHabesha (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 has been editing against consensus for a couple days now despite multiple warnings from myself and another user, removing cited material and replacing it with his unreliable sources and original research as well as snythesis. The user has been reverting mid discussion even though editors have rejected his addition and asked him to dicuss his edits. He has said on my talk page that he will continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages by continuing to revert. Zekenyan (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually I've repeatedly pushed both Zekenyan and Blizzio to participate in discussion and solve the issue by consensus but unfortunately they both are not willing to make dialogues based on the content that is added with reliable published books. They simply just don't want the content to be there and their wish is for it to not to be there in the article forever by using all means possible other than engaging with discussion and without supporting their opposition/opinions with other reliable alternative sources. Infact as can be seen in the talkpage of the article, I have made a summary of our discussion on 22 June 2016, in an effort to solve the issue by consensus, so that any opposing sides have their say. However, the user Zekenyan and Blizzio did not give their comments/oppositions/opinions about it so far until I am writing this message, and also I've noticed both of them 24 hours earlier regarding to my last revert so that within this period of time they could explain their oppositions and still didn't got an answer and for that I revert it back. If you review all our communications through talkpage and their userpages there is no sign showing them being committed for a serious discussion and their intention is just to delete the content without listing specific reasons and explaining them in detail and for these reasons they are the ones disrupting. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to respond to you right away. I have other things to do and I need to review all of your edits, you have not given me that chance. Instead your reverting constantly and trying to win the dispute by forcing your edits on to the article. I think I have warned you enough not to disrupt Misplaced Pages when editors are opposing your edits. Please don't be dishonest I have participated in the discussion. You don't simply make a summary and then restore your edits, that's not considered proper discussion. You should be trying to convince other editors not yourself. Your latest revert shows that your trying to game the system by waiting a period of time inorder to avoid violations. The user needs to review basic policies as he is even creating articles solely on original research but is unwilling to get the point even though multiple users have told him. Zekenyan (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment:
I would just like to mention that EthiopianHabesha was also involved in edit warring in the Menelik II article with various Editors. Last edit war happened with Stumink and who was fixing the content to make it more encyclopedic EthiopianHabesha reverted the last 5 edits by Stumink. Diff of the user on the Menelik II article: # EthiopianHabesha proceeded to Delete the sourced data in the Menelik Article(manipulation of agreement between the Users). I also had some dispute with EthiopianHabesha deleting "original research", "weasel word", "unreliable source" tags after he added something and the discussions were long winded but breaking Wiki guidelines with regards to Discussions on Talkpages. EthiopianHabesha has pattern of this type of behaviour if you look at this User's Contribution history.Otakrem (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Piggate (Result: Block for BLP, Semiprotection)

• Piggate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stu42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both users apparently need a break. Found through report on WP:AIV. Full on edit war. TimothyJosephWood 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Stu42 (talk · contribs) blocked 48 hours for BLP violations, personal attacks and possibly evading a previous BLP block. Article semi-protected for persistent edit-warring to insert BLP violations. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that removing BLP violations is an exemption under WP:3RRNO. It is unfortunate that this topic is notable so we seem to be required to have an article. The source of the anecdote remains anonymous. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User:VarunFEB2003 reported by User:190.46.20.240 (Result: Protected)

Page: Ramal Talca-Constitución (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VarunFEB2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

example: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ramal_Talca-Constituci%C3%B3n&oldid=726281310

WP:3RR not yet violated however there have been 2 revisions of previous edits. I started the article last month translating from spanish and working from primary and secondary sources. I asked for help from wikiproject trains to wikify the article. Varun offered to help but became mad when he realised that I had sumbitted the article for review in the previous weeks. He started to madly edit the article to generate edits, however his over editing lead to a lot of factual errors and non wikipedia style formats. I happily edited those out the first time, however Varun has used the undo feature to delete these corrections.

I dont want to be mean or accuse varun but it seems like he is only insterested in getting barnstars and edits under his belt and is less interested in creating a truthful good quality article. Normally I wouldnt mind but he is actively damaging my hard work on my first article.

Many thanks for you support and help!

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

190.46.20.240 (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Opinion -there is so much evidence against VarunFEB2003 having the required competency, that this should probably be part of a broader report. _Muffled 08:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Fortuna u also pls read this. IP If u think i am WP:NOTHERE you may see this sandbox2 of mine where i am already working on rewriting an article. Moreover do you even know what is vandalism. Leaving comments on my talk page like this "What a joke! :-) you vandalised the article and made it innacurate! Well done barnstar for screwing an article up 190.46.20.240 (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)" do not help. The basic guideline of talk pages is being polite and being calm while writing. I helped you so much on the talca article and now u are reporting me!. Ask Whpq who made significiant edits to the article he had made that map that had no dead links and u reverted that good faith edit and made a table full of dead links. A user starts a article, On wikipedia it is open for anyone to make good faith edits. If u think about the earthquake section at that time it was just a one liner and now u have expanded it so it is okay. Whatever I had done was in good faith and not vandalism. Reverting good edits by users is vandalism whch u have just done by reversing Whpq's template. Moreover I am reversing ur edits about that table full of dead links and bringing up the old Whpq's table which has no dead links

VarunFEB2003 (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you please desist from utilizing a signature that is discouraged by the community. It would go some way towards demonstrating a collegial spirit. Many thanks. _Muffled 09:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Actually it was suggested at the help desk but now the user has taken it back so i have changed my sign. However the result about reporting is still not there. If he continually reverts edits by all others to have his own edit ill have to request page protection Varun ☎ 13:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected five days. This dispute was previously at ANI. I hope that both sides will avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User:45.50.116.179 reported by User:Laser brain (Result: Blocked)

Page: Dream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 45.50.116.179 (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 IP started by blanking content on Dream. I reverted them and left a templated message asking them to explain their blanking. They removed the content again, calling it "speculative", and have proceeded to revert three different editors six times in the last 24 hours. They have also started reverting other editors' comments on Talk:Dream, but I'm not filing a separate report for that. --Laser brain (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:NotAnnCoulter reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Sadiq Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727122464 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) The results are in. Get over it losers."
2. 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727121299 by Asilah1981 (talk) See the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum results. The British public have spoken and the decision is final."
3. 20:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727120864 by Asilah1981 (talk) Asilah is clearly upset about the result. That's life my dear."
4. 19:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727111966 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) Not a generalisation. We won the referendum. Get over it losers."
5. 19:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727110765 by Midnightblueowl (talk) An edit war it is. I am prepared to fight a real war over this, and the British public have spoken. Independence Day!"
6. 19:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727108004 by Midnightblueowl (talk) Prime Minister David Cameron resigned for the exact same reason. Khan is expected to resign, eight Labour cabinet ministers have."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sadiq Khan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit-war */ new section"

Comments:

• This is a new account set up, quite clearly with the intent purely of trolling. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We're at 8RR and counting: . GAB 21:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • And they just keep on going... Can someone please come in and slap a ban or block on this vandal? It's a tiresome waste of time undoing their vandalism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We are now at 25RR. Can an administrator please step in and administer a block on this vandal? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week With a clear note to the editor the next block will be indefinite. NeilN 22:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Roni4488 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Natalie Portman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Roni4488 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 23:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 22:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 20:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. warned by SundayClose

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User insists on adding Israel as the location of Jerusalem, despite explanations that it isn't completely accurate. This comment suggests they'll continue to edit war over this. clpo13_(talk) 23:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User was also informed more than once that there is a clear consensus on the Portman article to not include any country for Jerusalem. User may be here to right great wrongs. See comment and this comment on my talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:SWF88 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )

Page: Vikings (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SWF88 (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 user's talk page: User talk:SWF88#June 2016

Comments:
Attempted to discuss the issue on the user's talk page, but they refused all logic. They then falsely accused me of sockpuppetry when an IP editor also reverted them (revert) (accusation). Alex|The|Whovian 10:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

the section you're referring to consists of pieces critical of the show. Also, the show is not a religion, political party or a living person. Neutral point of view doesn't necessarily apply in this case, especially since the section title just reflects the content. SWF88 (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

refused logic? really? is that i clearly stated i welcome third party opinions? careful not to start WP:PERSONAL mr 'experienced editor'. SWF88 (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That does not give you the right to edit war, especially while in discussion. Read WP:BRD: you made a bold edit, you were reverted, and then you should have stayed put and discussed it to gain a consensus before reinstating your edit. The logic comment was concerning the original discussion, not your reply to my warning template. Alex|The|Whovian 14:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:SWF88 could be blocked for edit warring. (Five reverts of the same thing over nine days with no use of the talk page, and nobody agreeing with them). They might avoid sanctions if they promise to stop reverting until their position gets consensus on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Earl King Jr. reported by User:Ladislav Mecir (Result: No violation)

Page: Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. reverts
2. deletes a whole section
3. deletes a whole paragraph
4. deletes a half of a paragraph
5. deletes a whole paragraph and a half

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Notified. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• The filer has listed edits that are part of a consecutive series. Earl has reverted twice, as has the filer.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• I cannot help but count a deletion of whole sections or paragraphs as "undoing other people's work". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• You can do whatever you like, but for the purpose of edit warring, a series of consecutive edits counts as a single revert. Based on that, I'm closing this as No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:46.200.26.232 reported by User:Brudder_Andrusha (Result: Semi)

Page: 2016–17 Ukrainian Second League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.200.26.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2016%E2%80%9317_Ukrainian_Second_League&type=revision&diff=727222889&oldid=727221407
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2016%E2%80%9317_Ukrainian_Second_League&type=revision&diff=727217521&oldid=727208556
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2016%E2%80%9317_Ukrainian_Second_League&type=revision&diff=727197787&oldid=727150161

Hyphenation continually being added.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User_talk:46.200.26.232

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:2016–17 Ukrainian Second League

Comments:
This is issued is similar to what occured in 2015–16 Ukrainian Second League. WP:COMMONNAME was used for the team name. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional the User:46.200.26.232 is continually vandalizing articles by adding hyphens where WP:COMMONNAME is used. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notified. TimothyJosephWood 14:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• The club is known now as FC Metalurh-Zaporizhya, see 46.200.26.232 (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The club is still known as FC Metalurh Zaporizhya, see the team's Official website. Metalurh Zaporizhya Official website refering themselves to "Metalurh" Zaporizhya without any hyphens. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Their site wasn't updated yet. All sources including PFL say FC Metalurh-Zaporizhya: etc. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The team will not update their website. They are using the original team logo and are inheriting the team's history and refer to themselves via the WP:COMMONNAME. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two days by User:Fenix down. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:HyeSK reported by User:Class455fan1 (Result: Warned)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727255195 by CAPTAIN RAJU (talk) identified as test/vandalism using STiki"
2. 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 726340353 by Grandmaster (talk) Revised to proper instrument name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Duduk. (TW)"
2. 18:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Duduk. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps on edit-warring on this page despite being warned TWICE. In edit summaries when users revert edits by HyeSK on this page, users have been telling the user to discuss the change on the page's talk but is ignoring this and keeps reverting edits and leaving messages on various talk pages. This edit war has been going on for days and needs to stop. Class455fan1 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. These warnings are without reason. I am reverting the name of the Duduk to its true name. I am literally making the page more honest and correct. HyeSK (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)HyeSK

That is beside the point. Only after I reported you is when you tried to seek consensus on The Article's talk page. You could have done this a long time ago instead of edit warring about this all the time, which is why you find yourself in this position. We warn users for a reason, these are to help you to head in the right direction and they are given for a good reason. Class455fan1 (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: This is a slow edit war. User:HyeSK is warned they may be blocked if they revert the name of this instrument again unless they have first obtained consensus on the article talk page. Also you can get in trouble for misusing the term vandalism as you did in the edit summary of the first diff above. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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