Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:35, 30 April 2012 (Archiving 11 thread(s) (older than 48h) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive184.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:RolandR reported by User:ElliotJoyce (Result: Submitter blocked)

• RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user User:RolandR is hounding me and reverting my edits, most recently on the articles Henry Morton Stanley and Afro-textured hair. My own edits were reverts of a previous user (User:Ackees) who changed information on those articles that was unsourced and violated neutrality POV, particularly in the Afro-textured hair article, where the word "mainstream" was replaced with "white."

If someone can please let me know how to proceed, and also let the user User:RolandR to stop reverting my edits without a justifiable explanation, I would greatly appreciate it. I was recently blocked for violating the 3RR, so I am well aware of it at this point and am doing my best not to violate it. ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation: "I've been Wikihouding another editor, but I don't like being Wikihounded myself. I've just come off a block for edit warring, so I'm making only two reverts on each page." I think that sums it up.

Recommendation: Please read WP:Boomerang. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I never Wikihounded anyone- my edits were to remove bias. If you look at the edits of RolandR, you'll see that they are mostly done to annoy and frustrate my own contributions to the site. And for the record, I am not aiming at making a certain number of reverts- I only know that I cannot and do not want to exceed 3 reverts. ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there actual proof of WP:3RR or WP:EW, or is this discussion going to turn into the one that should either be a) on the talkpage of an article in order to try and gain new WP:CONSENSUS, or should you two go talk it out and shake hands on one of your talkpages. Otherwise, dispute resolution is thataway .... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was neither hounding nor edit-warring. The editor, who has now been blocked again, returned from a 48-hour block for "persistent edit warring, Wikihounding and civility issues", and immediately repeated the same tendentious edits which led to the original block. There is no case to answer here. RolandR (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you were both hounding and edit-warring. If you look at your history, you reverted my changes on 5 different articles that you had never edited before; this strongly suggests hounding. Second, you continued to revert after I re-reverted your edits. This suggests edit-warring. ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: ElliotJoyce has been blocked 48 hours by Future Perfect, for "continued POV-driven edit warring immediately after last block, now on Henry Morton Stanley and Afro-textured hair". EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jakebarrington reported by User:Muboshgu (talk) (Result: )

Page: Cannabis (drug) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 19:25, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489200325 by Last1in (talk) Sources have been cited and are in alliance with standards.")
2. 20:17, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489520960 by Muboshgu (talk)These sources come from 2 places: The government, or healthcare professionals. I am reporting any further actions to a moderator.")
3. 20:29, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489523818 by Muboshgu (talk) These sources are valid, nothing wrong with them. Reporting to moderator.")
4. 21:23, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489529546 by Muboshgu (talk) Info is valid and inline citations are correct.")
5. 13:50, April 28, 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489650187 by KDesk (talk) Sources are in fact reliable medical sources. Written by doctors or members of academia holding MDs or PHDs.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user is pushing a negative POV on the page. Further, the user in question followed me to a different page to undo a contribution to simply be disruptive. —– Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring behaviour continues with two new reverts on 28 April at 20:42 and 15:50. Jakebarrington has finally responded to repeated invitations to discuss and reach consensus, but continues the edit war without modification of the disputed content and without addressing any of the core concerns. Please take this page back to the prior consensus and help us get this talented and passionate editor back onto the WP:5P path. Cheers & Thanks, Kevin/Last1in (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Danratedrko reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 31 hours)

Page: The Avengers (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danratedrko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 01:01, 28 April 2012‎
• 2nd revert: 01:06, 28 April 2012
• 3rd revert: 01:19, 28 April 2012
• 4th revert: 01:23, 28 April 2012
• 5th revert 01:36, 28 April 2012‎
• 6th revert 01:41, 28 April 2012
• 7th revert 01:46, 28 April 2012‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Danratedrko&diff=489557896&oldid=489557703

Multiple editors posted warnings on his own talk page, and multiple editors have reverted him. He's a serial vandal who after his 6th revert posted insults on my talk page

Comments:

Already blocked. Kuru (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:74.108.165.44 reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Page semi-protected)

Page: Ed Schultz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.108.165.44 (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:

Comments:
Page has been Semi-protected earlier this month to prevent WP:DE by ip-hopping contributor. PP requested again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Page semi-protected for a period of two months by Paul Erik (talk · contribs). --Chris (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AA193 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 72h)

Page: Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AA193 (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:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Block because of edit warring on same article, same issue, 5th

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Afghanistan#Afghanistan in the Middle East (also the edit request sections above this)

Comments:
This is not a 3RR violation report rather a report of edit warring. User has been warned multiple times and blocked once for edit warring on the same issue and same article, but he/she is persistent in pushing his point of view without achieving a consensus on the talk page. --SMS 16:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - Blocked 72 hours. Editor constantly reverts as to whether Afghanistan is in West Asia or in the Middle East. I notice a string of eight edit requests from him at Talk:Afghanistan. All of his proposed changes were declined as unsupported by consensus. In the light of these verdicts, he surely ought to be cautious about unilateral reverts. He was blocked for the same thing on August 26. If this continues a longer block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:LuzoGraal reported by User:Ackees (Result: no vio)

Page: Portuguese Angola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LuzoGraal (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:

I made serious edits removing obvious bias in the article. I also set up a discussion forum in the talk page and warned the user not to breach 3RR - the user removed my warning and went ahead with the breach

Ackees (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: No action)

Page: List of vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:

• In this case I challenged the source that Slimvirgin used to source the entry. I reverted her and explained on the talk page that the source did not back up the claim. She subsequently reverted me, despite my concerns about her source. I challenged the source at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#veggies.org.uk where my concerns were upheld. In view of this, I think SV should remove her entry and source unless someone comes out in its favor.

Previous version reverted to:

• 2nd revert:

• The second case is more disturbing. SV brought up the issue of the color codes on the talk page, and despite my wishes to discuss it further still went ahead and removed them. These color codes have been a long-standing feature of the article and were backed by four editors at the time (see Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Change_of_formatting_to_match_List_of_vegetarians). I subsequently reverted SV and pointed her to this consensus, but she still went ahead and removed them again.

This behavior of pushing through your own edits against an established consensus and against advice at the Sourcing board is simply not acceptable. Do we edit by consensus here or not. WP:BRD does not state, be bold, revert, discuss and then do what you want.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• SlimVirgin has taken exception to my reversions on that article. However most of my reverts are:

1. Removing unsourced entries
2. Removing non-RS sources
3. Restoring sourcied content that is removed without a source being provided.

In most of these cases, these are single reverts, and I think are valid if you actually look through the reverts. In some cases the sources were restored so I requested an objective opinion at the Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_used_at_List_of_Vegans. In the cases were my objections were upheld I have re-reverted. The article has real sourcing issues and it is unfortunate I am being forced to keep having to go and get rulings at the RS noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm only going to comment here once. Betty Logan has been reverting all and sundry at List of vegans for over a year, often going up to 3RR, then resuming the next day, which has somewhat halted the page's development. I have only occasionally tried to edit the page, and almost every time I've done it, he has reverted me. I respect his desire to keep the page tidy, but he extends this to reverting known vegans and acceptable sources, so it is causing a problem.

Today, he reverted two editors three times in all (and yesterday I believe the same), so I asked him on his talk page to stop. He responded six minutes later by posting a warning template on my talk page. I replied by advising him that, if he continued to revert, I would reluctantly report it here, but stressed that I didn't want to do that and would prefer to work with him. He responded 15 minutes later by reporting me. So we seem to be in the playground. I'll leave it at that. SlimVirgin 02:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• First of all I cannot help it if editors add entries using sources that are then overturned at the RS noticeboard. What should I do, leave them in? Similarly I cannot help it if an editor removes a sourced entry from the list. I reverted them and asked them for a new source so we could move the entry to the "former vegan" section. Also, I cannot help it if four editors formulate a consensus to have color codes and an editor decides to go ahead and remove them. What should we do in that case? Am I more wrong for suggesting to SV I am open to the possibilities of removing them but would rather have more discussion, and reverting the article to what was agreed by four editors, or is SV more right to say he doesn't like it, and then to overrule the wishes of four editors and take them out? Another editor has joine dthe discussion now and objected to SV's unilateral action: . I would liek to point out that reverting is not the same as edit-warring (edit-warring is singularly reversing the same edit. I revert a lot on that article because a lot needs reverting; if someone reverts my reverts though I go over to the RS noticeboard to get a ruling, and if it comes out in my favor I revert again. Also, just check out Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#veggies.org.uk to see what SV's notion of a "well-known" vegan and an "acceptable" source is. I am following proper procedures: revert, and if that is reversed I get another opinion. Not my fault if third opinions go against SV and his sources. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

And just to elaborate on what SV said about "reverting all and sundry" for a year, it's actually more like two years, and yes it is sometimes up to three reverts a day. I appreciate that 3rr is not a right, but it is admin discretion and up to them to determine if the application is justified within that 'quota', so I hope the outcome of this isn't justified solely on the amount of reverting I do, but based one what I revert, and the accompanying action I undertake with those reverts i.e. entering discussion on the talk page/taking sources to RS/N. There are actually many good additions to the artile I leave well alone. Betty Logan (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: It's not clear that this is a matter suited to WP:AN3. This is a long-running content dispute between two experienced editors. There is no RfC on the talk page about use (or non-use) of colors in the listing, and there is no RfC on the sourcing standards which ought to be required to determine if someone is a vegan. I perceive that both SV and Betty are attached to positions which don't have universal support. SV thinks that we should avoid "large numbers of templates, which make the page slow to load for readers and editors". Betty Logan seems to require ironclad sourcing standards for whether someone is a vegan. To SV, I would observe that some articles on Misplaced Pages have templates and they still survive. To Betty, I note that relatively light-weight (non defamatory) bits of information about people are sometimes taken from what appear to be their personal websites. Since it is not always easy to recruit outsiders to an RfC to settle that kind of a dispute, both parties should consider backing off a little from their positions to maintain harmony on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Ed, there was a discussion about the format of the list and four editors agreed to implement it (see Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Change_of_formatting_to_match_List_of_vegetarians), and it was in the list for over a year with no complaints. SlimVirgin has disregarded that and removed all the styling. On the talk page three of those four editors including me were open to dropping the colors, but not in the way she did it; we all agreed there should be some other organizational structure, and one possibility discussed was a sortable table (mine and Muleattack's preference—see example formats here). Considering that we were all willing to consider possibilities that were open to dropping the color codes, then I think it was inappropriate for SlimVirgin to go ahead and remove them anyway without engaging in discussion and agreeing to a direction for the list. It was just exceedingly premature, and the discussion at Talk:List_of_vegans#Legends.2Ftemplates shows that no-one was happy with these color codes just being pulled in the way she did it. The sourcing issues are being resolved at RS/N btw, and I am prepared to stand by their judgment either way. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I have opened a DR case about this which I hope will resolve the issue, so this case is somewhat stale now, and can probably be closed. I have been very disappointed in her approach since we were willing to engineer a solution that would have accommodated her wishes, and all we needed was a bit of time and discussion to do that (heck I even knocked up a mock table without the color codes!). That said I request that now the DR case is open, that any further major structural alterations that are undertaken not in the context of the DR process will be dealt with severely, and I would like you to formalise that and add it to both our talk pages and the talk page of the article if that is possible, because I think it is imperative that any major alterations are carried out with a consensus. As for the sourcing dispute, then I am happy to tackle that source by source at the RS/N, and let a completely third opinion resolve that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: Closed with no action, but with suggestions to the two parties, both here and at User talk:Slim Virgin. At present there are reasonable discussions at Talk:List of vegans#Reverting and at Talk:List of vegans#Removing names. If either SV or Betty reverts before the Talk discussions reach a conclusion they will find themselves on tricky ground. Betty seems eager to pursue all possible forums (RSN, AN3, DRN), but before going to ANI I suggest she should ask an admin to review the talk page to see if a consensus exists for one view or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

User:David-golota reported by User:Oleola (Result: )

Page: Ekstraklasa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David-golota (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: in Template:Pl icon

Comments:
Some background: Normally Ekstraklasa champion receives also Polish Football Championship title per rules. The only exception was 1951 season when PZPN reopened Polish Cup competition and under the existing rules the title of Polish Football Champion went to the Polish Cup champion, not to the Ekstraklasa(league) champion. This is explained in the reference(official Wisła Kraków website) , which User:David-golota constantly deletes. Many, mostly IP users don't know about it and think that if Ruch Chorzów was Polish Champions in 1951, it means that they won the Ekstraklasa. We have problem with such users also on Polish wikipedia, but never so persistent. I explained this to User:David-golota in Polish as he is Polish, send him there also a link to the article scan from "Piłkarz" newspaper from October 1951 titled "Cracow or Warsaw would be the seat of the league champion" to convince him that 1951 Ekstraklasa season was not played for nothing, but for a league championship. David-golota replied with](translated): "I only have one question: You're a fan of Wilsky Krakow.? Just tell the truth." - substantive response don't you think, and then made unexplained revert. Since then, he continuously changing this information despite the fact it's proper and referenced.--Oleola (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jogytmathew reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jogytmathew (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: Entire of the contributor's talk page - User_talk:Jogytmathew

Comments:
This is a newly registered contributor but they are not communicating, and in their latest edits they are not merely adding dubiously sourced information but also removing large chunks of sourced info without explanation. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The situation on this article regarding the reported contributor is now becoming very silly. There is still no communication and they are mass removing cited content, much of which has been the subject of discussion. I have taken the rather dramatic step of restoring to an earlier version on the pretext of vandalism, which is not something that I usually do. They almost immediately reverted me. This might be a situation that takes more than the usual 24 hour block to resolve. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• LadyofShalott 23:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:24.179.138.53 reported by User:Grapple X (Result: )

Page: The Smoking Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.179.138.53 (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:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. Have not attempted to discuss on article talk as this is simply a WP:CHEESE situation, with false material being added (unsourced, obviously) repeatedly; stopping to discuss the merits of incorrect information is a step I'd rather not be forced to condescend to. GRAPPLE X 18:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Youreallycan reported by User:JunoBeach (Result: Page protected)

Page: War criminals in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Initial placement of +tag: 22:49, 28 April 2012‎ first post — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunoBeach (talk • contribs)
• 1st revert: 09:04, 29 April 2012 diff 1
• 2nd revert: 10:17, 29 April 2012‎ diff 2
• 3rd revert: 18:59, 29 April 2012‎ diff 3
• 4th revert: 19:06, 29 April 2012‎ diff 4

Diffs by two different editors giving edit warning on article talk page: Diff 1 & Diff 2

Comments:

I was the editor that created the article. User:Youreallycan has been tracking/stalking me for a couple days now through my edit history. JunoBeach (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I should block the bloody 3 of you. A quick read of the "article" shows it's nothing but a single POV, and not even worthy of an encyclopedia article whatsoever. I was tempted to AFD it - but perhaps you guys can work out something that makes any degree of sense as an article on the talkpage. When protection expires, DO NOT remove the tag - period - or I will consider it a continuation of the same edit-war (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Xmike920 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: )

Page: Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xmike920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 22 April, fourth revert of that series, blocked April 23 for edit-warring
• 2nd revert: 27 April
• 3rd revert: 28 April
• 4th revert: 30 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . My follow-up question, which went unanswered

Comments:

Resumption of a slow edit-war over times of 9/11 aircraft impacts. Xmike920 was blocked on 23 April for this, which has been going on, on and off, for a year. I've attempted to engage the editor, as has Tom harrison, with no response. Others have warned too. Resumption of changes without discussion doesn't seem to bode well: other editors have given their reasons for preferring the more recent NCSTAR source for 9/11 times: Xmike 920 just removes the sources and substitutes times from the earlier 9/11 report and ignores attempts at discussion. Much the same thing has been happening at American Airlines Flight 11 (an FA), and now we're seeing unexplained changes to casualty counts . Acroterion (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring