Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) at 19:31, 25 December 2012 (→User:Ubikwit reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: ): blocked 3 days). 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.

Click here to create a new report

User:Ngfan1 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Page: American Third Position Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ngfan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 00:52, 20 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 528873180 by Beyond My Ken (talk)")
2. 23:08, 20 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 528886969 by Heironymous Rowe (talk)")
3. 00:17, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529031041 by Beyond My Ken (talk)")
4. 02:41, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529054092 by Beyond My Ken (talk)")
5. 22:49, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Electoral participation */")
6. 23:05, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Electoral participation */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a bit late, but I tried to post this about 9 hours ago, didn't notice that it hadn't posted, tried again 3 hours ago and thought it had, now successful. Maybe having over 300 tabs open is a bad idea. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kuru (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

User:67.188.158.240 reported by User:DR04 (Result: Warned; blocked 72 hours)

Page: Metra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.188.158.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. 20:09, 21 December 2012
2. 21:05, 22 December 2012
3. 21:58, 22 December 2012
4. 22:14, 22 December 2012
5. 22:23, 22 December 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR Warning at User's Talk Page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Section at article's talk page

Comments:
This editor seems to have a history of reverting edits with his own unsourced changes. This editor has posted comments directly to the page itself. I assumed he was trying to communicate in good faith and tried responding there in addition to appropriate channels (article's talk page and editor's talk page). The editor simply removed my comment and reverted again. DR04 (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Note. @DR04, you did everything right except you reverted more than three times. I can't ignore that, block the IP and not block you, even though the IP's behavior is clearly more disruptive. So, here's what I propose: (1) no blocks, (2) I'm going to edit the article myself (sigh) to restore the 241 stations and include a source (you forgot to include a full reference, so it didn't work), and (3) post a warning on the IP's talk page that they cannot revert without discussion and consensus or they will be blocked. If for some reason, they ignore my warning, do NOT revert the edit. In fact, you should stay clear of the article for at least a day because of your previous reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this Bbb23. What seems frustrating here is that sometimes there is too much of a focus on policy rather than what's good for the encyclopedia. I wouldn't consider my edits less disruptive than his; clearly my edits weren't disruptive at all (albeit I screwed up the ref). My fourth revert was an assumption of good faith in that the user behind the IP didn't know how to communicate using talk pages, etc. But it got me in trouble due to policy. This entire process has been overwhelmingly frustrating and bureaucratic considering the user behind the IP is showing zero good faith and has a track record of the same. It's wasted enough of my and your time. Such nonsense has been a disincentive for me to edit in the past. And it hurts the encyclopedia. But I understand you only have good intentions and appreciate your assistance here. Don't worry, I'll steer clear for probably more than a day. Ugh. DR04 (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. In the future, though, just warn the editor after they've hit 3 reverts, and report them if they revert yet again. It isn't the end of the world if the article has the wrong number of stations for a while. Don't get caught up in the perceived unfairness. It'll just raise your stress levels. Go edit another article. In the end, it should come out all right, and you won't have to be concerned about being sanctioned needlessly. Misplaced Pages needs good editors, but you need to find a way not to let it get to you when these things happen. I know it isn't easy sometimes.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The IP reverted again after my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Zaalbar reported by - MrX (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 20:20, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "added that marriage equality is used by supporters and changed marriage equality to same-sex marriage in the following paragraph as marriage equality is a POV term")
2. 20:26, 21 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* United States */ random info")
3. 04:07, 22 December 2012 (edit summary: "POV term")
4. 04:14, 22 December 2012 (edit summary: ""supporters" isn't a weasel word, it's quite specific, it's unlike the examples given here: WP:WEASEL. also, it's not exclusively referred to as marriage equality in the legal sense: cultural, social, etc")
5. 18:46, 22 December 2012 (edit summary: "your edit summary didn't respond to my reasons for changing it. I'll try again: "marriage equality" is a term only used by supporters so i'm changing it to "same-sex marriage" and i'm removing "legal recognition" because it is also social, cultural, etc")
6. 00:18, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "the term isn't just used in the legal sense but also social, cultural, etc by supporters. also, no appropriate source has been provided that shows it is a neutral term, therefore attributed it to "supporters"")
7. 02:37, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "not just legal, also social, cultural, etc")
8. 02:38, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "better wording")
9. 03:12, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "removed unnecessary statement to editors")
10. 03:46, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "sources only show that supporters use the term. until an appropriate source is provided on talk can we please leave it?")

• Diff of warning: here

—- MrX 03:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The warning was 2 days ago. Zaalbar hasn't been properly notified. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 04:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

He notified me on my talk, but I think he decided to provide that diff in order to make a point. Zaalbar (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you've just got a list of my edits there. This is an edit warring board. I did two reverts on 22 December then one change on 24 December because no appropriate source had been provided in order to remove the word "supporters" since the 22nd and then one revert on 24 December . Zaalbar (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Diff #8 is a self-revert. Diff #9 is removing an HTML comment. This is beginning to look sorta flimsy. Belchfire-TALK 04:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, edits 3 and 4 constitute a single revert; while 5, 6 and 10 are also reverts - the rest are not reverts. Hence, there are no more than 3 reverts in a single 24-hour period, and no violation of 3RR. StAnselm (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

3, 4 and 5 are from 22 December and 6, 10 are from 24 December so it's only 3 reverts over 22 - 24 of December. Zaalbar (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. This isn't purely a mathematical exercise. I've blocked Zaalbar for edit-warring, regardless of whether they violated 3RR. The amount of battling in the article is disruptive. Zaalbar has been worse than others, but other editors should be careful. BTW, if you want my count, I'm excluding everything that happened before December 24 for the purpose of analyzing 3RR only, Zaalbar reverted 4x:

1. 00:18
2. two consecutive edits at 02:37 and 02:38
3. 3:12
4. 3:46

Any of you may question my count, but (a) I may or may not respond and (b) I didn't block them for a breach of 3RR anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Siavash777 reported by User:Kabirat (Result:Page protected)

Page: Amir-Abbas Fakhravar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Siavash777 (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:

The user Siavash777 is in constant breach of this rule by reverting important changes to the article without any basis. Kabirat (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You were both just edit warring on the page - As such, rather than block you both, I've simply protected the page for a week. Use this time wisely to discuss the future direction of the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Humanpublic reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Warned)

Page: Talk:Jesus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Humanpublic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: due to intermediate edits, would be the best version to revert 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: All this amounts to asking Humanpublic to drop the stick, which lead to the article closure.

Comments:
Humanpublic is a pov-pushing WP:SPA who has displayed a lot of WP:IDHT at Talk:Jesus/Archive_118#Misleading.2C_promotion_of_Christianity and Talk:Jesus/Archive_118#Seeking_opinions_on_sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How am I supposed to respond to the comment left for me by ReformedArsenal? How is he supposed to respond to me? Can any handful of editors censor a minority just by declaring a discussion "closed" and filing a grievance if he tries to unclose it? I don't get it. Editors who don't think the discussion is interesting can simply ignore it. Why the censorship? I haven't insulted or threatened anyone (unlike Ian T.), although I've gotten a bit terse as my concerns are dismissed with "We've discussed this before and decided you're wrong." Humanpublic (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The same answers have been presented to your same questions over and over and over. Your refusal to accept reliable sources as such (the core of your argument) is nothing but tendentious. Your refusal to hear others out is nothing but disruptive. Your constant reopening is edit warring. Also, please provide evidence of me insulting you, because unevidenced accusations amount to personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The topic, at the time you and History2007 tried to block it, was about the definition of "peer-review". I haven't refused to accept any sources, I've pointed out they aren't conclusive. All this amounts to you trying to block a discussion you don't like. There is nothing disruptive about a discussion of the term "peer-review", or a comparison of this debate to evolution. If it has been settled to your satisfaction, then it doesn't interest you and you can spend time elsewhere. There is no reason to interfere with someone else's discussion. Humanpublic (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That has been addressed over and over in the past as well, in discussions you've been linked to before. As has been pointed out before (not that you'll listen this time either) WP:RS does not require only peer-reviewed sources, but accepts other academic works and even textbooks. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say only peer-reviewed sources are allowed. I asked why there aren't any, which led to a discussion of what is peer-reviewed. As for your insults, I found these comments insulting:

"it's become nothing but mantra chanting for your useless deaf ears" and "no, you are being disruptive just because you can't accept that no one is bowing to your POV-pushing." Humanpublic (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you find my descriptions of your behavior insulting, you might want to reconsider your behavior. Have you even considered what it means that pretty much everyone has been asking you to go back and read past discussions, and that multiple and more experienced editors have closed the discussion and asked you to stop? Has it occurred to you that the guidelines and policies being cited regarding your behavior means you are behaving inappropriately? Have you even considered trying to be cooperative? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The 1st edit in that list is 3 days old. For the 2nd (today), two editors had responded to me, and then the discussion was "closed." I just wanted to reply to what they said to me. One of them was History2007, who directed comments at me and then promptly announced the discussion should be closed and I should be blocked for, basically, replying to the comments he addressed at me. Humanpublic (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

are you going to stop this or would you like to be blocked? that is your choice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop what? Saying that a book review is not a peer-review, when somebody doesn't know the difference? Saying that this debate differs from the debate on evolution by lacking peer review and polls? Using the Talk page to talk about my opinion, mostly in response to what others are saying? Or just stop saying those things in this one thread? Do you think these subjects won't come up again? I didn't even initiate this thread. Nor did I initiate the one before it (now archived). This issue has come up in 3 separate threads just in the few months I've been interested in the page. Is Ian T. going to try and shut it down every single time somebody brings it up? Humanpublic (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

All of that, basically. Discussions about the nature of sources in general go to WP:RS and such. Your opinion is irrelevant and doesn't belong per WP:FORUM. Saying that your point is different, see WP:DEADHORSE. For "it'll come up again," see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. The FORUM link you gave is about original research, which has nothing to do with anything here. My opinion is not irrelevant: I'm an editor discussing the article, and that's what Talk pages are for. Your other links don't make any sense, and mostly apply to editing articles, not merely discussing views on the Talk page. I've never even edited the actual article. Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd for editors to direct comments at me, and threaten me with blocks for wanting to respond? If that's my choice, I'll be blocked. I can live without this site. Humanpublic (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We've brought up WP:STICK and WP:IDHT repeatedly, and he has rejected those, as well as WP:3RR. There's also been RSN discussion that he took part in and rejected the consensus of. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I know. I'm just throwing it in one last time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus in that Talk page discussion. It does prove the point that Ian T. is insulting and disruptive: "Take your WP:BATTELGROUND attitude and bigoted and unfounded accusations of bias elsewhere, you blind fool. Many of the people involved in this discussion are not Christian, and those who actually look at the sources are not siding with you in your crusade. That you assume that everyone not siding with you is a Christian only shows you're too much of a crusading bigot to contribute anything worthwhile. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)"

He has cnnsistenly tried to shut down a discussion he doesn't like, with insults and archiving ongoing discussions.Humanpublic (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So bottom line is, you vow to continue? (that's a yes-or-no question) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Per this (not sure why it was removed), I think that's a safe assumption. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Vow to continue what? Pointing out the fact that "book review" and "peer-review" have different meanings? Sure. It's a fact. Expressing the opinion the sources we currently have don't support the article as it currently stands? Sure, that's my opinion. It's also the opinion of several other editors, such as the one who started the thread being censored, and the one (Martin) who started the other thread Ian T. mentioned. Counting me, that's three editors in a discussion of about seven people on this issue. As far as I can tell, Ian is the only one resorting to insults, and History2007's tactic of responding to me and then demanding the discussion be closed deserves no respect. I won't respond here again. Humanpublic (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a yes. Should be more than enough WP:ROPE by now. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. Too much heat here. The edit that was removed (Ian refers to above) has been restored - it should not have been removed. Humanpublic's behavior has been disruptive and they have clearly edit-warred. That said, there's been no attempt by Humanpublic to edit the article in almost 24 hours. The material at issue has been archived (rather than just collapsed), and to sanction Humanpublic now would be punitive. I have, however, warned the editor about future conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Ubikwit reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: 3 days)

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

Edits fall under WP:ARBPIA restrictions and 1rr applies

• 1st revert: 06:42, 25 December 2012
• 2nd revert: 15:38, 24 December 2012

continues an edit war begun a few days earlier

• 3rd revert: 04:51, 20 December 2012
• 4th revert: 03:47, 20 December 2012
• 5th revert:07:17, 19 December 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring