Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user U1krw4txwPvuEp3lqV382vOcqa7 (talk | contribs) at 12:06, 29 December 2019 (→User:DBigXray reported by User:Ms Sarah Welch (Result: No violation): Replying to El C (using reply-link)). 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:Newimpartial reported by User:Crossroads (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(Article is under 1RR, see below. The two reverts were within 25.5 hours, which is obviously gaming the system.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not really applicable to 1RR. Just one revert isn't edit warring, so how would one know to give a warning? And by the time another happens, it's already a 1RR violation. If a warning from me is required for a block, that means that the edit warrior gets a 2nd revert for free and 1RR is toothless, since the warning only happens after the 2nd revert. Or, if I can still report after the 2nd revert, then the warning is totally superfluous to this report. Anyway, this editor does know better. See below. (clarified)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (ongoing discussion)

Comments:
The article is under 1RR. This was clearly advertised on the talk page until a few hours ago when it was removed by another editor in good faith. The dispute involves an SPS - a 2018 draft paper. The apparent consensus of a discussion about the SPS was against inclusion, so the draft paper and 3 other SPS were removed, and nobody restored them for 6 days. Ignoring WP:ONUS, not bothering to get a consensus first, and intent on getting their favored content into the article, Newimpartial's two reverts consist of restoring the removed draft paper, the first time with the three other SPS, and the second time by itself. Note that this editor has already been blocked once for 31 hours for edit warring in July, so any block this time should be longer. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC) (clarified) -Crossroads- (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, just noting in passing the irrelevancy of a TP notice, and that the article page has had this edit notice which includes {{Ds/editnotice|1RR|topic=gg}} since June. Mathglot (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding: In case anyone doubts that edit warring is an ongoing problem with this editor, note what they themselves said less than 2 weeks ago regarding their behavior on a different article that is under 3RR: it is certainly within my rights to revert up to three times... They had in fact done that, which is why they're defending it, and they are wrong because WP:3RR says, The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Newimpartial - I would just point out that the second so-called "revert" was in fact a compromise, restoring one specific source for policy-compliant reasons rather than simply reverting the large-scale removal of sourced content by Crossroads. I don't think any such compromise can plausibly be considered "gaming the system", but I invite scrutiny and constructive suggestions for my editing, as always. Newimpartial (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment by Newimpartial This entire report actually strikes me as a kind of reprisal for the interaction between us recorded on Crossroads's talk page as the last entry in this version, when I opted to share a template rather than reporting Crossroads for an actual 1RR violation. Somehow he found this to be grounds for offense, though I cannot say how. But again, I am here fully receptive to enlightenment... Newimpartial (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The "sourced content" that Newimpartial is referring to is sourced to a blog, a personal webpage, a YouTube video (seriously), and an unpublished draft paper. Their "compromise" is just them focusing on their favorite source, and no "policy-compliant" reason requires it to be there. Their gaming the system is evident by the fact they reverted just after 24 hours had passed. I have to thank them for reminding me that they did the same thing with the same exact content in September, two reverts to restore it in 26 hours: My supposed 1RR violation involved completely different content between the two edits, and was a mistake for which I offered to self-revert (but I had already been reverted and I still think Newimpartial was misinterpreting 1RR). I'm not even sure they were reverts rather than bold edits. Anyway, it is clear that this editor knows about 1RR and violates it to save this draft paper that they love. Just because a few hours have passed does not mean this should be marked as "stale", either. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The "second revert" Crossroads is faulting me for is not sourced to a blog or a personal webpage, or a YouTube video, so none of these are relevant to the supposed 1RR violation. The "second revert" only adds back the draft paper bearing directly on the topic and written by published academic experts in the relevant field (linguistics of slurs) and is therefore definitely policy compliant to include, ahead of the op-ed commentary by non-experts which Crossroads is constantly at pains to introduce when it agrees with their POV. The discussion on the Talk page has not shown any objection to the inclusion of the paper in question by anyone who actually understands WP:SPS and WP:SECONDARY, the latter of which Crossroads laughably cited as a reason to exclude reliable secondary sources. I could go on. :) Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Not relevant, this is a behavior forum, and your description is a gross distortion which I won't get into to save space. Let's focus on the issue: Newimpartial is a habitual edit warrior whose behavior needs to be addressed. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Warned. I consider this a violation, but it's not one I enforce on first offences (first time of a borderline duration between reverts, that is). But, certainly, please don't just wait an hour and a half to revert, Newimpartial. Yes, the brightline rule is there for a reason, but gaming it in a procedural sense is going to be viewed harshly by many admins and is likely to result in sanctions next time (it certainly will if I see it). Anyway, try to give yourself a comfortable (I won't define it) few hours. But anything less than hours (plural) is simply not up to par. That said, if the edit wasn't really being objected to on substance but only in order to report the user so that they are sanctioned, that is a much greater gaming violation. But I can't tell whether this is so (arguably, that claim is an aspersion), despite Newimpartial argument that it may be the case. So the facts concerning the two edits being reverts is the only thing considered in the closing of this request. El_C 04:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I do object to the edit itself. That is why I reported it. It is just this editor again out-reverting everyone else to keep their preferred content. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA reported by User:Mr Xaero (Result: Semi)

Page

U.S. Route 2 in Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 932553505 by SounderBruce (talk) This is clearly not disruptive editing. Rather it is edit-warring. Stop warring and stop WP:SQS and discuss instead"
2. 19:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 932471323 by SounderBruce (talk) I'm being serious this time. Stop edit-warring now or an admin may intervene."
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC) to 13:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 13:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930245131 by SounderBruce (talk) Remember I would like to remind you that from this revert you are not to revert from status quo ante bellum. No more warring. Okay."
   2. 13:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC) "Updated archive link for RDP to last snapshot before the link went dead"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on U.S. Route 2 in Washington. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

It appears that a content dispute between an IPv6 user and a registered user is occuring once again on U.S. Route 2 in Washington. Page was protected in the past involving another dispute which stemmed from the same two users. Mr Xaero 19:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:Kinu. As to the matter in dispute, SounderBruce says "Arbitrarily updating the citation access-dates without having a corresponding change in the content cited or a significant change in the cited webpage is deceptive to readers and editors". The protecting admin, User:Kinu, has commented in more detail at Talk:U.S. Route 2 in Washington#Content Dispute Resolution. The IP editor has filed this issue at WP:DRN. Maybe there is some current practice on whether these access dates should be updated when nothing is known to have changed since the last access? The IP's persistence on this issue is puzzling though I don't know if it's an explicit policy violation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Abbymsmall reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24 hours)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:36, 26 December 2019
2. 03:17, 26 December 2019
3. 21:38, 26 December 2019
4. 02:05, 27 December 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:09, 26 December 2019‎ 22:08, 26 December 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is a long-running dispute, and sockpuppetry is not out of the question: 29 April 2013, July 2016 - January 2018, January 2019 -

Comments:
Abbymsmall's edits include multiple articles with long-running disputes over models' measurements. I've not kept track of any sockpuppets or attempts to address these problems on a multi-article scale. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 04:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:47.26.218.18 reported by User:Jerodlycett (Result: Blocked)

Page

Alcor Life Extension Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (TW)"
2. 14:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Alcor Life Extension Foundation. (TW)"
3. 14:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Alcor Life Extension Foundation. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP has been reverted for removing cited information by several editors on a WP:Fringe topic. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and trying to state that I am, it's not funny. When someone removes non-credible sources from POV opinion columns, that does not constitute vandalism. Please review Misplaced Pages's policy on Edit War and please refrain from doing so in the future. 47.26.218.18 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:94.173.120.38 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked for BLP issues)

Page

Babar Azam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "content being removed again even though it is true and relevant"
2. 16:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid removal"
3. 16:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverting changes made by user ilnord"
4. 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverting changes made"
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC) to 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted page back from removal of relevant information"
   2. 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC) ""
6. 16:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Added back relevant content after someone decided to remove It"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"
2. 17:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Already blocked N.J.A. | talk 13:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Mi6pro reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Second Battle of Panipat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mi6pro (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: Mi6pro has chosen not to use the talk page.

Comments:
Mi6pro is just another of a long list of editors/IPs that have been attacking India related battles. This nonsense has been going on since mid-November, involving multiple IPs, "new users", etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely N.J.A. | talk 13:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SwarSadhak reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Indian classical music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User blocked on December 17 for edit warring on this page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User also edit warring on Amir Khan (singer). Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:Ms Sarah Welch (Result: No violation)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

(first revert)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Second revert 01:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): These POV edits need consensus. stop edit warring. (TW)"
2. Third revert 01:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk (TW)"
3. Fourth revert 01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk page. stop edit warring (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Onam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Onam festival */ r"

Comments:

DBigXray has made four reverts within 24 hours. The later reverts were made while ignoring my explanation/comments on the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, you are adding pov content that has serious issues instead of working for consensus of your addition you are more intent on edit warring and filing block requests to get others blocked, first at ANI and next day here at ANEW This is extremely disappointing, coming from an experienced editor.

And where did I make 4 I see 3 diffs above.

@closing admin, in spite of the IP raising questions on her addition of pov content trying to convert it into a Hindu festival, instead of answering she is evading discussion /consensus. On top of that she is using offensive edit summary where she states "consensus with vandalism/disruptive editors is unnecessary". The filer has made an equal number of reverts. I think some action is needed here. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 01:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

1st: 08:49, 26 December 2019; DBigXray (talk | contribs) Your edit summary: (RV some major POV edits with cherry picked sources that shifted the WP:NPOV balance of the article, discuss this on the talk page.)

2nd: 01:17, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk page. stop edit warring (TW)

3rd: 01:22, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk (TW)

4th: 01:30, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): These POV edits need consensus. stop edit warring. (TW)

Not only that, your reverts deleted sources, sourced content and misrepresent the source in Cultural Festival section by inserting content that is not supported by the Ponnumuthan source. Your edits suggest you are WP:NOTHERE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ms Sarah Welch: DBigXray's edits do not suggest they are NOTHERE. No more personal attacks; they don't help you, and they may get you in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, you are falsely claiming that i made "four reverts within 24 hours.". The time stamps clearly show that this is a blatant lie. And FYI, trying to get others blocked with WP:NOTHERE doesn't  really work with established editors. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 02:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No violation. I count only three reverts in 24 hours (you need four to violate 3RR). But beyond that, this acrimony between you two is starting to become a problem. Do we need to implement an interaction ban, or can you two learn to work together in a collegial way? Please let me know. El_C 11:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

El_C Sufficient talk page warnings were given on User talk:Ms Sarah Welch and yet she continued with her disruptive reverts , , and after hitting 3 reverts she promptly filed this ANEW report with lies that 4 reverts were made. It is quite obvious that her intentions were to weaponize Admin Noticeboards to get the other editor sanctioned as a way to evade WP:CONSENSUS.  El_C she is continuously attacking me and then running to admin noticeboards for getting sanctions, this ridiculous and childish behavior has to stop. My only intention is to work towards a Consensus version and it is not me who is trying to get the other editor blocked, so this is false analogy about the two. It is obvious to see which one has malicious intentions. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You repeatedly use the word "lie," which further adds to the acrimony — I challenge that, rather, you should assume good faith that mistakes were made rather than lying outright. El_C 11:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright El_C, I agree that I must assume Good faith and I should rather consider that "mistakes were made" by her in counting the reverts. Now can you address this obvious one sided BLOCKSHOPPING that she is carrying out against me. As you are aware this is the second time, she has done this. Shouldn't this type of offensive behavior that is against collaborative editing be addressed ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am aware. And I hold a dim view of it. El_C 11:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

El C, ok lets see if the "dim view" helps the situation. A WP:BOOMERANG IMHO will certainly be more effective in discouraging these attempts for block shopping. regards. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Hunan201p reported by User:Beshogur (Result: )

Page: Ashina tribe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hunan201p (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:
First time it was changed to "unknown" was made by an ip user. (here), since then Hunan201p is removing sourced content and saying "Leave it alone for now.", saying that I should leave an article alone like he is an admin. I added sources, however he is still not convinced. Also claiming Tengrism is "is a syncretic religion that may have been *altered* by Ashina.". This is nothing more but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beshogur (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The final sentence in this paragraph is inaccurate. I did not claim that Tengrism is a syncretic religion altered by the Ashina tribe; I suggested Beshogur's own source said that. My position has been that this is a very sketchy, grey area subject matter and that the article needs to be left alone until there is a discussion involving multiple users at the talk page (including Beshogur) until we reach consensus on the ethnic language of Ashina. He has thus far refused my suggestions.

Most of his edits appear to be geared toward the Turkicization of this ancient ethnic group. He initially attempted to delete several references from the page (on 20:45, 10 December 2019) which supported an Iranian origin for these people, by erroneously claiming their authors did not advocate such a position. He also added a flurry of "citation needed" tags ahead of statements related to these authors, which had in fact already been cited. After I reverted this, he tried it again, and another user (Wario-Man) then reverted those edits on December 25 for a second time, and suggested that he knock it off, as the article itself is being re-written anyway.

More recently, on 11:01, 28 December 2019, he falsified a reference to support the claim that these people spoke Old Turkic; something he apparently acknowledges having done, as he didn't put it back after I reverted it. Very suspicious behavior indeed, and I don't believe I violated the 3 revert rule, which should not apply in such situations, if I remember correctly. I'm confident my revisions were reasonable. Beshogur seems to be in a rush to complete a project that is under construction, all by himself, using very questionable building materials.Hunan201p (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

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