Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:10, 19 December 2011

• 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:Intoronto1125 reported by User:Cossde (Result: Already protected)

Page: Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Said user has removed categories from this article with references supporting the things being removed. Cossde (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected already— see above section. Swarm 04:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Zenkai251 reported by User:Noformation (Result: stale)

Page: Talk:Genesis creation narrative (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zenkai251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit warring is on a talk page so I'm not sure this applies. The user has been warned about 3RR and refactoring others comments.

Comments:

User had not breached 3RR at the time I posted this report but has now done so. Review recent history and it should be apparent. Update: User has now trolled my talk page with a 3RR warning. Very pointy. Nformation 08:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse Something should be done. He has pushed the patience of the project too far.--Adam in MO Talk

• Oppose No one had the right to revert my edits. Zenkai251 (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Everyone has the right to revert your edits. You are at 5 reverts now. You are well over the block threshold. Please stop for your own sake before this develops any further.--Adam in MO Talk 09:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is under discussion at Incidents herel.--Adam in MO Talk 09:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Stale for now and apparently at ANI. Swarm 05:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Petrukhina and User:Illyukhina reported by User:Dismas (Result: 48h)

Page: Cherry Jul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Petrukhina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Illyukhina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

This case isn't just limited to the article mentioned above. If you take a look at the edit histories of both editors, you'll see that they're locked in an edit war on several articles. They all seem to have something to do with whether or not the Soviet Union should be linked or the country that is now one of the former republics of the Soviet Union.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There are too many articles involved here. It's a conflict between the two editors about several articles. Not just one.

Comments:

Both Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by User:JamesBWatson. Swarm 05:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Abdul raja reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: No action)

Page: Desi Boyz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abdul raja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
User involved in an edit war with Somonlast on Desi Boyz. I am not sure user did the fourth reversion after the 3RR warning or at the same time as both have same time stamp. Reporting here so an admin may be able to decide better. SMS 18:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The 3 edits that i did are obvious Vandalism. I guess According to 3RR rule, It is permissible. Thanks. Abdul rajaT 18:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted persistent vandalism in Desi Boyz page. I already reported here that the user Somonlast is a Vandal. Thanks. Abdul rajaT 18:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this exemplifies Somonlast (talk · contribs)'s edits. The "UniversityLeaks" website that he/she is linking to obviously does not meet our standards for reliable sourcing, and I concur with the removal of the charges. I think Abdul raja is well justified in removing the information as borderline vandalism. I would not have Abdul raja blocked, especially since Somonlast apparently engaged in an edit war with other users as well on another page as an IP as well. Somonlast also seems to meet the definition of WP:SPA considering that all his/her edits are about or related to advocating UniversityLeaks and its point of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, but then unblocked per IAR, considering the disruptive editing he was reverting (to be clear, it wasn't vandalism and there's no 3RR exemption here). Abdul has been reminded to mind 3RR in the future, even when dealing with disruptive editing. Somonlast has been blocked indefinitely. In sum, no action. Swarm 05:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your action. But i don't know why it was not considered as Vandalism. Can you explain me? Thanks.Abdul rajaT 07:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:60.240.231.203 reported by User:Footy Freak7 (Result: 1 week)

Page: Northern Football League (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 60.240.231.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northern_Football_League_%28Australia%29&action=historysubmit&diff=466229172&oldid=466222355

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northern_Football_League_%28Australia%29&action=historysubmit&diff=466253004&oldid=466229172
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northern_Football_League_(Australia)&diff=next&oldid=466282739
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northern_Football_League_(Australia)&diff=next&oldid=466407468
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northern_Football_League_(Australia)&diff=next&oldid=466432275

This user has previous form for 3RR violations.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ANorthern_Football_League_%28Australia%29&action=historysubmit&diff=466433971&oldid=466229013

Comments:

This is very frustrating. I have had to halt my editing to avoid the 3RR rule myself and have asked for help. As this IP has been a previous issue I did not feel that another warning was required (I can be corrected on this). There is a clash of verifiable evidence and he refuses to acknowledge this, persisting in one side and refusing to provide the additional evidence required that will resolve the issue. At present the needed evidence only exists as original research so it can't be added. So in effect he is ignoring the reality of the By Laws as they have stood since 1981 (as I stated on the talk page). Footy Freak7 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Swarm 04:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Israelite1 reported by User:DePiep (Result:Declined)

Page: Israelis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Israelite1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

-DePiep (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment User has not broken 3RR yet, does seem a bit odd that a user has only made 4 edits and 3 of them are all reverts. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Those kind of edits are clearly covered by 1RR under WP:ARBPIA and the use of Joan Peters as a source doesn't suggest the editor belongs here at all. I've added 1RR/sanctions headers. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious, how does one know that an article is under 1RR restriction?, surely we can't just assume a new (or even an experienced) editor knows about WP:ARBPIA. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, just seen the warning on the talk page. Never seen that before, would be very easy to miss. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Declined but only because the warnings were put on the editor's talk page after their last edit. They now should be clear about the 1RR restriction and if they break it or take other actions which appear to be edit warring should then be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get this. I did not refer to 1RR. I know is might be I/P related (and so ARBPIA), but I did not claim 1RR transgression. (The 1RR has only been notified after my notification here ). And all together: no 1RR was in scope (except for the accused user).

I am here for a 3RR. Factual: R1=10:36 (Dec 17), R2=04:44 (Dec18), R3=09:35 (Dec18). The user did 3 reverts withing 23h. All were show "undo" as by automate (btw User did mark all as "minor", which requires a personal action).

You could have killed me here for "not engaging in dispute solving".

Oh, and by the way: I posted here (1st time I guess), but I did not read that I was writing a request that could be "denied" (exactly what was denied?). Just wanted to note a 3RR user. -DePiep (talk)

3RR was not broken, since it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the WP:3RR rule. The editor was forgiven for their 1RR violation but is warned not to repeat it. I have notified User:Israelite1 about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Feldon23 (Result:No violation )

Page: List of changes in Star Wars re-releases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AndyTheGrump (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User has refused to discuss or engage any communication warning him that mass reversions are unacceptable and that the article content is acceptible on Misplaced Pages, despite numerous examples provided.

• 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. AndyTheGrump's last edit to this was a week ago, and the one before that 2 months ago. Editor bringing this seems to have a content dispute with him but that can probably be worked out on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This has got to be about the most ridiculous misuse of this noticeboard I've seen. Evidently, having failed to explain how an article consisting almost entirely of original research can be justified, Feldon23 prefers to resort to falsification. It is an outright lie that I have "refused to discuss or engage any communication", as the article talk page demonstrates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems very odd that an account which hasn't been used in three years made this complaint. These accounts appear to be recently created/active who have made comments on the talk page: Special:Contributions/BridgeSpotter Special:Contributions/Feldon23 Special:Contributions/Syko_Conor Special:Contributions/Fernandosmission Special:Contributions/Stupendous_Man!. Is this grounds for a checkuser to be performed? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Feldon23 has apparently revived an inactive account solely for the purpose of making false assertions about 'vandalism' and violations of WP:3RR. You're right - the obvious question is whether he/she has been involved in the discussions under another account... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

feldon23 is an account I have used rarely on wikipedia but it is no less valid. I'd be happy to verify it by any means required. First, i have little interest in the article in question. I came upon it when someone linked me to it and i found it in the current dispicable state. So i headed to the Talk page to find that someone named AndyTheGrump who not only had no knowledge of the subject, and not only was advocating the speedy deletion of an article that had been built up over several years, but had REVERTED major parts of the article no less than SIX TIMES. All attempts at useful discussion have failed and Andy continues to promote the idea of deleting the article altogether on the basis that any list of deleted or changed scenes about a film is not encyclopedic and has no place on wikipedia despite hundreds of films on wikipedia having such annotations. Thus far Andy hasn't brought up the article for Deletion because he knows he will lose. I am dealing with AndyTheGrump as one deals with a bully. If I had simply reverted all his reversions, then I would stand accused. What Andy is doing is Vandalism plain and simple. Feldon23 (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If "feldon23 is an account have used rarely on wikipedia", can you please let us know which other accounts you have been using? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

feldon23 is my one and only Misplaced Pages account. When are you going to bring the article up for Deletion? That's what you've indicated you feel should happen.Feldon23 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of the process for creating a sock puppet investigation here as it seems there is something worth investigating here. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll pass any such test. Meanwhile the points I've raised go unanswered.Feldon23 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the board for your issues. This is the 3RR board and Andy clearly isn't guilty of 3RR as has been pointed out. I suggest you move to the talk page of the article in question and raise your points there. Perhaps you could raise a WP:RFC to get more neutral input? GimliDotNet (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a welcome message on your talk page, this contains many useful links, including how to help resolve dispute. Hope it's useful for you. GimliDotNet (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Raulseixas reported by User:Yk Yk Yk (Result: 1 week)

Page: Multiple; see Special:Contributions/Raulseixas
User being reported: Raulseixas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
Mass edit warring over the names of Spanish footballers. Has been blocked for mass edits of the same nature before. I did not warn because the user never answers any queries in English. His lack of knowledge of how the English media covers footballers is probably the reason for his intransigence. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Swarm 19:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:82.41.22.244 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: PP)

Page: Chris Moyles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.41.22.244 (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:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on related talk pages:

Comments: This is one aspect of a running dispute over whether mock-awards presented by political advocacy organizations, intended to disparage/deride their "recipients", should be presented in BLP articles as though they were standard, legitimate awards, and whether such faux awards, characterizing the "recipient" as a "bigot" or a "bully", simply amount to abusive invective that should not be included in articles at all. The dispute is in places rather heated. In the last day or so, this IP-hopping user(with whom I've been involved in other disputes, where it has used multiple account names and IPs) has targeted the article for particular attention, repeatedly adding back contentious and disputed BLP content with the claim that no consensus has been established to remove it. (In the recent past, the disputed content has been removed has been removed by at least three different editors (myself, Noq and Osarius), while supported by Escape Orbit and the IP.) The IP's actions are clearly intended as disruption, attacking (usually in edit summaries) those on the opposite side of the dispute as "vandals" , removing comments from talk pages , and even suggesting that such repeatedly disputed content is not "contentious" .
Given both the evident BLP problems and the plainly disruptive intentions of the IP, I believe that, in accordance with the outcomes of multiple similar past disputes, my own editing is exempt from 3RR limits and requires no more extended discussion than I have already provided. I will, of course, conform future edits to whatever is determined here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 4 days. Please consider bringing this to WP:BLPN for further input. Swarm 19:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank ou. There have been several related discussions recently on BLPN recently, with a more general discussion now on BLPN AT Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stonewall_Awards - Bigot of the year "award" where I've commented. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Pseudo-Richard reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Reporter blocked 24h)

Page: Filioque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pseudo-Richard (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:
Here's the output of 3rr.php for this dispute, counting just the edits of Pseudo-Richard:

1. 04:12, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "reverting rant which, even if sourced, is off-topic in this section which is titled "Recent attempts at reconciliation"; discuss on Talk Page")
2. 17:00, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466544018 by LoveMonkey (talk)")
3. 17:09, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Recent attempts at reconciliation */ Moving text that discusses recent theological perspectives to a separate section; this section is about "attempts at reconciliation"")
4. 18:41, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "rv LoveMonkey's restoration; put history in the "historical" section and recent developments in the "recent" section")

Pseudo-Richard's edits numbers 2 and 3 are consecutive. So he has made only three reverts altogether.

For comparison, here are LoveMonkey's recent edits on the same article:

1. 01:43, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ restored ENTIRE SECTION THAT WAS SOURCED WHY DID ESOGLOU DELETE THIS MUCH MATERIAL WITHOUT TALKPAGE CONSENSUS?")
2. 16:48, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466460105 by Pseudo-Richard (talk)reverted editwarring by Roman Catholic editors whom are edit warring")
3. 18:26, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466547111 by Pseudo-Richard (talk)reverted POV blanket deletion of sourced material address on talkpage")
4. 18:28, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Recent attempts at reconciliation */ added back in summary rename")
5. 18:29, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Joint statement in the United States in 2003 */ and this one")
6. 18:36, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ since revert failed readded conent and altered content to reflect talkpage comments by other editors")
7. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ clarification")
8. 18:39, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ change title to reflect what can be sourced by source agreed upon by editors")
9. 18:49, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ partial restore will restore other parts once I complete sourcing")
10. 18:50, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Adoption into the Nicene Creed */")
11. 18:51, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ restored sourcable summary")

Edits 3-8 and 9-11 of LoveMonkey are consecutive. So LoveMonkey has made at most four reverts altogether on December 18. Some of his edits may just be shuffling material around or adding new text, so they may not be reverts. Other users are invited to study the pattern of edits to see if there is an actual revert war. LoveMonkey is restricted from changing anything related to Catholic beliefs, though he may edit Eastern Orthodox material. See WP:RESTRICT for details. I won't be able to look further into this for several hours,so other admins are welcome to close this if they can figure it out. The Filioque has been the scene of furious edit wars in the past. A dispute about the Filioque is the source of the split between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

On the part of Pseudo-Richard, 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. On the part of LoveMonkey, I do count four actual reverts; Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm 19:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Harrumph... it looks like I just barely avoided crossing over the "bright line" of 3RR and I recognize that this is not a good thing. I normally try to observe WP:1RR and I confess that I was a bit more irritable than usual this morning and just didn't have the patience to follow WP:DR and issue a WP:RFC as I probably should have.

In recognition of the principle that "both sides are guilty in an edit war", I will refrain from editing this article until LoveMonkey's block has expired. I have made a fuller exposition of these points on the article's .

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:50.16.108.39 reported by User:PassaMethod (Result: 1 month)

Page: Incest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Islamic schools and branches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.16.108.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert: (edit summary: better in intro. don't hide the info. that rhymes)
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

If you check the 3rd edit summary he rhymes and jokes. I want a page protection for both pages as he's just stalking me. Pass a Method talk 11:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one month. Whois shows that this IP is coming from a range used by Amazon AWS. Web servers should not edit Misplaced Pages. I'm filing this case at WP:OP so that others can check my reasoning and see if a longer proxy block is appropriate. The neighboring IPs in the /16 range do not seem to be the source of any similar abuse so a range block appears unnecessary. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring