Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:16, 1 February 2012

• 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:Greggy123 reported by User:WilliamJE

Page: List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Editor did similar reverts two days ago, with possible sockpuppetry involved.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User:Screwball23 reported by Metallurgist (talk) (Result: One month)

Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 06:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 14:48, 21 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Time table of primaries and caucuses */")
2. 04:39, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Primary schedule */ see talk page")
3. 06:26, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473640794 by Metallurgist (talk) - please contribute your rationale for your editing behavior on the talk page")

• Diff of warning: here

• Dispute on talk page

User has been ignoring Misplaced Pages conventions concerning consensus even after informed about it and has been removing large portions of the article unilaterally, despite repeated complaints and disagreements. There are 4 5 users in favor of the content in question remaining in the article, while 2 are opposed. User has not even allowed time for discussion, the first time only waiting nine minutes before removing content. User as repeatedly been involved in edit wars, has complete disregard for the concept of consensus, has issued personal attacks, been curt/rude and dismissive of/condescending towards other opinions, and has been blocked repeatedly:

User may be sockpuppeting as 68.39.100.32. User is part of Meetup NYC and anon is located in Middletown, New Jersey. —Metallurgist (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may have input, I am located 'near' Middletown NJ, but I am NOT that user. Can't you identify his IP address? (I am assuming I am that user that you pointed out).68.39.100.32 (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am saying this in order for you to find evidence that I am not that user. Metals logic is simply because the reported user and I agree on an issue. When has that become a means to suspect everyone of fraud or whatever? The actions that the reported user has taken is evidence enough to take action against him/her. I am by no means defending their actions; rather just questioning the motive to now suspect me of having multiple accounts to edit the article. Besides me not having an account, I can't see anyway to prove this then to check the reported users ip address and report that process here so I and others can see how you recieved it.68.39.100.32 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month by Bwilkins (talk · contribs). --Chris (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Neolloa999 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Islam in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neolloa999 (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: N/A

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ant smusher and User: Knotedatitud reported by User:Abhijay (Result: No demonstrated violation)

Page: 2012 in heavy metal music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• Ant smusher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Knotedatitud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• 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. --Chris (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jer5150 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Situs inversus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jer5150 (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: Talk page discussion

Comments:
Continues to edit war on Primary ciliary dyskinesia and Dextrocardia as well, ignoring multiple attempts to get the user to provide any sort of explanation. I left this message on the editor's talk page to try to get him to discuss instead of revert, but there hasn't been so much as an edit summary from the editor. - SudoGhost 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 reported by Metallurgist (talk) 2 (Result: One month)

Sorry for redoing this. The old one appears to have gone stale or unnoticed. And now there is new, conclusive evidence of 3RR

Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 06:26, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473640794 by Metallurgist (talk) - please contribute your rationale for your editing behavior on the talk page")
2. 05:21, 29 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473799561 by Jack Bornholm (talk) - see talk page; there has not been a single editor with any rationale for putting this table up again and again; stop edit warring")
3. 05:29, 29 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473807466 by Rxguy (talk) - complete BS; information needs to be discussed without editwarring; the idea that it was there first so it must stay is insane and hypocritical")

• Diff of warning: here

• Dispute on talk page

User has been ignoring Misplaced Pages conventions concerning consensus even after informed about it and has been removing large portions of the article unilaterally, despite repeated complaints and disagreements. There are 6 users in favor of the content in question remaining in the article, while 4 or 5 (possibly sockpuppets) are opposed. User did not even allow time for discussion, the first time waiting only nine minutes before removing content. User has repeatedly been involved in edit wars, has complete disregard for the concept of consensus, has issued personal attacks, been curt/rude and dismissive of/condescending towards other opinions, and has been blocked repeatedly:

User is also under sockpuppet investigation.—Metallurgist (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month by Bwilkins (talk · contribs). --Chris (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:97.73.64.155 reported by User:Sumanch (Result: 3 hours)

Page: Textile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.73.64.155 (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: Blatant removal of content.

Comments: I have come across this user over recent changes page. I saw that this user is blatantly removing content and others are trying to restore it. I think the user knows the policy very well and he/she is doing it for giggles.

• Blocked – for a period of 3 hours for vandalism. Please use WP:AIV in the future when reporting vandals; this noticeboard is intended for edit warring over content, not simple vandalism. --Chris (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:68.113.25.188 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: )

Page: Arne Duncan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.113.25.188 (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:

Comments:Blatant, BLP-violating edit warring with 4 editors.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He or she returned to the exact same behavior once the block expired. Longer block this time, please! ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner and User:Cali4529 reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cali4529 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert (by Cali4529): (this diff shows undoing nearly two dozen edits by another editor, almost all with the same short, vague edit summary: "no")
• 2nd revert (by Bobrayner): (restoring links to destinations, per Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports)
• 3rd revert (by Cali4529): (Undid revision 474110767 by Bobrayner (talk) NO CONSENSUS MADE, all my ideas, not right to use them)
• 4th revert (by Bobrayner): (What do you mean, "all my ideas"? You don't own the article, and you don't own the discussion over on the project page...)
• 5th revert (by Cali4529): (user reverts a number of intermediate edits, with final edit summary: Undid revision 474115751 by Bobrayner (talk) UNTIL AN AGREEMENT IS MADE YOU CAN NOT DO THIS)
• 6th revert (by Bobrayner): (There was an agreement. It was on the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports thread which you tried blanking. Did you read the thread? I am restoring the wikilinks in line with that consensus.)
• 7th revert: (by Cali4529): (Undid revision 474123286 by Bobrayner (talk) There is no consensus, expect being blocked within the next few hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for Bobrayner, for Cali4529

Reporting editor has made no edits in this article during this time frame. Article has been protected by User:Courcelles as shown here.

Comments:
After seeing the SHOUTING in the recent edit summaries for this article, I took a look and found a full-scale edit war between Bobrayner and Cali4529. Another editor, User:Chaswmsday, has been working in the article at the same time but does not appear to have been engaged in the content dispute directly. The apparent issue revolves around how the various destinations served out of the Atlanta airport are to be linked, with one editor claiming consensus by WikiProject Airports that the destinations are to be linked to the arrival airports, and another disagreeing. Both are undoing each others' edits as indicated by the diff summary above. Both were warned about edit-warring and appeared to have stopped now that the article has been protected. --McDoobAU93 00:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected by Courcelles; hence, no blocks are needed. Salvio 00:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Gregory Goble reported by User:EdChem (Result: Notified of discretionary sanctions)

Page: Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gregory Goble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In Talk:Cold_fusion#Remove_Sentence_from_Conferences_Section this talk page section Gregory Goble has objected to a sentence that has been in the article for quite some time. The section includes responses indicating that other editors are not in agreement with (or even understanding) the point Gregory is trying to make. Note IRWolfie-'s comment that "Your comment here seems like a stream of conciousness, can you please state what text or sources you have issue with. Then can you show what changes you propose and based on which reliable sources." which is a reasonable request. This comment was echoed here by Binksternet who said (after giving the 3RR warning and before the fourth revert was made that "Your contributions on the talk page are incoherent ramblings. It is impossible for other editors to understand your wish to delete the text you keep removing." – perhaps blunt, but certainly indicating an area where Gregory's editing is problematic.

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

Gregory has been reverted by Jim1138 (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "rv restored sourced information", by IRWolfie- (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "no consensus, you talk page section looks like a stream of conciousness rather than making a particular point, I suggest you refactor your comment there so your points can be discussed", by Binksternet (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "restore cited text", and by IRWolfie a second time with the edit summary "stop removing this sourced section, get some concensus first". Despite these comments, Gregory's talk page post just before his fourth revert included "The sentence I will delete again ..." indicating a clear intention to continue edit warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: My notification: and the earlier uw-3rr warning from Binksternet:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the talk page section mentioned above plus warning and comments at user talk.

Comments:

Gregory Goble is a fairly new editor, as his user talk page shows, but he is also pushing a perspective on cold fusion that is a minority / fringe view. Even if he is not blocked, I would ask for a warning and formal notification of the cold fusion arb case and discretionary sanctions. EdChem (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I only count three reverts. Thus, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I have formally notified him of the discretionary sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I appreciate you giving a formal notification, but I would appreciate it if you would please explain which of the reverts I noted was not a revert, in your view? The text each removed was long-standing in the article. I ask because I want to understand how I might have erred in my counting. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:24.235.70.242 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 72h)

Page: Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.235.70.242 (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: . Also see Misplaced Pages:RSN#Nasim Yousaf.

Comments:
IP geolocates to Utica, NY with an Earthlink ISP. This and related articles appear to be subject to COI edits and both registered user and IP meatpuppetry or socking, eg: recent 24h block of User:68.174.108.113, who locates to New York using Roadrunner ISP. Might have to request semi-pp. - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:110.87.123.151 reported by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin (Result: 24h)

Page: Xiamen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.87.123.151 (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:

Comments: This user completely refuses to communicate, either through edit summaries or on his/her talk page. Previously, this user engaged in continued insertion of uncited GDP figures, and now it seems that (s)he may be Shevapippo. GotR 07:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Doncsecz reported by Eleassar (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Republic of Prekmurje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 08:21, 31 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 474116103 by ArnoldPlaton (talk)")
2. 12:03, 31 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 474190826 by Eleassar (talk) This was provocation")
3. 12:15, 31 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 474199086 by Eleassar (talk) Eleassar, you not know the Prekmurje")

Persistent edit warring, as evidenced on the user's talk page. —Eleassar 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians! The graffitys in Murska Sobota in May, 2009 was themselves were provocations. Several people noted that this provocation. The Murska republika-insanity is a false dream, the Mura republic was not well known in 1919, neither in Sobota, neither in Prekmurje! In the forums in May 29, 2009 was few incendiary declarations, call for revolt againts Slovenia. Doncsecz 12:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Roux reported by User:Danielthekid971 (Result: )

Page: Trance music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roux (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: (removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user keeps adding a non-genre repeatedly to the stylistic origins list on the page for the musical genre "trance music". Not once has this user provided a citation in edit conflict and s/he has been very offensive (especially on the trance music talk page, and past history shows that this user has been like this before on numerous occasions), making several personal attacks and abusing their ability to lock the entire page. I tried to warn the user but it appears that their user and talk page are causing errors. (To add my reasoning for my edit: there are many genres of dance/danceable music, adding non-arbitrary tags would be highly inconsistent (and incorrect since the subjected genre hasn't always been tagged) -- there are subgenres of the genre in the origins list which is extremely chronologically incorrect, this is not what's disputed here, however) Danielthekid971 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by User:Whaledad (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Talk:Jewish Defense League (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youreallycan (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: User_talk:Whaledad#Talk:Jewish_Defense_League

Comments:

Does Whaledad realize he is on five reverts here? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is a good reason to block the both of them, since protecting a talk page makes no sense. Hipocrite (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. Whaledad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours, and Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week due to a long history of edit warring. --Chris (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.219.2 reported by User:GHcool (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.219.2 (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:

Comments: This is a violation of 3RR and 1RR.

--GHcool (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The IP has self reverted making two reverts. User:Hertz1888 is also on two reverts. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe not It says the IP undid his edit but it was still a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am working within the exemption per the 1RR notice on the article's talk page, that "Certain edits may be reverted without penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors, and edits which are clearly vandalism." I have left a warning on the IP's talk page, and several notations in the edit summaries, such as here and here. The IP has made an additional revert, the fourth within a six-hour period:

• 4th revert:

Hertz1888 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are now on 3RR, who decides what a "certain edit" to be reverted is? That seems rather ambiguous to me, anyone could claim that. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I have not exceeded three. As for who decides, I trust the notice. If you feel it is ambiguous, there is probably a talk page somewhere to discuss rewording it. In the present case, reliably-sourced content was repeatedly removed by the IP. Shouldn't we be concentrating on stopping that disruptiveness? Hertz1888 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours per the arbcom remedy referenced above. Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · count) did not breach the arbcom remedy as anonymous IPs are exempt, but did brush up against 3RR. I suggest that Hertz1888 exercise caution in similar cases in the future. --Chris (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring