Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:50, 19 July 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.

Farsight001 reported by 75.73.114.111 (Result: Semi)

Page: Primacy of Simon Peter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Before reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&oldid=501885019

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&diff=next&oldid=501885019

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&diff=501903494&oldid=501885019
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&diff=502420247&oldid=502410993
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&diff=502463611&oldid=502426782
• 4th revert: None yet

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (not sure what this means? what do I put here?)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Primacy_of_Simon_Peter#Removing_John_Chrysostom_as_supporter_of_the_Primacy_of_the_Roman_Pontiff

Comments:

• Page semi-protected for a period of 3 days

Can't figure out how to get the template to say it, so I'm just leaving it as "stale". I meant to have it read "semiprotected for three days". Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed template. T. Canens (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jsigned reported by User:Ophois (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Taare Zameen Par (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jsigned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has repeatedly changed the name of the film, despite being reverted by several users who ask him to discuss such a change on the discussion page. A dialogue has been opened, and per BRD it should be reverted back to its original state as the other editors currently oppose the change. However, the user has not reverted it back, and I don't want to be edit warring myself. Ωphois 00:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts at 00:07, 23:40, 23:09, 20:04. Specific warnings blanked from user's talk page. Kuru (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:LibStar reported by User:Alansohn (Result: Libstar and RAN blocked)

Page: 1896 Eastern North America heat wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LibStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: These two editors have been the subject of multiple edit wars, all of which have the same pattern as this one: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) attempts to add content and then User:LibStar arbitrarily decides that content must be removed. See Joachim Cronman, Estonia–Sri Lanka relations, John Patterson MacLean for a small flavor of LibStar's incessant edit warring, a pattern of abusive edit warring that has persisted for years unabated.

Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• LibStar and RAN Blocked – for a period of 31 and 48 hours, respectively. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why did Richard get a longer block in this case? It seems quite clear to me that this is a long-running harassment of him by LibStar. Block for edit warring, fine, but why is his longer? Libstar's block should be longer, as he is the aggressor. Silverseren 04:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that the problem here is LibStar and that the punishment for RAN is not appropriate here. Once LibStar finds that he disagrees with another editor, his preferred tactic is edit warring accompanied by confrontational edit summaries that appear intended to bully and provoke the other editor. I could provide several dozen more, but some edit summaries from yesterday include: "absolutely excessive, there is more text in the quote than the actual article. please stop your disruption of articles. thanks", "incorporate into main text. if you must. stop being disruptive Richard.", "rm excessive quotation in foreign language. not a good look to continually disrupt coming off a block", "particularly useless when this is an English Misplaced Pages. stop being disruptive." It's either LibStar's way or the highway, and while RAN has been trying to add sourced content to articles, LibStar falls into his "Dr. NO!" mode and starts edit wars to impose his arbitrary preferences; It is clearly LibStar who is being disruptive, not RAN. I think modifying RAN's block duration to be much shorter while extending LibStar's block to several days/weeks would be far better justified by the case history of provocation by LibStar. In addition, an interaction ban should be imposed on LibStar forbidding interaction with RAN, as it appears that these wars are unilaterally begun by LibStar and never the other way around. Alansohn (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• I too am curious why RN's block was longer. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Probably because RAN's block log is a mile long, while this is Libstar's 1st? Tarc (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• LibStar has been Wikihounding RAN for years and a look at the edit history here shows that RAN is simply trying to add reference to articles while LibStar arbitrarily removes portions of the sources and then blames RAN for disruption. As LibStar stated in appealing his block, he is capable of productive editing, but he has been in a prolonged conflict with RAN and ceaselessly provokes him. The current block is unlikely to get LibStar to cool down, walk away and end the bullying in edit summaries that just yesterday took the form of "please stop your disruption of articles. thanks", "stop being disruptive Richard.", "not a good look to continually disrupt coming off a block", "stop being disruptive.", while RAN has tried to avoid being baited no matter how hard LibStar tries to pick a fight. LibStar should have been blocked long ago and an interaction ban with RAN put in place; 31 hours is hardly long enough. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tarc is basically right about my rationale. If there's a larger problem of hounding going on, this isn't really the venue to resolve that; this would be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Justice007 reported by User:Vibhijain (Result: No violation)

Page: Pakistan Zindabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Justice007 (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is continuously edit warring without taking policies like WP:BURDEN and WP:SYNTHESIS into consideration. I have also requested temporary full protection of the page. He is continually adding wrongly phrased controversial statements just because he likes it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 15:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• No violation ItsZippy 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Secular Islam Summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: (explaining because this is the only one not clearly marked as a revert in the edit summary: in this edit, Kwami removes material zie has been unsuccessfully trying to remove for some time, after failing to gain consensus to qualify the statement by adding original research about the person in question)
• 5th revert:

These are only the 5 reverts in a 24-hour span; Kwami has been trying to make these edits without consensus for longer.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: : In this talkpage edit, which Kwami saw and responded to before making the fifth edit above, I warn hir that zie is at 4RR and strongly advise hir against continuing to revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: most recently here

Comments:
This isn't the first time that Kwami has hit 5RR at this article - another time, it was 5RR with 4 reverts in the space of an hour. See also Misplaced Pages:An#Secular_Islam_Summit, where I begged for administrative help in order to prevent precisely this from happening.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Serious BLP concerns, with Roscelese's stated idea that libel or slander is okay if we can demonstrate in a RS that someone said it. Her latest argument was that it's okay to call a group atheists when there are devout people in it, if the devout are a minority. BLP issues, like copyright issues and vandalism, are exempt from 3RR. This is an issue which we've been making progress with on the talk page, and has been resolved to the point where Roscelese is pushing at the margins, like using quotes of events from someone who has no knowledge of them (because the opinions were expressed before the events took place). — kwami (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami is not a new user and knows quite well how BLP works, and it isn't about hitting 5RR in an attempt to remove reliably sourced material that is critical of someone's political views (which is what the contested material is about, despite Kwami's false claims that it's about something else). BLP ceases to have any value as a policy when it becomes a catch-all defense of edit warring, original research (about living people!), and refusal to talk, compromise, or heed consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please point out this consensus, since no-one else is able to see it. — kwami (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. It seems clear to me that this dispute had absolutely nothing to do with protecting possibly libelous material against a living person. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Solhjoo reported by User:Massagetae (Result: Declined)

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

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

Comments:
Solhjoo is repeatedly deleting links to "Pashto" and "Pashtuns" from the article Iran although it is against the reference in the info box (where is cited, which shows Southern Pashto is spoken natively by 113,000 in Iran, which is a higher number than the Talysh speakers and is comparative to the other languages mentioned). The same user made the same irrational change in June too. These repeated changes obviously seem nationalistic vandalism. Massagetae(talk) 16:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. ItsZippy 17:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Declined - there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Also, I'd like to point you to Misplaced Pages's brief explanation on what vandalism is not and my essay on the same subject. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:166.250.71.30 reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Dark Ages (historiography) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.250.71.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also editing as 166.250.71.147 (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:207.204.180.50 reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: Declined)

Page: 2012 Burgas bus attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: 1994 AMIA bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: 1994 London Israeli Embassy attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.204.180.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

IP is removing same sourced info from three articles and edit warring on all three. Has been blocked twice prior. His talk page is replete with previous warnings about edit warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP address engaged in the same type of vandalism against me on a page relating to today's attack in Bulgaria. I looked in his edit history, and he appears to have done this for many terror attacks. I will give a case in point.

Consider the 1994 London Israeli Embassy Attack. On this page, in the infobox under suspectedperps, "pro-Iranian extremists, allegdly linked to Hezbollah" is written. Does anyone deny they were suspected? Of course not. A quick glance at the article reveals that both the Israeli ambassador and British intelligence blame the attack on them. Yet the IP address reverted the edit here, so that perpetrators were written as "unknown" and there was no line for suspected perpetrators. His reason? "iran and hizbs deny having any role , there is no solid proof to link iran." . Now, both the Israeli ambassador and British intelligence clearly believe there is proof to link Iran, but at either rate, they are not listed as "perpetrators" but rather "suspected perpetrators." In other words, they're suspected. This is a fact you can not deny. BBC even reports it here.

I thought that perhaps the user just didn't understand what suspected meant or what belongs in the box. I reverted his edit, and wrote in the summary box and warned him "Just bc a country and org denies it doesn't mean it's not true and doesn't belong in SUSPECTED perps box... Seems like vandalism, don't do it again."

Despite this, he goes back and reverts it - and lists the same reason, nothing more and nothing less, just the same exact reason he gave before.

There are many more examples of this same behavior that I intend on listing here soon. --Activism1234 02:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Consider another example from the 1992 attack on Israeli embassy in Beunos Aires, Argentina. Again, suspected perps was listed as Hezbollah. No one denies this. Yet the IP address reverted it here, again saying that hezbs denies that they did the attack. It's fine if they deny it, but that doesn't mean they aren't suspected... You know how many criminals lie? If the IP address would just read the section on Responsibility in the article, he would see that Hezbollah (and Iran) was linked to it in many different ways. A Hezbollah-linked organization took responsibility, and both Israel and Argentina blamed it on Hezbollah (and Iran), and proof was brought that suspects them further by the American National Security Agency. Again, it's all in the 5 paragraph passage in the article.

Brewcrewer reverted his edit, for obvious reasons, and mentioned that Hezbollah also denies the Holocaust, and that doesn't make it true.

IP's respones? Revert. His reason? "this is not a place for israeli activism. you can't name someone when they deny having any role." Now, the first part is just delusional, any unbiased editor or admin would see why Hezbollah belongs in suspected perpetrators box. The second part is silly - police charge criminals all the time when they deny the role (I'm referring to people who actually did it), and often later they admit it. If there's enough proof, it can go. We're not talking about the perpetrator box - we're talking about suspected perpetrator box. And it is supported by 5 paragraphs in the passage on Responsibility.

Now, when I noticed what he did on the Bulgaria page, and saw his edit history, I went to this page and reverted his vandalism, with a clear explanation. "read up on what the word "suspected" means before removing factual and important information. Don't repeat this again, it looks like vandalism." Again, I pointed out that it was suspected perpetrator box and why it should go.

His response? Again he reverts it. So now he just violated the 3RR rule, which is a serious offense. he writes in the summary box - "iran and hizbs deny having any role, and suspected by whom ? by israel ?)" AGAIN, he does vandalism - the article clearly gives 5 paragraphs on this very topic, and no, not just by Israel, although even if it was only by Israel, it would still go in the suspected perpetrators box!

I reverted his vandalism (this is only my 2nd revert on the page). Again, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I wrote in teh summary box and warned him "IP address, I am warning you a final time - do not continue this vandalism. If you have a question, raise it in talk page. I am reverting this vandalism. Read aftermath section...)" The appropriate thing would've been to go to the talk page if he still had problems. Or to just read the responsibility box. Since I saw he just kept reverting my well-explained reverts and good-faith edits to his vandalism, I decided not to revert further on other pages other than what I had done since an edit war is unnecessary and could result in sanctions, and the appearance already may seem like some to be an edit war (although not my intention and not how I played it out, although clearly how the IP address did it). So I decided I'd file a request, but noticed Brewcrewer already made one.

Admins are free to do what they feel best. Personally, I recommend an indefinite topic ban from Israel-Palestine articles and suspected Hezbollah/Iran attacks on Israelis/Jews, or an indefinite Misplaced Pages ban considering his previous two bans.

Hope it helps. --Activism1234 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Activism, please take to heart WP:TL;DR. I notice neither of you have followed the recommended format. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined - No violation on 3RR grounds. Take it to another forum if you believe there's underlying issues. - Penwhale | 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Shrike (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert: revert of this edit
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user once again broken 3RR.He was already blocked multiple time for this.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

excuse me but check the diffs. in the 2. diff i added back *a reliable secondary source* which user frotz removed without any justification. removing sources like that without discussion, without justification is *contentious editing*. in addition, this diff is *totally* UNRELATED to the other diffs.

in the 3. diff i reverted estlandia who is tag-teaming and hounding me. he reverts me blindly, without any discussion at all. his disruptive behavior has been confirmed by several other editors and an administrator here, .

the first 1. diff came after *consensus* was reached on the talk page regarding how *you* misrepresent/misuse sources. it was *not* a "revert" either. you are the one who should be blocked for tag-teaming and misrepresentation of sources. we see this over and over again. user shrike's attempts of tag-teaming and disruptive behavior is discussed here, .

just like to point out again: the 2.diff is totally unrelated to the other 3 diffs. hence i have not broken any rule. you are trying misuse this noticeboard.-- altetendekrabbe  07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter it was still revert of this edit .I urge you to revert yourself.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

the edit confirms what i wrote: user frotz removed a reliable secondary source without any justification nor any discussion. i want the opinion of an administrator. if i broke the 3-rr then i will indeed self-revert. if i revert now i would be guilty removing a reliable secondary source.-- altetendekrabbe  08:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I must note that editor constantly change his post after my response so it hard to follow, he was blocked many times for edit warring and he back to the same behavior once again moreover this issue is still under discussion as evident from the talk page but the user reverting non-stop instead seeking proper WP:DR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined I see 3, not 4. It's also evidently a content dispute, so this isn't the forum for it. - Penwhale | 08:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

BROBX: reported by User:Angryapathy (Result: )

Panic! at the Disco: Panic! at the Disco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
BROBX: BROBX (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:
User:BROBX has been repeatedly reverting edits I have made to the Panic! at the Disco article. When I first made the edits, I created a section on the talk page to discuss the issue. The issue is adding Dallon Weekes as a full-time memeber of the band. The sources that had been previously added to source his addition to the band were not useful for that task, which I discussed in detail on the talk page. The first revert had no edit summary, and the next two called my reverts "vandalism". I entreated the editor twice on their talk page to discuss the issue on the Panic! talk page, with absolutely no discussion taking place from these notices (BROBX's talk page has since been blanked by BROBX). I feel I did as much as I could to avoid this, but the editor refuses to discuss the issue. Angryapathy (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring