Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:05, 20 April 2015

• 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.

War (Result: Malformed)

The Voice of Peace (marathon) - User:Green Zero

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Aergas reported by User:Alon12 (Result: No action)

Page: Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aergas (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:

The User:Aergas has engaged in edit warring multiple times on this particular wikipedia article, and was banned accordingly in the past, in addition. The conclusion of the community a few months back after the original dispute was to maintain the article in the state before he decided to unilaterally make such edits once again. In fact an entire sub-section on the talk page, was specifically created in reference to warn against such edits. It was in fact, a senior wikipedia user User:Robert McClenon, who also had previously acted as an intermediate party in a dispute resolution regarding this article, who decided to create this sub-section, regarding his edits. So, not only has he shown a blanket non-response to community approaches to dialogue and standards on wikipedia, but he continues to engage in a one-sided edit war. Alon12 (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

While filling this case, the User:Alon12 left out some important points that I will write here: Alon12 was, indeed, banned for edit warring in the past, on issues related to the article linked in this case. He is also making up the resolution of the community, in fact, what he says didn't ever happened, if he thinks so, i'd like to se a diff to a discussion proving it, what the actual resolution said and what happened was to leave the article as it was before the edit war with Alon12 started, which actually was MY VERSION OF THE ARTICLE (and I can prove it if requested to do so). In his report above Alon12 is, using the most proper word: lying). Then we would see if third editors shown interest on the article, but that's something that barely happened. The section Alon12 refers to was created to discuss edits regarding the article, and so I did, and everything was going smoothly until the users involved on said discussion stopped replying (manily Alon12, who is the only one who actually cares about these edits), after that, I waited for more than two months to see if Alon12 could reply to the suggestions I made regarding edits to the the article on said talk page (which are competently sourced). So, given that two months passed with nobody giving input on my suggestions I supposed that to go on was the right thing to do (because have someone had a problem with my edits then they would have said something about them in the talk page, specially Alon12). Then today, Alon12 noticed that I have edited the article in question and rushed to revert it without even discussing his reasons in the talk page (and continues to not do so, claiming a consensus that has never existed), when I ask him about his motives and about explanations regarding the way he acts he fails to give a good response, and just proceeds to accuse me of edit warring when I waited more than two months to get a response from him regarding my edits in the article. Behavoirs like this one, that he have shown to have double standards and bias regarding the sources used on said article before (things I'm confronting him with in the talk page right now) and that he filled this report with a premeditely incomplete and distorted version of the events from the last months (for all the reasons I explained above) to paint himself as a victim leads me to strongly believe that Alon12 acts on bad blood. His credibility has also been called in question by an administrator and the same administrator has pointed out that Alon12 is a single purpose account, who has made edits to only a pair of articles on Misplaced Pages and hardly sum up to 20, with the rest being edits done in multiple noticeboards and talk pages. 00:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Aergas (talk)

•  No action. Both Alon12 and Aergas have been blocked before for edit warring on this same article. They're lucky I didn't see this report when it was first filed or I would probably have blocked both editors. However, there've been no reverts since April 15, so I'm taking no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:McQueen.30 reported by User:SNUGGUMS (Result: Blocked)

Page: Justin Timberlake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: McQueen.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: and

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute:

Comments:
Does not appear to be very willing to discuss rationales on talk pages or negotiate with editors. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Similar pattern of behavior on Trevor Noah and Al Franken: adding minor professional credits and reverting removals, not responding to requests for discussion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Additional revert by user since notification of this report:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:GravityForce reported by User:DVdm (Result: 48 hours )

Page: Scalar theories of gravitation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GravityForce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. Added after report and after notification .
6. and again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and further messages by myself and others on talk page, all erased by user now:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , . Invitation to comment on project talk page:

Comments:

User seems to be wp:SPA with a mission to push their own work. Meanwhile user is reverting beyond 3RR on the other articles as well. DVdm (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Dvdm is censoring. I merely placed onto his talk page what he placed on my talk page in terms of editing wars. A published reference from a secondary source keeps getting taken down without consent. It is ridiculous that he determines the validity of published content when it clearly falls under the rules to be valid material for wikipedia. GravityForce (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Content is copied from http://unifiedgravity.com/styled/ without permission. So it does not follow under the category of valid material for Misplaced Pages. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. You "merely" bounced back their own message to them by way of retaliation? And then edit warred to keep it there? Please don't revert users' removals on their own talkpages, as they're entitled to remove any material they like, and you have no right to reinsert it. Blocked for 48 hours for userpage harassment and edit warring on several pages. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Qed237 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Advice)

Page

Ciro Immobile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Qed237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Walter Görlitz: Proffessional is used on almost every article and team dont only play in bundelsiga they represent germany in many tournaments. (TW)"
2. 15:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC) "There are more than one bundesliga"
3. 18:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 208.81.212.222 (talk): Editors should not have to search for thsat information as per earlier discussions. (TW)"
4. 11:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC) "You can not only say Bundelsiga as there are several bundesligas!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Professional & German legaue */ new section"
2. 13:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Professional & German legaue */ Reply"

Comments:

Long-term editor. No need to warn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I might as well point to WP:BOOMERANG here as Walter Görlitz is the one not agreeing with me or User:Danieletorino2 and I did provide my argument and link to Player MOS on the artile talkpage in this diff. This is a simple content dispute where I am not the only one at fault. I might have edited the article one time to much, sorry about that, but I get the feeling that it is wanted I get blocked so the other editor gets what he wants. I will not edit the page any more but I will stand by my edits (in discussions) as they are good and improving. If a spanish player plays in Germany that is worth noting and as I said there are several leagues called bundesliga so nation is definately worth noting. QED237 (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Also worth noting that Walter himself has 3 reverts , , and you dont have to pass 3RR to be considered edit warring and that he has also continued on other pages, knowing other editors dont agree like this diff at Lionel Messi. QED237 (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: All parties advised. This is a dispute as to what information should be displayed in the biography of a football player. Use WT:FOOTY to get consensus. If warring continues on individual player articles, blocks may may needed because there are too many articles to consider protecting them all. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Hmdwgf (Result: No violation)

Page

List of FIFA World Cup finals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_finals&action=history (please look at most recent edits starting from the first one made on the 15th)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I have made good faith edits to a number of articles- no vandalism of any kind. I have had a number of edit-war run-ins with this user; but the real reason I am bringing his actions to the admin's attention is that his editing behavior isn't constructive nor acceptable; he has been involved in numerous edit wars since (to my knowledge) 2010, and has done nothing to discuss in a civil manner his reverting of my edits- he has reverted nearly all of my World Cup page edits- all of which have adhered to Wiki rules. This particular edit-war was one over small details helped to make the article more specific; he just won't have it any other way other than the way he wants it, even if the edits are constructive.--Hmdwgf (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with my edits, raise it on the article talk page. But you need to know that Pasadena and Saint-Denis are respectively not part of Los Angeles and Paris, and it is misleading of you to imply that they are. Furthermore, if you think this is an edit war, you're mistaken. – PeeJay 22:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You've been involved in so many edit wars- from my experience, the way you often disregard the edit warring rule is a reason in itself to report you. I also understand you are a student of journalism- what school of tabloid journalism you went to, I don't know.--Hmdwgf (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I see two reverts of your edits today, and from what I can see, you made a completely unsourced attendance change that doesn't match the official figures or the cited sources. So your credibility falls apart completely there, and I don't agree that the rest of your edits were an improvement either. After being reverted once, you should've taken it to talk, not reverted again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Luigi1090 and User:Gmira99 reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Locked)

Page: Template:Cartoon Network programming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luigi1090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gmira99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Users keep removing Sonic Boom from the list without first seeking consensus.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Luigi1090#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion, User talk:Gmira99#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

ElectricBurst_(Zaps) 23:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected for one week. Long slow edit war (since late March) with multiple editors involved. Hopefully in the next week you folk can work it out. Otherwise, there may be blocks waiting for each of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Hello everyone. I've read the message came on my talk page, but also seen all the changes listed above. I can tell you that this is a huge unjust cause against me: during all my activities on Misplaced Pages I never committed acts of vandalism on any page, because in general users (registered or not) the ruin. Back in the case of the Cartoon Network's Template, I re-edit because:
  1) Some users make mistakes in spelling, date and more;
  2) To resolve the matter once and for all Sonic Boom (and beyond), I created a section in his talk page entitled "Production by other companies", in which I explained in detail what the TV series you have to officially put in that paragraph. Luigi1090 (talk)

User:Inayity reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked Inayity and warned Factchecker_atyourservice)

Page: Mumia Abu-Jamal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Inayity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:59, 10 April 2015
2. 08:50, 11 April 2015
3. 09:17, 11 April 2015
4. 12:56, 17 April 2015
5. 13:01, 17 April 2015
6. 13:07, 17 April 2015‎
7. 06:49, 18 April 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal#Missing from the lead

And on their talk page:

Comments:

Appears to be gaming the 3RR; clear pattern of edit warring and attacking other editors over content issues. I just warned Factchecker atyourservice, who appears to have broken 3RR. VQuakr (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, guilty, and my only defense is that the other user wasn't engaging at the talk page, just reverting and claiming consensus (which doesn't really appear to be supported by looking at the Talk Page discussion he referred to). Meanwhile the material doesn't seem appropriate, and at the very least it doesn't belong in the lead.

It is a little silly to suggest not using the talk page when the talk page subject was created by me, and everyone can see all my comments. It did not seem appropriate TO YOU!! The point of Misplaced Pages is not what you on your own think. Why did you continue to remove it when you had been reverted with a reason. You were not part of the hot discussion, where did you come from? to push what you think?--Inayity (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

THis editor actually has a history of being a bully bully forceful I am right editing just check their contributions and see the battleground forceful way they force their POV on Wikiepdia.--Inayity (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The body of the article has Amnesty International saying it doesn't consider Mumia Abu-Jamal to be a political prisoner. Amnesty International, as I understand it, is the world's foremost authority for designating who is a political prisoner and who isn't. If the body of the article says he's not a political prisoner, citing to AI, why should the lead then say that he is — while citing to a source that lacks any real authority on the subject and is notorious for being highly partisan? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

THe amnesty thing was an error, but I made that clear on Talk page. But the point still stood as Amnesty would not be discussion the term political prisoner if he was never considered one.--Inayity (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note @VQuakr: Your report doesn't make sense. I don't see any warning, at least not recent, given to Inayity. Inayity has not even come close to breaching 3RR. Factchecker admits they breached 3RR and yet rather than reporting them, you only warn them. Finally, you did not notify Inayity of this report as you are required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• User:Bbb23, he's clearly breached 3RR in the last 24 hours now because he reverted for a fourth time this morning. There was also a typo in one of the diffs above, which I've corrected. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

And you have an agenda as pointed out. You Dr Kierman are the one who placed that sentence there and now telling people about POV. Did you not agree to that sentence? So now you have someone with your agenda you no longer agree he is a political prisoner? Is that what you are --Inayity (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion at this page isn't about whether the sentence should be present or not: it's about whether an editor has edit-warred or not. DrKiernan (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant to report me  :(

However, I do notice that the diffs posted by VQuakr are of Inayity previously edit-warring on the same issue with another user. It also appears he was misrepresenting Amnesty International's statement on the subject, although that could have been a simple mistake. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: mea culpa on the notification. I pinged Factchecker and that somehow satisfied the "must do this" criterion in my brain. I have now notified the editor. The warning regarding edit warring is linked above, here. It is from April 11, which in my mind is plenty recent enough for them to be aware of our policy on edit warring. The reason I reported Inayity is because they are back to edit warring over the same section for the second time in a week, after being warned. I mentioned in my comments above that Factchecker is the other editor this time around, but Inayity was the common factor both times hence the noticeboard posting. I did not report Factchecker because I only just warned them. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Thanks for the explanation. For future reference, pinging is never a substitute for notifying an editor of a report on this noticeboard, or on most administrative noticeboards where notification is required.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Heard. VQuakr (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably fair to say that I distracted VQuakr with my similar 3RR conduct. I'm to blame. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

In all of this remember the edit war ended with an AGREEMENT, and that was that. Now comes ANOTHER editor taking out what was agreed upon without agreement on the Talk. So we were not edit warring over the "SAME THING", since the stuff I reverted was agreed between me and another editor. (I forgot his name). --Inayity (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Edits I have restored have NOT been written exclusively by me. They are the product of multi-contributions. Yet here comes some new guy who decided ON HIS OWN, that all of the stuff we spent weeks discussing should be thrown out. We have raised the issue of slant (me and another editor) fought with Dr. something and come to an agreement. Now fly by is throwing out everything because he is right and superior to everyone else and master of Misplaced Pages and does not need any agreement, just forcefully arrogant editing. Go and read the talk page and see if I am in error. And I suspect the great issue is an agenda editor who cannot stand Mumia and is hence deleting positive remarks from the lead.--Inayity (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've Blocked Inayity for 36 hours. Apparently, they show no insight into their behavior. First, reverting to enforce a supposed consensus is not acceptable and not an exemption per policy. Second, reverting after a report has been filed against you is almost never a good judgment call. I am not blocking Factchecker_atyourservice because they do appear to understand that what they did was wrong. However, Factchecker_atyourservice is Warned that if they revert again at the article anytime in the next five days, they risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Clubjustin4 reported by User:Johnglen559 (Result: no violation, IP editor blocked)

Page: List of Xbox games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Clubjustin4 (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:Clubjustin4 is reverting good faith edits that are minor, factually correct and constructive to the page through edit warring and making unfounded threats on 24.190.48.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alongside another user Amaury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In relation to the actual content of the original edit itself, it consisted of correcting the status of exclusivity of Fable from "Yes" to "No," as the game itself is reported by Misplaced Pages's article to in truth, not be exclusive, as it is available on Mac OS X, PC and Xbox 360. The reported user also for some reason found it to be "cleaning-up" or constructive to remove the number count of total listed games.Johnglen559 (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• No violation The IP editor involved was blocked. KrakatoaKatie 07:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Strivingsoul reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result:no violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments: Not a 3RR case, but the editor has been warned before, and recently, about edit-warring. Despite being admonished to follow WP:BRD, the editor continues to make sweeping, controversial changes and then edit-war aggressively when reverted. I have attempted to discuss this content dispute with the editor, but he has demonstrated an inflexible bias that has more than verged on fringe theories and anti-Semitism at times: While this may not be something to be addressed at this particular noticeboard, I can't help but suspect that his extreme POV is part of what makes it difficult to convince this editor to behave responsibly on this particular article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2015 (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. If he continues, I suggest taking it to ANI. KrakatoaKatie 07:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Dishonest sweeping charges! I have no comment on charges of anti-Semitism for I have already explained that my position is a critique of Jewish/Zionist power elite which is just as legitimate as critique of any other political group. As for charge of edit warring, the reason I insisted on my edits is that I had elaborately summarized and explained my edits, while the removals were sweeping and unexplained and by a user (user:Monochrome Monitor) who has a history of such sweeping unexplained deletions. Sweeping deletions with no explanation or justification and then forcing the contributor to discuss his contributions with a user adamant to censor some unfavorable referenced facts from the page seems like a good strategy of gaming the rules to suppress some facts that are unfavorable to the political persuasions of the user! Strivingsoul (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban on the Syrian Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant). As for "sweeping deletions", I was undoing Striving Soul's previous "sweeping edits" which hadn't been discussed on the talk page. It got to the point where he pushed the limits of what he can put on the article under any pretense of neutrality, ie this edit . --Monochrome_Monitor 14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring