Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 27 March 2016

• 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:Jerry121 reported by User:P199 (Result: )

Page: L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jerry121 (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:
Attempts to resolve this I did first through the edit summary, then I tried to talk to this user, either on the article talk page or user talk page, but so far completely ignored. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

Page

Oath Keepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:48, 23 March 2016
2. 03:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710959074 by MrX (talk) Add more sources for wording in question, fix one word - "discredited" is more neutral than "scam.""
3. 02:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 710823375 by VQuakr (talk) It's a valid news source."
4. 03:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "undo well meaning but inappropriate removal of sourced material to a WP:NPOV source."
5. 01:49, 17 March 2016
6. 20:11, 16 March 2016
7. 15:36, 16 March 2016

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Warned here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC) "/* NPOV */ ?"
2. 03:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Scare quotes */ re"

Comments:

Editor went quiet while the previous EWN post was up, but went back to reverting as soon as it was archived. He is now reverting my edits on sight regardless of content: the most recent revert removed such uncontroversial information as filling in cite web templates, despite my breaking those into separate edits to avoid collateral damage. As before, no 3RR violation, but the ongoing pattern of disruption is clear. VQuakr (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Notified. VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment This is another round of VQuakr's dishonest and bad faith harassment tactics, nothing more. It has no basis in facts. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is blocked 48 hours for personal attacks, such as the above charge of 'dishonest and bad faith harassment tactics.' On his talk page, he manages to get the word 'harassment' into almost every edit summary. There are people who disagree with him, but there is little evidence he is being harassed. Notice that accusations of harassment carry a burden of proof. On 25 January he stated he was leaving 'because a group of bullies is determined to make life hell for me here'. On 23 January he was advised by an administrator, User:HighInBC, that "..personal attacks(insults) can and will result in blocking of your account." EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: )

Page: John Wilson Bengough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Changing "though" to "although":

5. and then after being shown what Cambridge and Fowler's have to say, he does it again with the comment "then you're both wrong"

• Changing colons to semicolons:

4. "so have you checked on the correct use of colons and semicolons yet? Or do we need an RfC?"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a content dispute—Corbett's intent is to fight and avoid discussion.

Comments:

This is not a difference of opinions—this is sheer trolling on Corbett's part after he badly lost a dispute between himself and a large number of other editors at Talk:Nuckelavee‎‎ and Talk:Sea Mither, which is what "Or do we need an RfC?" refers to—he immediately headed to Talk:Sea Mither to trumpet what a "bad writer" I am (neglecting to mention I had to revert almost the whole botched "copyedit"). He targeted John Wilson Bengough because I had had it promted to GA that very day. Corbett's motivation is not to improve the article (which he hasn't—he's actually introduced errors in punctuation and semantics), it's to fight, fight, fight to the very end. You can expect him to show up here with some line about "not understanding basic punctuation", but don't be fooled—this is not about punctuation. It's a vendetta. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not commenting on the merits, but I've blocked the filer for 72 hours for WP:NPA. MLauba 01:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Block lifted, under the assumption that irritation drove a reasonable editor to sub-optimal edits. I believe the above could be resolved amicably if the parties talked to each other rather than at each other. MLauba 10:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: (I was drawn here by a request left on my user talk page by an uninvolved administrator)

• Commenting on the merits: I copy edited the article prior to this. I would be happy to learn something new about grammar and punctuation, however the diffs above clearly show incorrect usage of both. Filer is correct in their assessment: The edits do not improve the article. Having said that ...
• Commenting on the behavior: This is likely a display of old animosity shared by both parties against each other that probably goes back a while, a result of repeated attempts of each to humiliate the other with no regard for the maturity required to discuss the situation like adults. Regarding the behavior of the filer: Administrators here rightfully blocked him for wasting administrator's time by taking the issue here prior to taking it to the article talk page. Regarding the behavior of the filer's opponent: Suspect that his motivation was to retaliate against the filer for an older, unresolved dispute without regard for the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia article. Suggested behavior: Unless both parties are happy to go on for years like this, I suggest that they 1) judiciously avoid each other for a period of at least six months, then 2) talk to each other on the article talk page of whatever article where they find themselves unavoidably working together. When that day occurs, they should start by finding common ground, areas where they happen to agree, then move on to amicably and respectfully discuss any areas where they do not agree. Do not resort to old behavior on that day. I am confident that both parties can find peace if this advice is followed. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but it's difficult for me to read this comment and not see "She shouldn't have worn that skirt" in it. I used strong language, and the discussion was personal on both sides, but that can't seriously be used to excuse persistent disruption of article space. The suggestion that a talk page discussion would have solved it is ludicrous (b) I've opened one, and Eric hasn't bothered to show up; (b) Eric's motivation was to disrupt, no tot improve the article; (b) Eric's contributions to the discussion at Talk:Sea Mither consisted virtually entirely of trying to keep the discussion off topic. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll have to correct Prhartcom's assumption - the block was issued following an escalation in tone far beyond the boundaries of vigorous debate. It cannot in any way be read as comment on the merits of filing this report. MLauba 10:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank-you, MLauba, it was the correct decision for both reasons. A block of both would have been even more appropriate, as I believe the filer is correct in their assessment of the situation immediately above: The filer's opponent's motivation was to disrupt the encyclopedia to retaliate for the tone of this and likely many previous encounters. That tone is the core issue and is what actually needs to be resolved by the filer and his opponent. My suggested solution to do so that was requested by the uninvolved administrator still stands. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

      I see you're a dab hand at making assumptions. What's wrong with examining the facts instead? Eric Corbett 13:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

      • Well if we are to stick to the facts then the fact is that there was edit warring. HighInBC 15:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: One week)

Page

List of WWE personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711981212 by Vjmlhds (talk): STOP NOW! (TW)"
2. 03:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711975760 by Vjmlhds (talk): If you want to commit Wiki suicide with your continuous disruptive eidting, fell free - my consicous is clear. (TW)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC) to 02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "replacing unintended deletions."
4. 01:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711918106 by Keith Okamoto (talk): ?Enough. (TW)"
5. 15:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711837448 by Originalchampion: Just stop...you are deliberately just trying to pick a fight...besides, I have references CLEARLY pointing out both Stephanie and Lana are considered as wrestlers...the truth is the truth. (TW)"
6. 21:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711733783 by Dw122339 (talk): Just can't leave well enough alone. (TW)"
7. 14:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711606104 by Vjmlhds (talk): Sourced reference says otherwise...some people just never learn. (TW)"
8. 21:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711449925 by ClassicOnAStick (talk): Sigh. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of WWE personnel. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

5 further reverts beyond those reported above. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Note: Vjmlhds has been blocked for one week for edit warring. -- The Voidwalker 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:MBlaze Lightning reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: )

Page

Research and Analysis Wing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711998891 by MBlaze Lightning: Please avoid WP:UNDUE. this section is about major operations not about what Pakistan claims day another day! (TW)"
2. 07:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "rm. It seems to me POV and WP:UNDUE And it is really not relevant in this section when it is just a claim by Pakistan which have no evidence whatsoever to back their claim."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is already under 1PR restriction. He is now warring against three editors. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• COMMENT

Admins can see, I did only one revert on an article that is not covered by ARBIPA. In my first edit, I didn't reverted any user rather I only removed the UNDUE content. FLCC will you please stop creating irritation, annoyance and distress to me? It won't take more then a minute to check your Contributions and see who actually warring across multiple articles covered by ARBIPA (this, and this. And Again,this is covered under ARBIPA sanctions and FreeatlastChitchat violated 1RR that was imposed on him yesterday. This user also hounded me on multiples articles. This user (FreeatlastChitchat) is probably one of the most disruptive editors I've ever seen to date. Checking his block log , talk page and a quick search will show what I mean. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 10:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Bear in mind that the majority of the AN/I filings were by User:Trinacrialucente who is now subject to an indefinite block. Can't see any wrongdoings on FLCC's behalf here, only that MBL has violated his 1RR restriction. I highly recommend a short block for the user being reported here. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, the policy pages do not make clear what counts as a "revert." Under 1RR, the definition becomes critical. I agree that reinstating an edit counts as a second "revert." But, without this being written down anywhere, we can't fault the editors for not knowing. I think it is best to let off the editor with a warning. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment MBlaze Lightning should have read the warning properly. And we are not given any complete list of articles which comes under India-Pakistan-Afghanistan related articles. He assumed that Research and Analysis Wing is not under Arbitration. Me myself don't know which articles come under this arbitration, and why we have arbitration when we have administrators?

Having said that the accusation of Wikihounding is justified. This user:FreeatlastChitchat had editing disputes with MBlazeLightning and he followed MBlaze in Rakhi Sawant, a page which Freeatlastchitchat never edited before MBlaze . He edited just after MBlaze's edit. And this is not alone even AFD discussion for Umar Khalid, freeatlastChitchat edited just after MBlaze's edit. This guy is Wikihounding a user.Greek Legend (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@ just following another edits is not hounding. As per policy "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, incidents, and arbitration cases.". You see from Rakhi Sawant page that MBL just removed a piece of information instead of tagging it or trying to find a source. I sourced the fact. Just how did it cause MBL's edits to be disrupted? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:احمد الليبي reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: )

Page: Gagauz people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: احمد الليبي (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (User page)

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:

Also at 3RR on: Page: Fayez al-Sarraj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User notified:

Comments:
New, WP:NOTHERE user with a bad attitude and possible COI. When I first added a "welcome" template, along with a pov notification, to their talk page, I was told to "mind my own business" and accused of "patronizing", "spamming" and "trying to increase my edit count". User is also repeatedly changing sourced content. Despite numerous requests to add additional sources and/or discuss on article talk pages, or the user's talk page, this user has refused to engage, and just continues edit warring. - WOLFchild 12:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This user (wolfchild) doesn't have a clue both in terms of good information about the subjects of the articles in question and in terms of the style/language that should best be used for writing the articles. And it was actually him who started the edit war deleting my corrections by reverting to older versions and everytime leaving needless comment in my talk page. I'm confident that any admin here will easily see which expression is better "the Balkan country of Bulgaria" or simply "Bulgaria" and which info is correct regarding the existence of two parallel governments in Libya, whether this started in 2011 or 2014. احمد الليبي (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

For someone who claims to "know Misplaced Pages very well" (after 22 edits total), your explanation is lacking. The first issue is about content. Admins don't decide content, neither do you, or I. Content is decided by consensus, hence the reason you need to propose your change on the talk page and seek support for it. The second issue is about sourcing. Your change was not supported by the attached source, meaning it was original research. You need to add a new source to support your change. You also need to discuss these issues on the article talk pages, but you absolutely refused. In both cases, the one thing you don't do is edit war, but you did. - WOLFchild 04:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Boghog reported by User:Fred Gandt (Result: )

Page: Acetone peroxide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boghog (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: Template talk:Multiple issues#Request to add talksection parameter

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion not on article talk page (as above)

Comments: The war began on Template talk:Multiple issues where User:Boghog made an edit request. In the request they noted that a live article was to be seen as a demonstration of a sandboxed alteration of the template in question. I returned the article to its correct condition, and asked the user to not do tests/demonstrations in live articles. They have since reverted my own attempts to correct the issue, and another user's. There appears to be a content dispute in the same article which is mixed up in the diffs. After the second revert, User:Boghog created Template:Multiple issues 2 with creation summary "created temporary template that is needed to resolve edit dispute". I have tagged it for deletion per {{Db-t3}}. User:Boghog contacted me repeatedly (whilst I was dealing with other concerns) after my second attempt to correct the article, which was a compromise, and found my compromise undone soon after. The conversation on my talk page about this issue is continuing as I compose this report; I am in two minds about continuing, but an article with two simultaneous content disputes involving the same editor, and what feels like an unreasonable bent to get their own way by any means, should be examined.

P.S. Sorry if I've done the diffs wrong. fredgandt 22:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Additionally: I should note that the content dispute which appeared to be ongoing at the article, turns out to be no more than an RfC. fredgandt 13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but this is not an edit war, but a misunderstanding. I respectfully tried to engage in a discussion here, but with limited success. Boghog (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Point of order: At most, I have reverted three times and hence I have not violated WP:3RR. The fourth edit was a modification to my own edit. Boghog (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding 3RR: I must admit to making a mistake there; more than 3 not 3 is something I missed. However, I didn't miss that not breaking this rule isn't an excuse, or that a report isn't valid without this rule being broken. I prefer to allow admin to review this report as it was made, and therefore will not be defending my position repeatedly. I of course will answer any questions to the best of my ability to assist. fredgandt 23:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Many users reported by User:103.55.147.30 (Result: )

List of expeditions of Muhammad:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Continued edit war even after page protection

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:SheriffIsInTown reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: )

Page

Research and Analysis Wing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "Revert removal of sourced content, this is very much due, as I said you can include Indian denial as well. Major operations are not just the successful ones. Unsuccessful ones can be major as well. This could have been at the level of Bangladesh."
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC) to 23:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC) "Dunya News is an independent news organization and a WP:RS, it's privately owned and not run by state. The state run organizations in Pakistan are Pakistan Television and Radio Pakistan. You cannot hundreds of Pakistani channels as state run just beca"
   2. 23:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Major operations */Correction"
3. 22:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC) "Wuddeva Wuddeva, you can include Indian denial as well but don't remove sourced information, this is no an Indian website as well where anything and everything negative to India will be censored"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Your recent edits */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I have no other option but to report this user for persistent Edit warring and POV-pushing and zero tendency to discuss at talk on contentious matter. The user was warned of 3RR but instead of discussing the matter at talk, the user kept on doing blatant reverts. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 06:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang. Reverting 100% clear vandalism is exempt from 3PR. This appears to be a knee jerk reaction (albeit too late) to cover up MBL's violation of 1PR and his blatant violation of WP:CENSOR policy. The removing well sourced sections that are written in a neutral NPOV tone without any rationale is vandalism ans reverting vandalism is exempt from 3PR. MBL has been on a campaign to remove this section and has gone as far as to AFD the page of this person. I will be recommending a Boomerang here. As I have already reported MBL for violating his 1PR restriction perhaps the closing admin will be kind enough to give him a short block and close both threads. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment- @MBlaze Lightning: did the right thing by not editing the page Research and Analysis Wing after this edit on 26th March yesterday. Greek Legend (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't see any 3RR violation there. There were intermediate edits in between and apparently MBlaze Lightning reverted all of them. There was clear vandalism by an internationally known hackers and Internet terrorists network based in Mumbai belonging to this same very agency. A clear conflict of interest as well. See the statement by international anti-hacker alliance about that network here. Meanwhile, MBL has been displaying battleground behavior and Wikihounding editors to start edit-wars by removing anything he considers anti-Indian and this type of battleground behavior coupled with political agenda is very dangerous for integrity of this encyclopedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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