Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:31, 23 December 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:Liao reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Protected)

Page

Race condition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "removed external links, keep the text. Unbelievable. If external links are banned. They should not be allowed in the first place in tUndid revision 755913881 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
2. 22:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755913661 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
3. 22:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "Please respect others work. Undid revision 755912560 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
4. 21:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Tools for Detecting race conditions */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "/* December 2016 */ 3RR"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "General note: Adding spam links on Race condition. (TW)"
2. 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Adding spam links on Race condition. (TW)"

Comments:

Editor doesn't seem to want to talk. Typical of school projects where the editor is saying: "I want to get my work done and I don't care for working cooperatively, discussing the edits or achieving consensus". Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Insanity. Walter Görlitz removed my entire section using the excuse of a few external links. He is a typical cyber bully showing no respect to others' contributions. The proper way is to just remove the external links. The accusations of me on spamming and doing school projects are laughable. First of all, I have no intention to promote anything or spam wikipedia. 2nd, I am way past schools and not doing any school project. Walter Görlitz's behavior is a typical cyber bullying showing no respect to others' contributions and baselessly accusing others' intentions. It is also a reflect of an old Chinese saying: the evils accuse others of wrong doing first.

--Liao 22:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to talk? I came to your talk page, twice. I added a notice there asking you to open a discussion at the article, and I'm the one who doesn't want to talk? Stop twisting facts. Inline external links, which in this case amounts to spamming, is not appropriate. A WP:SECONDARY source, or possibly WP:TERTIARY, should have be found to discuss these tools. 22:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

And now the editor continues to expand the article with primary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. During the period of protection you can ask for an admin to make any change that has consensus using the {{Edit fully protected}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but you've just sent a message to the new editor that edit warring is acceptable and will ultimately leave the article in a state that you want. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Keri (Result: protected)

Page

Generation Snowflake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:00, 21 December 2016‎ (UTC) "Section describes how the term is used not the "characteristics" of every person aged 16-25"
2. 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755935763 by Keri (talk) talk page details exactly why it is a poor source, and redundant also per WP:OVERCITE, WP:BOMBARD"
3. 00:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC) "poor source by non-notable writer, clearly derived from Fox et al"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Not given - user has instructed me not to use his talk page. See for eg and

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Very poor GQ fluff piece cited in Generation Snowflake

Comments:

User has received previous warnings and block for edit warring at this article. Editing history at this article demonstrates that - post block - he is aware of edit warring policy but now self-reverts or allows time to elapse in order to game the system. Current edit warring relates to a RS - GQ Magazine. User has elevated this to RS Noticeboard where he was informed that it was, indeed, a RS. Now initiating a further edit war over source. Keri (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This represents only 3 reverts - 3 is the "bright line", but as the policy states, the user clearly intends to revert repeatedly, or game the system to ensure the reverts fall outside of the 24 hour period. Keri (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Keri is once again acting with clear POV and trying to silence those who disagree with him. Obviously, the above user has simply not violated the rules and this report is completely ridiculous. MHP Huck (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Should be snow closed and filer warned against misuse of AN3. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Now any edit at all to the article is supposedly a "revert". Filer is clearly abusing process. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." You were made aware of this the last time you had to be blocked. Keri (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR violation but deleting the GQ reference from the article seems disruptive because MaxBrowne failed to get support for deleting this reference at RSN and he failed to get consensus to remove this reference on the article talk page. It appears he also quietly removed this reference from the section on trigger warnings at some point, I'm not sure when. MaxBrowne complained at RSN that the GQ source was referenced 3 times in the article, and now it's not in the article at all . I don't recall when this happened and I watch the page regularly. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Having been previously blocked he is now gaming the system to circumvent the spirit of the policy while remaining within the letter of it. Keri (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I love that you both are commenting here too - too funny! Such clear heads, such a neutral point of view. MHP Huck (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected by another admin. Multiple editors are engaged in this dispute. --slakr 20:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the editor who maliciously reported me for "edit warring" has done almost nothing but edit war on the article over the past month. A quick glance at the history of the article will show that every single one of this user's edits to the article was a revert. On the article talk page the editor has consistently used sarcasm, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I have done my best to ignore them by not replying to them on the talk page but the attacks have not stopped. An ANI thread was opened over 2 weeks ago but so far not even one admin has responded. It's high time this user had a wake-up call regarding their behaviour and abuse of the AN3 process. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Keri: Please note that the 3RR is only enforced on the 4th revert. The diffs you provided don't meet that criteria. @MaxBrowne: This noticeboard is for edit warring as a whole—not just 3RR. If the user felt there was edit warring going on, it's fine for them to raise the concern; it doesn't mean any action will necessarily be taken. Typically we only believe it to be abusive when it's repeatedly wrong (i.e., when, despite being told otherwise, someone starts using reports to harass someone else. Otherwise, their raising a report here is just as likely to boomerang back onto them if they're also (or moreso) in the wrong. I, for example, ignore the usernames and go straight to the page history to figure out what's going on. Regardless, I strongly recommend that everyone take a break and participate in the RFCs that have been spawned on the talk page, which is a good step toward dispute resolution. --slakr 02:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Slakr: I'm fully aware that 3RR is merely the bright line: a single revert can also be interpreted as edit warring and acted upon, however. In this instance, MaxBrowne has received a previous warning and a block for disruptively edit warring at this article. Since that block he has continued to edit war, accused everyone who reverts him of conspiring to tag team against him, and also taken the edit warring up to the bright line before reluctantly self-reverting. Meanwhile, I have initiated talk page discussions, I have asked people not to edit war, I have initiated RfCs and I have on two occasions asked for temporary full page protection (regardless of the version being protected) in order to protect editors from themselves as much as to slow down reversions. This noticeboard is to alert about edit warring - that is how I have used it; if other editors did not fall into the habit of aggressively reverting and then immediately re-reverting, they wouldn't find themselves being reported. As for harassment, this is a fine example of someone "intentionally target a specific person or persons... to make the target feel threatened or intimidated... to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." Keri (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Aqswdefrgthyjukilopjmhngbfvdcsxazaqdyujvsxxv‎ reported by User:LibStar (Result: 31h)

Page: Deborah Knight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aqswdefrgthyjukilopjmhngbfvdcsxazaqdyujvsxxv‎ (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:

• Comment — Thought I would mention I have opened a sock-puppet investigation against this user. You can see it here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Guyguyguyguyguyguyguyguy
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 02:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Youalrightbruv2017 reported by User:331dot (Result: 36h)

Page

Liam Neeson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Youalrightbruv2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Well, after reading 'CONSENSUS', I have offered an alternative change. My concern is that not everybody knows where are small region such as NI is. By using a more recognisable location in the intro, followed by the specifics, it is simpler."
2. 09:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Unless one would prefer to use 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. That is the name of the state. A bit big for an introduction, too.."
3. 09:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Please try and explain where it is wrong."
4. 09:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "As factually correct as the other version, 'Northern' still appears everywhere else, link for 'Ireland' displays information for whole Ireland, therefore more information added, all with good intentions."
5. 09:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Explained removal several times"
6. 09:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Article was improved and provides more information via the link and is less geographically confusing for the reader"
7. 09:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "Like said but for, and, the link for 'Ireland' brings up details of Northern and Southern, more all round."
8. 09:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC) "The original edit posted from this account is as correct and the specific location is obviously shown. It enhances the readers' experience"
9. 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC) "Less confusing while still technically correct. Evidence of where he is specifically from still remains."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See user's talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Based on their edit summaries, they seem well aware of what they are doing and have suggested that they have reviewed the talk page 331dot (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Materialscientist (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:No violation )

Page: Apache Ant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
also related: List of build automation software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 2016-12-15 ""Cross-platform" is a weasel word that tries to disguise the fact the writer doesn't know which OS"
• 2016-12-16 "MOS:COMPUTING says don't use this term. WP:WEASEL says don't."
• 2016-12-22 "Rv. malicious blanket revert. Also, the reverter is refusing to get the point. The discussion in the talk page of MOS:COMPUTING was rather comprehensive."
• 2016-12-22 "Again, this is a malicious blanket revert. You discussed in Talk:MOS:COMPUTING and didn't earn a consensus."

Also see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Computing#Prohibition of "cross-platform"? and User talk:Andy Dingley#About that very thin line

Codename Lisa has a problem with use of the term "cross-platform" in computing articles. They claim that it is a WP:WEASEL word and must not be used. They have removed it from the articles here, citing the MOS:COMPUTING style guide. The problem is, the style guide doesn't even mention it.

Lisa's tone has, from the outset (see "About that very thin line", been combative and hectoring. Terms like "Those editors are called liars." Discussion at MOS TALK:COMPUTING ended with comments of "Whatever you do, don't come here weeping again." from FleetCommand (talk · contribs).

I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. "cross-platform" is, like "user-friendly", a term that is so widely abused in computing ad copy that it's hard to see past the meaningless flannel. However there are cases, and this is such a case, where it preserves its original and essential meaning and is a necessary part of describing the topic (see fuller comments at MOS TALK:COMPUTING). Apache Ant exists to be cross-platform: people using it have tasks to do which need to be carried out equally across a range of platforms without manually changing the build scripts which control them: Ant gives them that ability. "Cross-platform" belongs in the Ant article, and other articles about similar build tools.

Lisa is simply lying here. They have been asked to clarify where the MOS covers cross-platform and they have failed to do so. I can't find it. Maybe some other ANEW reader can point me to it. But repeatedly edit-warring to force a content dispute, and lying to claim that such removal is supported by a style guide when it simply isn't - that's not acceptable editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I seek an outcome here which states that Lisa, as unable to actually show the MOS as supporting her claim, stops making that claim and stops reverting on the basis of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by the involved editor, FleetCommand. This whole affair started as a dispute, one that either of the sides could be blocked if they edit warred; it is now a simple matter of disruptive editing.

I became involved when Andy Dingley came to ] asking advice about a matter of dispute in List of build automation software article! (not Apache Ant)! I refused to visit the dispute itself, and concerned myself with answering Andy's direct question, giving advice to Andy. But the discussion didn't yield the consensus that empowered Andy to restore his version. So, the following happened:

• Andy stopped listening and decided to pretend he didn't hear me. Above, Andy says "Discussion at MOS TALK:COMPUTING ended with comments of 'Whatever you do, don't come here weeping again.' from FleetCommand" which is obviously not the case: As you can see in ], he started talking to Codename Lisa (which turned out to be the other side of dispute) from that point onward, repeated five times the question for which he had already received answer, and near the end of discussion, he is ignoring me entirely.
• Andy suddenly turned on me and called my snarky. All I did was helping this guy.
• Codename Lisa forfeited her contribution on "List of build automation software" article and told Andy he can revert it. You'd think that the object of edit warring is permanently eliminated. But no!
• Andy started disruptive blanket reverting on Apache Ant article in a way that comes very close to WP:DICK: It was possible to avoid this by pressing the Edit button, typing 16 characters and possibly avoiding an edit war altogether. But Andy didn't take this course of action. IMHO, Andy did this to bait Codename Lisa into reverting him and thereby starting an edit war. In other words, he disrupted Misplaced Pages to get another editor to revert his disruption.

To summarize, Andy refused to get the point (the consensus against him, however weak), disrupted Misplaced Pages to bait someone else into reverting it, was uncivil to me, and responded to a token of compromise and goodwill with WP:DICK action. In addition, he never had any policy or consensus support for his very first revert to begin with. Checking Andy Dingley's block log reveals that he is a repeat offender. I believe he must receive a longer block this time.

Cheers. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a simple way to resolve this: just quote the section from MOS:COMPUTING which says, "cross-platform is a weasel phrase and must not be used".

You have not done so: you can't, because it isn't in there. Yet Lisa has claimed this repeatedly in order to remove it against my clearly stated objections. I've given reasons why it's applicable to Ant, but no-one has responded to that, just cited the same falsehood. Citing a lie over and over doesn't make it true.

I asked at the MOS for any other editor to quote it instead, in case I'd just missed it. You didn't do that, you turned to snark and "Don't come here weeping". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• "just quote the section from MOS:COMPUTING which says " I have done so already:

"Citing a lie over and over doesn't make it true." Right back at you. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by the accused, Codename Lisa (talk · contribs): I have already given Andy Dingley the right to revert my change in the main area of dispute fully and he hasn't done so as of yet. That's because when he says our dispute is a factor, he is lying. It is not a factor. Simply put: If someone go to an article and change "Unix" to "unix", we revert him as a vandal. Three out of Andy's four reverts constituted such vandalistic changes. I know he wanted to goad me into reverting his disruption. Yet the fact remains that a disruption is still forbidden and reverting it is an exemption to WP:3RR.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about unix, it's about your MOS claims for cross-platform.

For unix though, Unix and unix are different terms, owing to varying claims over trademarks. I still see the uncapitalised form as more generic, thus more appropriate. Equally Java vs JVM: Ant is open sourced, thus is distributed as Java language source code, not merely as JVM bytecode. The language is the platform, not the compiled bytecode.

I'm still waiting to see a real cite to the MOS prohibition on cross-platform, because you're repeatedly reverting on that specific basis, yet your claim is a false claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"I still see the uncapitalised form as more generic". And I am officially calling you a liar.

"I'm still waiting to see a real cite to " Wow! Man, talk about WP:LISTEN! For the last time, FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• There is no violation here. This is a content dispute and the answer is dispute resolution. - GB fan 14:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Amanaparts reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kosovo Liberation Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amanaparts (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:

Comment I did not violate 3RR rule and since I simply warned to stop distributive editing and reverted vandalism. Articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. User FkpCascais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , 23 editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zoupan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started editing and reverting without consensus on talk page. I warned all three of them and asked for semi-protection since the source was not reliable. Take it to the talking page and reach consensus. Prove your sources. Easy as that.

Blocked – 31 hours. It is unclear why the book by Mincheval and Gurr would be questioned as a source. We have an article on one of the authors, Ted Robert Gurr, who is listed as a Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland. Due to his objection to this supposedly bad source, User:Amanaparts has made four reverts at Kosovo Liberation Army without ever posting anything on the article talk page. Amanaparts' use of the term 'vandalism' is incorrect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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