Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 8 May 2023

• 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:CerroFerro reported by User:Robert Kerber (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: Lewis Milestone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CerroFerro (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:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
User repeatedly reverts "tone" tag without addressing article issues commented upon by three different users, makes false claims, refers to talk page without participating in discussion other than "provide examples" notes, examples had been given but ignored by said user.

Blocked from the article for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I am commenting here because I have Cerro Ferros user page watchlisted and was and am surprised of their block. 1st Cerro Ferro did not make 3 reverts within 24 hours. Then article is at a first glance very well sourced, and to the only explicitly mentioned phrase I also don't see the reason why it should be rephrased. As for me, the phrase is crafted in an interesting style. If this is a mess...I'd also ask for a better explanation for why the tag is needed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

CF never participated in the talk thread they repeatedly advised others to start, even after it was started, one that per his edit summary requests gave at least one example.. I see that you have, and Nikkimaria has dealt with your argument so expediently as to obviate the need for further explication here. Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

First, I repeat, there was no violation of the 3RR rule. The reverts took place between the 24th April and the 2 May. Then the discussion took place a section lower than your linked one. And in that discussion CF actually did take part and gave answers three times, on the 30 April, the 1 May and the 2 May. The tag was for repeated issues and one phrase was given and this by Nikkimaria, not by the original tagger who is also the filer of the EW report. An advice to the filer of the report to abstain of making nonsense reports after refusing to give examples at the talk page would have been a solution, too. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

While this noticeboard was, indeed, originally AN/3RR, it was long ago renamed to reflect the reality that there are ways one can disruptively edit-war without making more than three reverts of the same edit within 24 hours. As WP:EW quite clearly and unabiguously says, "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."

As noted at the section you linked, three different editors restored the {{tone}} tag, suggesting some consensus that there was an issue around this. CF continued to revert, asking people to take it to the talk page. When they did, in the section I linked, and Nikkimaria cited an example, CF never responded ... you did (with, as I noted, a rather risible defense that, as she noted in her own response, has nothing to do with policy).

As further noted in the linked diff (and frankly, I couldn't have written a better justification for the partial block than Robert Kerber did there), CF continued reverting the addition of the tag even after both discussions were underway. This is accepted as edit-warring, no matter how frequently it happens, warranting at least the partial-block sanction I imposed—and CF should be thankful this isn't occurring in an article under CTOPS, because then it could have meant a sitewide block. Behavior like this is why we have some articles in CTOPS under a clearly-noticed zero-revert rule (i.e., you cannot revert any substantial change without discussing it on the talk page).

I also find CF's responses in the later thread to be tendentious sea-lioning, in that they are intended to make them appear to be behaving rationally and civilly (although again we should note that "the high quality of the article" is never a defense to editorial criticism). Yes, it would have been nice if the other three editors had provided examples (although given your defense of the one Nikkimaria gave earlier, I can't say I blame them for being hesitant as it can easily be argued from what you wrote that you have absolutely no understanding of what could be the problem, or even that there could be a problem). But to have that kind of discussion, you have to have at least tacit agreement to leave that section of the article alone in the meantime. Instead, CF seems to have used the lack of examples given as the excuse needed to remove the tone tag. And you are surprised they were blocked.

Now I understand, because I've been in this situation where someone has tagged an article I've largely written for something like this, and hasn't given examples when asked beyond, "Well, I feel this isn't right". But that means you wait a while before you remove the tag.

And there are other options besides "repeatedly and petulantly restoring the edit". CF could have more intensely asked the editors to provide examples. They could have sought dispute resolution or some other ways to get more editors involved. They could have taken the very drastic step of requesting full protection of the article for a few days to force discussion. But no, they chose to act in a manner unbecoming a Wikipedian.

And I cannot leave off on this long response without some comment on your posts here, PC. To me they have already gone a little too far down the road of wikilawyering and hairsplitting for me not to strongly advise you to drop the stick. Someone with a block log like yours is really not in the position to so casually lecture admins about this. (I am also, to be honest, a little curious as to why you have come here, not having participated in this dispute much, to so vigorously defend someone because their page is on your watchlist, even though they have the freedom to come here and defend themselves as they are only blocked from the one article). Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd expect from an admin to be able to explain what the issue on tone is in an AGF way, much more if the article in question is about a film director and the admin has a GA review on a film article going on.

Then to answer your curiosity for why I defend CF: it is because I all my blocks were unjustified and I believe I would have been quite glad to have had a lawyer in those cases. I was open about the unjustified blocks in the past and to prevent further comments similar to that I am in no position to lecture admins I updated my user page so my blocking historial is transparent for you and other editors. Not all blocks are correct, much less your comment on my blocks. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• "I'd expect from an admin to be able to explain what the issue on tone is in an AGF way". Uh, hello, this was my job now? My job was to review the editing involved and see if actionable edit warring occurred. I decided it had. It was the job of the other editors to explain this, which, as noted below, they did. And even that might not have been necessary; an introspective, reflective enough editor might well have been able to look at the article and find places where they might go, hey, yes, I wrote this but you know, those other editors just might have a point here or there. That would certainly be an improvement over "I like the way this sounds"
• "... much more if the article in question is about a film director and the admin has a GA review on a film article going on" And what point was that possibly intended to make? So you looked at my recent contribs. So? How would having a GA review ongoing be some reason I would have to explain the tonal issues of an article another editor whom you are so passionate about defending because, you say, their user page is on your watchlist, when that article is about a somewhat related subject as the GA? That's the sort of "counterargument" people make when they're so emotionally wounded that they need to feel like they responded but know they have no leg to stand on.
• "it is because I all my blocks were unjustified" You and so many other people.
• "I believe I would have been quite glad to have had a lawyer in those cases" Your ambivalent phrasing belies your previously stated self-confidence. And frankly I'd be most interested in hearing from CF himself on the issue.
• "Not all blocks are correct, much less your comment on my blocks." We'll see about that. We'll see about that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, where do you want to have a review on the last phrase? But I believe it is open harassment from an admin to an AGF editor. I was blocked for a month after having reported one who violated their topic ban and after they wrote about me: So basically they admit to being a racist user. I do not know how it is ok to have racist users on Misplaced Pages If you really want to challenge that unblock, go for it. I take you by your word. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: "where do you want to have a review on the last phrase?" At a time and place of my choosing. And as for this thread I'm done now. Go and sin no more. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Paradise_Chronicle: User Nikkimaria had given two examples, not one, while I had clearly referred to puffery in my comment when I first tagged the article for tone, which is absolutely sufficient and in accordance with WP rules. The only person acting uncooperative and non-constructive was user CerroFerro with his/her repeated reverts (3 alone between April 30th and May 2nd) while at the same time refusing to participate in any kind of discussion, only repeating his "give evidence/examples" phrase. Please do not make false claims and refrain from allegiations such as "making nonsense reports" with regard to my person in the future.

Daniel_Case: Thank you for taking the time to solve and explain this. Robert Kerber (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

User:175.144.207.36 reported by User:Xeverything11 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Yakuza (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 175.144.207.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Virtual Tourism */Added content relevant to topic and removed garbage"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC) to 10:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 10:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Virtual Tourism */Removed garbage trash and replaced with genuine content relevant to the topic :)"
   2. 10:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Virtual Tourism */Removed trash :) fixed :))"
3. Consecutive edits made from 10:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC) to 10:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 10:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Virtual Tourism */Removed garbage replaced with content relevant to topic :)"
   2. 10:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Virtual Tourism */Removed trash *fixed* :)"
4. 10:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Cultural impact */Erased crap nonsense and replaced with wholesome content from a true dedicated fan relevant to the franchise"
5. 10:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Cultural impact */Added content relevant to the topic removed garbage :)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC) "Note: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
2. 10:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Please extend the block. This user is a known sock with five years of history. Disregard; a more effective solution has been implemented. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2a00:23c4:2485:4801:9571:79c6:4f62:f8d7 reported by User:AugustusAudax (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Active edit war, user keeps censoring a report on a death, saying: "Think about how you would feel if it was your relation." That's not a valid reason. Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153510230

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153509878

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153509878

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153509592

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153508745 Sincerely, --AugustusAudax (talk|contribs) P.S: Aliens exist 21:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• 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) 21:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C4:2485:4801:9571:79C6:4F62:F8D7 reported by User:AugustusAudax (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Dixon's Chimney and Shaddon Mill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A00:23C4:2485:4801:9571:79C6:4F62:F8D7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153508260

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
Sorry this is so hasty, it's active. Sincerely, --AugustusAudax (talk|contribs) P.S: Aliens exist 21:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• 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) 21:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Dac gori032 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: No violation)

Page: Trinity the Tuck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dac gori032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1153520736 by Materialscientist (talk) Makes no sense."
2. 22:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1153519214 by FlightTime (talk) Correct information"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC) to 22:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 22:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC) "/* top */Made light to the recent allegations against The Tuck. Also Grammer mistakes and some more information about famous moments of Trinity"
   2. 22:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC) "/* top */Fixed typo"
   3. 22:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107590112 by Another Believer (talk) This is correct information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Trinity the Tuck."
2. 22:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Trinity the Tuck."
3. 22:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC) "+ Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. It's been two actual reverts so far. But Dac would be wise to refrain from doing it a third time at this point, as they seem to have been so far. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Sol505000 reported by User:93.143.79.158 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours; article semi-protected for a day)

Page: Kajkavian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sol505000 (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:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
And insulting on a national basis. I didn't offend him. ] and ]93.143.79.158 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

As can be seen on the IP's talk page and edit summaries, I requested them to propose their changes on the article talk page, but they continuously refused to do so. The proper response here is a WP:BOOMERANG. –Vipz (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, it's me again, my IP has changed on its own, such a network. I have to answer this question. How can you talk to someone with an IP ] who has changed and changed and invented something that is not written in the source it is correct to go back to what he correctly wrote in the source. Now imagine that I invent something and add something that is not written in the source and say, let's go to the chat page later and talk about it. I think that's nonsense. In addition, I see on your page ] that you are a "supports the reunification of the Serbo-Croatian language" that's what it says on your page. I have to tell you that today it is impossible when there are Serbian language and Croatian language that are recognized in the world, in the EU as separate languages, because they are independent states today.Unfortunately, I have to tell you that you are living in the past, when there was a state of Yugoslavia that no longer exists, and none of those forms of the Serbian-Croatian language, because times have changed, there is no longer a common state of Yugoslavia and everyone has their own language that is recognized in the EU and the world. It is clear to me why you would change the source for the sake of your politics, because you stand for the Serbo-Croatian language, while today there are only Croatian and Serbian languages, which have been recognized in the UN and the EU since 1990, when they became independent states. Please don't support a vandal who changes sources for his own benefit and it is not written there, and I see you like it too, I see from your page, because you are a fan of the Serbian-Croatian language, because that is against Misplaced Pages. We should respect the sources and what is written in them. Thank you.93.142.169.186 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RRNO cannot be invoked here. In order to prevent the IP from editing if his IP is switched again, I will be semi-protecting the article for the same period. I would have imposed a rangeblock but it would have required a /15 CIDR, which the software does not allow. And there are many other people on the /16. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Pizzigs reported by User:Freoh (Result: No violation)

Page: United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pizzigs (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:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
This is another one of the edit warriors who contributed to the United States lockdown a couple of weeks ago and violated WP:3RR soon after the article was unlocked. Some of these edits fall within the scope of WP:ARBAP2, a contentious topic.  — Freoh 12:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC); edited 17:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• No violation. The last two edits were on May 7. The edits before that were on May 3 and then going back into April. Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain how this behavior does not violate Misplaced Pages's edit warring policy? Why is it relevant that some of this edit war occurred on May 3? SashiRolls provided me with a few additional diffs that I just included.  — Freoh 17:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:9A00:B700:818:134:63FA:588E reported by User:Shadow of the Starlit Sky (Result: Blocked 48h)

Page: Chester F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:C7C:9A00:B700:818:134:63FA:588E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1153837120 by Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk)"
2. 16:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1153836756 by Michaeldble (talk)"
3. 16:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1153836491 by Michaeldble (talk)"
4. 16:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "Message about your edit on Chester F.C. (level 1) (AV)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked 48h for vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:165.16.41.28 reported by User:Lone-078 (Result: Blocked, page semied)

Page: Libu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 165.16.41.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC) to 18:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 18:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC) to 20:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 20:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC) to 20:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 20:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
2. 20:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
3. 20:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC) "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent removal of sourced content. Same as 165.16.40.45 who was blocked today, thus it is also block evasion. Refusal to communicate. May I suggest a rangeblock on the 165.16.40.0/23 range? Lone-078 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked and page semi'ed. Courcelles (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Solaire the knight, and User:174.164.163.141 reported by User:CandyScythe (Result: )

Page: Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solaire the knight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 174.164.163.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyScythe (talk • contribs) 18:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Solaire the knight: 174.164.163.141: (by Solaire the knight)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
Past edit warring in the same article: CandyScythe (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I find it extremely outrageous that not only did you put me next to an anonymous person who has been waging an edit war with deletion of information for several days on the article for no reason, but you also put me higher and also tried to connect it with a completely different mine conflict. Anonymity violations are so obvious (and I even warned them that a double violation of the three-revocation rule would result in an appeal to the administrators) that I consider such actions as targeted harassment. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring