Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:40, 12 August 2012

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Teachingyeshua reported by User:Evanh2008 (Result:Indefinite )

Page: Two House theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Teachingyeshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: None yet.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (hope that's okay): I chose direct engagement on the user's talk page, rather than starting a thread on the article talk page, which would probably go unnoticed anyway. Let me know if that's a problem.

Comments:
On Torah, Shema Yisrael‎, and Hebrew Roots as well. No bright-line 3RR violation as of yet, but I think this needs administrator intervention as soon as possible. The user has reverted several times after receiving a level-four warning. Evanh2008 22:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite. Edit-warring, disruptive editing, spamming, user name violation. Evan, if you have a moment, it would be great if you could clean up the affected articles. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  Another admin point of view:

  • I see no edit warring, no reverts except on the part of the nominator. I see only attempts to re-try inserting progressively improved versions of the same edit into an article, ending with a version reasonably free of bias, and sourced.
  • The evidence above does not show more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period.
  • I see no spamming other than trying to reference a book. No link spamming.
  • There is no user name violation, as the username does not seem to represent a group, at least not in evidence by this user's edits.

  Therefore I consider an indef block a bit excessive. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it was promotional, either, and I'm unsure about the user name thing as well. There were definitely reverts, though, as you can see above. I made clear that there was no 3RR violation, however. I didn't even come here looking for the user to be blocked, anyway, but I don't particularly object, given that he continued edit warring well after a level four warning (given by another user, not me). Evanh2008 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with blocking. I was considering blocking for shorter period to convince the user to use the talk pages to facilitate collaboration. Anyway, if this user wants to be unblocked, he has instructions on how to appeal. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The user was adding material sourced to this website in many articles. In my view, that alone violates WP:ORGNAME. The about us of that website begins with "We are believers in Yeshua, keepers of the Written Torah, and purchased by the redemptive work of the Body of YHWH, Yeshua." The material added essentially promotes the beliefs of the website. One of the "books" cited by the editor is here. The Eddie Chumney "book" is on videos and other websites - it is apparently a DVD. I saw no indication that the editor was responding to any warnings but simply kept stubbornly adding similar material. He can, if he wishes, request an unblock, but I saw no indication of him being a constructive contributor.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't notice those links. Full agree then, in that case. Thanks! Evanh2008 23:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I missed the COI link too. Never mind, all is well. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Dennis Bratland reported by User:76.76.65.172 (Result:Declined )

Page: Freaknik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Dennis Bratland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User Dennis Bratland appears more motivated to defend the event's image than to present this topic objectively. Not requesting a block, necessarily, just editorial oversight, especially in light of the controversy surrounding the topic.

Comment - This is not the place for oversight requests - Please go to WP:Requests for oversight. Mdann52 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin

Declined. Putting aside the malformed report, Dennis has reverted only twice (your diffs abve are of your reversions). You should stop reverting and stop calling Dennis's actions "vandalism" as they are not. I suggest you take your content dispute to the article Talk page. As an aside, the IP does not really mean "oversight" in the WP-technical sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Diffs

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Freaknik&diff=495311456&oldid=495309346
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Freaknik&diff=506740381&oldid=506739125

User:75.176.3.213 reported by User:208.38.59.161 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Kaitlyn (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.176.3.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. 22:14, 9 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
2. 00:14, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 00:44, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
4. 03:15, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:75.176.3.213&diff=506746204&oldid=504060699

User has been warned twice before on talk page by different editors, and myself and others have commented in edit summaries about rules they've been breaking, even adding hidden text about not breaking these rules yet they continue. Is adding fansite as living person's official website, going against Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling by adding poorly sourced moves and week-by-week accounts (also a violation of WP:NOT)

Comments:

--208.38.59.161 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy 17:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Triomio reported by User:Martinvl (Result:48 hours )

Page: International Bank Account Number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Triomio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:This warning is 3 days old. User:Triomio recevied a 24 hour block as a result of that warning, but this does not seem to have stopped their behaviour.

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Martin, please pay attention to your editing of the article. Reverts are not just "reverts". Read the policy. Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I note that the 2nd of the 4 reverts mentioned above was not performed by User:Triomio, but by another editor. That leaves 3 reverts. In the same period the filer, User:Martinvl had, despite complaining about similar actions by others previously, also performed 3 reverts to that article:

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

And has, since the block and warning to himself being applied, performed yet another:

• 4th revert:

82.132.249.192 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I looked at the history myself, and Triomio was way past 3 reverts. This section is not the place to file a report about another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:124.169.68.39 reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: as below)

Page: AC/DC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.169.68.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

Comments:

IP persistently adding (4 times) a paragraph about a computer virus to an article about a rock band, with no discernible connection other than the name, although the name has several meanings. I and another user have reverted the IP twice each, and the IP has refused to discuss it, preferring to use edit summaries to tell others to use google search. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I note the 3RR warning was placed after the 4th revert, and there have been none since then. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The 3RR warning was placed before the 4th revert. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something critical, the warning was at 22:22 and a subsequent revert at 23:11. I've blocked him per the report below. Kuru (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:124.169.68.39 reported by User:Moxy (Result: 24 hours)

Page: AC/DC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.169.68.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Added info about the Gauss state-nation-created trojan that uses 0xACDC as its encryption key

• 1st revert: Undid revision 506787047 by Bretonbanquet (talk) - AC/DC is the bands name, so how can you say it has nothing to do with the band?
• 2nd revert: Gauss was developed by the same team which developed Stuxnet which destroyed 1000+ nuclear centrifuges in Iran. There is only a 1 in 65535 (0xFFFF) chance that their use of ACDC as their encryption key is incidental
• 3rd revert: Perhaps u can word it better than I can, but pls google "Iran ACDC Thunderstruck" as only 2wks ago Iran's atomic agency reported their volumes were set to 100+ w/ ACDC Thunderstruck. This is a 2nd issue
• 4th revert: "Bretonbanquet" keeps deleting what is clearly an AC/DC reference made by this trojan (either that or a 1 in 65535 random chance), that is not just referenced my a virus, but one that has been developed by the USA and/or Israel. Please google.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article User talk page: explanation of deletion - two different attempts at communicating

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four reverts, was warned prior. Kuru (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Kylethegreat098 reported by User:Still-24-45-42-125 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kylethegreat098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This is edit-warring, verging on vandalism, even if it's not 4RR in one day. He keeps making the exact same change -- from 2002 to 1999 -- which gets reverted with explanation. He doesn't respond on his talk page. He doesn't participate on the article talk page. This is a prominent WP:BLP article, so I'm requesting a short block to maybe force him to engage with us and explain himself. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that he was actually at 3RR just as Still is at 3RR too. He warned the user at 4:21 and then made this report at 4:34 before the 4RR which was actually at 5:41. The first revert does not count because it was his change which was reverted afterwards. ViriiK (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Added more info

There is more to this whole story:

• Still is at 3RR at this same article: , ,
• Here Still ironically accuses Kyle of "slow edit-warring" when Still is slow edit warring right along with him!!!
• Still was edit warring at Conservatism in the United States 2 days ago. Diffs: , , . Arthur Rubin predicted that Still would be blocked for this violation of policy . But he wasn't.
• Still just came off of a block for edit warring just 8 days ago for edit warring.
• Still's behavior is far, far worse than the editor he is reporting.

ViriiK (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

24 hours. Can't ignore the fact here that Still repeatedly attempted to initiate discussion, and was repeatedly ignored but the reverts continued. It's BRD, not BRRR. Seraphimblade 09:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I consider ViriiK's attempt to make this all about me to be incredibly hostile and contrary to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Let's close this and move on. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Still's "attempts to initiate discussion" were unsuccessful, because he was just making assertions. Still, we might as well close this. I don't think Still's actions on this article deserve a block. Other articles, perhaps. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's untrue..

Please don't mislead administrators with false statements. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to hatting or removing Still's and my comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

How about retracting the statements you made that I've shown to be false? Not even asking for an apology. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, the second seems to be an attempt at discussion, although based on a false premise; a number of sources did report 1999. The first is not an attempt at discussion (at least, by your standards), because it doesn't state a potential reason why his edit was wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're batting 0 for 2. The first simply asked him to explain his edit. It didn't argue for or against. It just tried to engage him in discussion as opposed to edit-warring. Since it did not state disagreement, there was no obligation to support such a statement. The second does mention that our sources say 2002, but this is true. While there are sources that mistakenly say 1999, we considered the totality of sources, not just the ones that were corrected by others. So, in short, both were attempts at discussion, yet you're bending over backwards to deny this.

Why even bother? ViriiK's attempt to WP:BOOMERANG this at me has already failed because, to be frank, it was irrelevant. What you're doing is even more so. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Evlekis reported by User:Majuru (Result=No violation)

Edit-warring, infringement of 3RR, at Rona Nishliu's page. . Majuru (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been no infringement, the reverts stand at three apiece and I have not been involved in any activity on that article since this thread. Furthermore, an attempt at discussion by me has been launched hereso it is down to the other party to comply from this stage. Nothing more to add, the first admin to view this should close the case instantly. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also gross incivility (stupid idiot) - I think he is referring to me. . Majuru (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nicely contrived revision difference! But to find to whom I was being "grossly incivil", perhaps we should unmask the very contribution that my edit was addressing. So if the person I insulted senses the gravity of the affront, I sure he will report himself at some point. Click this link to get the full picture! ...and then end this pointless discussion. I'm not returning here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

May I ask you, who were you referring to? Majuru (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To myself, examine the edit rather than the summary. Whilst typing the original draft, I had the incorrect text on my clipboard - I evidently misfired when attempting to copy the website address and so pasted the obsolete information but did not realise until after sending the post. To clarify, I was the idiot for ploughing ahead without checking my errors. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And apart from you both being engaged in this mediation request I see no attempts by Majuru to address the reverts at this particular page Rona Nishliu as Evlekis suggested. Majuru, this might actually bounce back at you since it looks like an attempt of retaliation for what you perceived as an insult . Next time try to sort this kind of conflict via user talk before reporting anyone, and Majuru may receive a block when pulling another stunt like this. De728631 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• On an additional note: Evlekis, next time you make a mistake while editing please try to limit "idiotic" comments of this kind to talking to yourself or someone might in fact think you were up for violating other editors. De728631 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, no offence intended to anyone. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Martinvl reported by User:82.132.249.199 (Result:Declined )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: International Bank Account Number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

Comments:

In the same period that User:Martinvl was performing these reverts he was also complaining about similar actions by User:triomio, and giving outrageous excuses for the reinstatement of the long-term content (see examples , ), untainted by "reference needed" tags, and even filed a 3RR report (diff) against him, resulting in triomio being blocked for 48h.

Just over 24h after the first of the sequence of reverts listed above, he started again (presumably hoping to avoid the 3RR 24h time limit) with this sequence:

82.132.249.199 (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note. The last 3 diffs listed above were "consecutive" and count as a single revert.Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• The complainant is using a bare IP address. Could it be User:Triomio who is currently blocked for 48 hours? If so, the complaint should be ignored. Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. De728631 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Given that User:De728631 has sided with Martinvl against User:Triomio in a discussion on Talk:International Bank Account Number and in the edit history of Friesland (disambiguation) and is a member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Frisia, a subject area in which Triomio has had a few disputes recently, he may not bring an open mind to this discussion. 82.132.249.193 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC) (I was also the filer of this 3RR report, my ISP issues dynamic IP addresses. 82.132.249.193 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC))

• Note. This edit came after BobK pointed out that Martinvl had reverted one of BobK's edits as well as all of Trimio's edits. Martinvl decided to self-revert, restoring BobK's edit, then reverted the rest of Trimio's work. I believe this falls well within the "self-revert" exception. GaramondLethe 23:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring