Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:53, 31 March 2017

• 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:Mootros reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

Page: European Graduate School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mootros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff. The key section here is European_Graduate_School#Status.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff away back on 07:32, 30 January 2017 and left a note in a new harshly-titled Editor bias: Highly selective application of rules section at the Talk page.
2. diff massive revert with ironic edit note, 05:08, 29 March 2017 that restores their edit to the key section along with other stuff.
3. diff 06:54, 29 March 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Editor bias: Highly selective application of rules section mentioned above

Comments:

This article has been through a very long and ugly history of the school itself sending people to Misplaced Pages, especially to deal with the accreditation section. Something like 40 SPA accounts showed up starting at the end of December of 2015 (I tallied them up here) and we had six very ugly months that involved 2 ANI threads here and here about a lawyer working with EGS who showed up and made semi-legal-threats, and who also made a request for mediation.

This is all recorded in the Talk archives (part of Archive 1 and all of 2 and 3 are consumed with lobbying/battering from people from the school - please skim them to see what we have been through), and culminated in this RfC that was closed last July. Everybody involved was exhausted and sick of this.

So Mootros showed up in January and "balanced" that exact section. I noticed this in March and reverted here back to the RfC version and noted the history on Talk in that wonderfully titled section that Mootros had put down. After Mootros again changed that section, I gave them an EW notice, and they responded with the don't template the regulars thing, and went right back and reverted again.

Mootros has not violated 3RR but their intention to force their changes into this section, ignoring the community consensus that was the result of a long and ugly negotiation is very clear. Please block. Jytdog (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog about everything except the request for a block. Having a look at this user's other edits, it seems very overhanded to ask for a block. They seem to be doing very good work elsewhere and seem simply unable to keep their personal views out of their POV in this particular case. A harsh warning should suffice, with a topic ban if the behavior continues. InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm grateful to the contributor for raising the issue, although I'm not sure this is the right venue for such a dispute. I will respond to the above presentation of facts, which I think is rather selective, with my own version. My initial edit at this article on 29 Jan. was an addition of sourced material to contextualized existing material. I understand that this section had been subject to an RfC. However, I assume that this will not prevent others adding additional material. My contribution was swiftly revert by Jytdog, deemed unfit as it consisted of a primary source; this revert was very much in line with our existing policy requiring secondary sources! I subsequently thanks Jytdog personally and removed the other primary source that was erroneously agreed on in the RfC. I politely explained on the talk page that our secondary source policy cannot by implemented selectively, permitting some primary source while disallowing other equally valid primary source on one and the same topic. Today I noticed the edit-war like behaviour of late between Jytdog and another contributor, who seemed to push for adding promotion-like material throughout the article. I boldly revert to the previous version from Jan and ask contributors in the edit note to reach some agreement. My final edit today, include the very same addition that had been blatantly ignored in the first place by insisting that the RfC does not allow any additional material. On side note, I'm not very happy about Jytdog's tone of conversation. I understand that there were a lot of problem with this article, but it does not mean we should abandon courteous ways of talking to each other. I tried to explain to the contributor that I have no interest in taking sides on this ongoing dispute about EGS and my concern is the selective application of rules. I was belittled, while no attempt of engaging with any of my concerns has not (yet) been seen. Mootros (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should start a new RFC — your edits can be viewed as promotional of the school. AGF is not a suicide pact. El_C 12:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why it would look "promotional". My agenda is to avoid arbitrary application of rules that try to advance whatever agenda. One thing for sure this article is full of promotional material that has no place here so ever. But I'm afraid people in their good and right effort went too far and lost side of the overall picture. Thanks! Mootros (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I now have placed the RfC on the article's talk page. Mootros (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to extended-access protect the article, in fact. El_C 12:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not the right outcome. Mootros' intention to ignore the prior community discussions and the community consensus - the bedrock of this place - and force their content into WP is clear. The "questions" at the RfC were discussed to death already. WP is not some wild west where every inexperienced editor who shows up can overthrow hard-won consensus. There is no point to putting the community through another RfC on this. Nothing has changed in the RW to justify changing it; this is the same old, same old. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mootros, generally RfC results are only changed with new information (and then only when uncontroversial), or else by a new RfC. I strongly advise against a new RfC in this case, for reasons stated by others above. Looks like it is time to walk away from this article for a while. InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I have noted you concern, Insertcleverphrasehere. I have opened a new RfC in line with comments given by others above. New information that appears not been discussed in the previous RfC is the core of the new RfC. In the light light of your advise it will exercise special caution. Thanks Mootros (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Lizzziemcdonald reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Warned )

Page: Honda Fit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lizzziemcdonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lizzziemcdonald2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Honda Fit / Honda Jazz is a popular small car, now on its third generation remodelling. The original (1st & 2nd generation) bodyshell had a barely notable convex waistline to the body. The 3rd generation changed this to a prominent concave crease. This has been mentioned uncontroversially in the article since time immemorial. Sourcing was poor to begin with, but was added, then reverted anyway. There seems little scope for a content dispute over this.

Lizzziemcdonald (talk · contribs) / Lizzziemcdonald2 (talk · contribs), a new WP:SPA with no other mainspace edits, disagrees:

This is slow, so not brightline 3RR, but as they're using it as an excuse to throw around userpage templates and cause trouble at ANI (and a threat to repeat this), it's time for ANEW.

The only real discussion has been that started by Anmccaff at User talk:Lizzziemcdonald#Honda Fit. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWN by Andy on article even though he knows next to nothing about automobiles. Twice he reverted my edit falsely claiming the Honda Fit uses swage lines even though there are no sources for this misinformation.

Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as the "only real discussion" is another editor who has never edited the Honda Fit page or shows any familiarity with Honda products or automobiles in general. Likely a friend or sock of Andy who has chosen to engage in disruptive editing using irrelevant source content. Googling 'honda fit side crease' returns no printed magazines or respected automobile sources.

One review mentioning a side crease is for the previous generation and is not a printed source rather CNET which isn't an automotive authority. Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Again googling 'Honda Fit side crease' returns The Car Connection which Andy chose to include as a viable source. The Car Connection is barely notable and largely an unencyclopedic advertising website. This is beyond edit warring rather disruptive editing as Andy merely googled what he wanted and then used a single non-reputable source to support his nonsense edit.Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Taking matter to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as this is more than edit warring. ] Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I was just about to close this as "user warned, don't report to WP:ANEW before giving a new user a warning". But then I noticed Lizzziemcdonald warned Andy about edit warring in her first revert. So that's pretty uncool; I hate people who edit war while simultaneously warning their opponents not to edit war. I'm not going to block a new editor with no warning, but I'm closing this instead with: "Lizzie, don't revert again before a consensus is reached on the article talk page or you will be blocked. And don't warn others for doing the same thing you're doing, it seriously depletes your karmic bank account". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's cool to restore unsourced misinformation twice after being informed it's unsourced misinformation? Or take ownership of articles and play supervisor on topics you know little becauses it makes you feel powerful? It's cool to google "side crease" and use a low quality source and edit war over its inclusion? My karmic bank account is far better order than most. But keep pretending to have morally superiority and existing as some truly virtuous being. I'm hardly bothered someone who eagerly assists those types "hate people" like me, though predictably won't stand up for Andy when the regular editors are involved. Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Danrolo reported by User:RJFF (Result: Indefinite)

Page: National Renewal (Chile) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danrolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Danrolo continues a long-term, slow edit war going on for years (literally!), adding the label "classical liberalism" to the article's infobox, with a feigned literature reference, while the party is nowhere described as "classically liberal" in the specified book. (The reference was introduced by me in the first place, but in a different context – Danrolo simply copied the reference tag to "back-up" a different claim for which it is obviously invalid.)

User:Danrolo has a very long and tiresome history of abusive editing, with ANI reports starting in 2012 ( ) His obsession with the National Renewal article and the unverifiable claim of (classical) liberalism has been going on since 2011, I have stopped to count the number of reverts. Danrolo's old account was blocked indefinitely, but he somehow managed to register a new one under the old name (see here). Unfortunately, I cannot see any signs of correction in his editing behaviour.

I always try to assume good faith and be patient with new users who are not aware of our rules and guidelines. But in this case I have unfortunately lost all hope: Danrolo is not a new user, he has been active since 2007. His old talk page is plastered with notices and requests to kindly comply with our principles and guidelines, escalating to warnings after I tried multiple times to patiently explain to him what is wrong with his edits and how to improve them. A user who fails to understand a basic principle like verifiability after ten years of editing, is obviously incompetent to participate in this project. --RJFF (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. No attempt to respond to other editors in any way whatsoever. Total failure to communicate. Not sure why was even allowed to sock after being indefinitely blocked. El_C 15:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Javierfrancis reported by User:Marquardtika (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Alexander Acosta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Javierfrancis (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:
This editor has repeatedly added controversial and dubious information to a WP:BLP article. This editor has refused to participate in a talk page discussion that I initiated, instead simply reverting to his preferred version. This pattern didn't seem likely to stop, so I wasn't sure what to do other than file a report here. Marquardtika (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 16:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Fabiomarques reported by User:Topcipher (Result: Declined )

Page

Superman og Fredsbomben (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772962393 by Topcipher (talk)"
2. 12:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772962234 by Topcipher (talk)"
3. 12:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772953392 by Topcipher (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Superman og Fredsbomben. (TW)"
2. 10:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Superman og Fredsbomben. (TW)"
3. 11:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Superman og Fredsbomben. (TW)"
4. 12:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Superman og Fredsbomben. (TW)"
5. 12:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Please do not remove speedy deletion tags yourself */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Declined You've made no effort to discuss the issue; while removing a {{db-copyvio}} tag might get you off the hook for violating 3RR yourself, it won't help you resolve the dispute. I've done a check on the current article against the Earwig tool and it reports 31% violations : "unlikely" with most of the hits on quotations. Ritchie333 16:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Sorry, if this was not the best of ways to having done things; was actually my first. Will ensure to take better initiatives in communicating the same or rather have the copyvio resolved myself too. Thanks and my apologies for the inconvenience.
TopCipher (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Basically admins have to look at both sides of the dispute, and if somebody is trying to discuss the problem, they're likely to find themselves being dealt with more leniently. Plus, when you file a report here, there is a note that says "you DID remember to discuss on the talk page?" as a bit of a hint :-) In this case, a talk page message along the lines of : "The article is a copyright violation, Earwig's tool reports - can you STOP reverting and come here for an explanation, please?" would have probably done it. Ritchie333 16:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:88.105.39.101 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Page protected)

Page

Minimum control speeds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

also 88.105.35.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. (Undid revision 773036986 by Quasar G. (talk) Other have made edit without any discussion on the talk page. If you wish to discuss my changes start a discussion on the talk page)
2. Undid revision 773035998 by ScrapIronIV (talk) In your opinion perhaps)
3. (Made the definition concise, removed the original research or opinion regarding how these definitions are portrayed in other publications.)

At this point IP changes yo 88.105.35.149

1. 18:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773008629 by Quasar G. (talk) Please do not blindly remove someone edits, please start a discussion on the talk page. The content removed, cited some generic volume of regulations."
2. 17:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "Concise summary, remove opinion."
3. 17:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772998174 by BilCat (talk) Please do not revert my edit with out an explanation. I made a summary of my edit. other users have come along and revert the edit without an explanation"
4. 17:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 772997319 by Arjayay (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Minimum control speeds. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Reverting edits, please start a discussion */ +r"

Comments:

User has changed IP's, and continues to revert. More diffs to follow. Added additional three reverts. IP reverting multiple editors.Scr★pIron 22:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Full-protected for 24 hours. I see a content dispute, and conversation on the talk page, but it seems to be going round in circles a bit, so if you can't wrap things up over there, maybe a trip to WP:DRN is in order. Ritchie333 22:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Fuadorko2 reported by User:Gamesmasterg9 (Result: No violation 72 hours)

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