Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:56, 28 January 2022

• 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:MrOllie reported by User:Stix1776 (Result: No violation)

Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MrOllie (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:

Obviously circumcision is a controversial topic, so I'm sorry to rope you guys in. The newish user named KlayCax made some problematic edits which I reverted. Here and here were pretty WP:RECKLESS, and this was specifically counter to the listed source.

My reverts were reverted because MrOllie says "I see no good reason to blanket revert". WP:BRD isn't required he says. I mention WP:UNRESPONSIVE, WP:CAUTIOUS, and WP:RECKLESS. Also I did ask KlayCax before to please edit more carefully ].

So I actually made a list of 10+ problems with the edits here . There's 3 obvious failures of WP:MEDRS, one obvious failure of WP:RS/AC, many cases of removing high quality sources, adding text not in the source, removing clearly sources material, and changing the text from newer sourced to older sources against WP:AGEMATTERS.

Like I showed in the diffs, I requested 4 times for a dispute resolution if they weren't using WP:BRD. MrOllie is still holding on to bad edits despite clearly being shown the issue. What do you suggest I do? I'm not a very experienced editor and I'm at a loss for what to do. Maybe you don't need to impose a block, but can you suggest another alternative that isn't reverting. Is arbitration a solution? Because these editors aren't giving any.

Am I allowed to mention that MrOllie has had other problems with edit warring ,

User Alexbrn is in the pro circumcision POV camp, although he's not part of the edit warring.

Comment - It appears there is robust discussion on the talk page, so at this point WP:BRD should be the path that is taken. Try breaking your edit into smaller pieces, and gaining consensus for individual changes or reverts, rather than as one large revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually very pro WP:BRD. The question is if the originals should be reverted, or my reverts should be reverted? I suspect that this will a point of contention with other editors. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, someone made an edit, you reverted, a second editor reverted you, and a third editor expressed support for reverting you. At this point, it appears that consensus is against you. Again, at this point I suggest you seek consensus for individual small reverts rather than a blanket revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. Stix1776 (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• There is certainly no violation by MrOllie, who made three reverts over nine days. Please compare WP:3RR. Stix1776, I hope ScottishFinnishRadish's advice above is useful to you. FYI, yes, you're allowed to mention your opponent's history if it's relevant. But going back nine years to do so is not to the purpose, and does not make a good impression. Bishonen | tålk 05:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

User:93.22.38.147 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Blocked)

Page: Al-Tirmidhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 93.22.38.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:28, 24 January 2022‎ (Added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
2. 21:25, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
3. 16:30, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
4. 19:27, 24 January 202 (Added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
5. 16:30, 24 January 2022‎ (Added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
6. 15:27, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
7. 15:25, 24 January 2022‎ (added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
8. 15:13, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
9. 15:11, 24 January 2022 (added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
10. 13:59, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
11. 13:58, 24 January 2022‎ (added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
12. 12:24, 24 January 2022] (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
13. 11:51, 24 January 2022 (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
14. 10:41, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed "Persian")

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 14:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Said IP keeps removing the long-standing and well-sourced mention of the word "Persian" backed up a renowned Cambridge University Press source (The Cambridge History of Iran). I even added a direct quote from page 471 for readability, yet the IP continues to falsely accuse the multiple editors who revert him of "it is not written he was Persian on page 471",- as well as "Persian propaganda" and "We can not check the source". While trying to remove both the source and the word, said IP persistently tries to insert the word "Arab" accompanied by a non-WP:RS source. Said IP has been reverted and warned on several occasions, unfortunately to no avail. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 72 hours by User:Blablubbs. Meanwhile, another admin has semiprotected the article for two weeks. This appears to be nationalist edit warring (Arab vs. Persian). EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Dora the Axe-plorer reported by User:2800:484:7391:3B20:C81:A136:2268:C25F (Result: No violation)

Page: Armero tragedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067776643&oldid=1067776193
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067774860&oldid=1067771187
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067728257&oldid=1067699616
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067776193&oldid=1067774860

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: I have never made a complaint here XD, the point is that this user, I don't know what her problem is, I put the respective sources to my edits, but Dora doesn't want to understand. I would prefer a thousand times that an administrator corrects me. I'm asking for help here, I don't know if this already covers the 3 edits and edit war rule but it's frustrating that I put the respective sources of my edits and someone else reverses what I work so hard to research and edit.--2800:484:7391:3B20:C81:A136:2268:C25F (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote in the final revert edit summary to have the sources properly cited (aka filled up using the correct citations template with the source title, date, author, publisher, etc). Clearly you just didn't follow this and simply added the URL to the source. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 21:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It's far better to have a source, even if it's bare url, than to have none? Bare URLs can be tagged. Or can be easily filled in with a tool like ReFill or Reflinks? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked at your other edits and you still gave the bare URLs but since they weren't reverted like I'd expected, I shall restore the article to your version with the proper citations. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 21:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Just looked at the history; there is no 3RR. The first revert is within my rights under WP:UNSOURCED. I do not bare any responsibility to find sources to verify additions that have zero verifiability, that lies on the back of IP. All three reverts are in the interest of maintaining the FA-class status of the article WP:3RRNO. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 23:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary for your first edit was "New additions are completely unreferenced." Good call. But the IP then responded by adding the requested sources, albeit non-English language and bare urls? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing and references are very good in the article. It should be kept that way throughout for an FA-class work. I removed them because they were not up to standard with the rest of the article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 23:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. I've not checked the sources for WP:V, so that's needed anyway. And I don't know if the material supported is notable or not. I guess the IP just felt slightly bitten, which is why they came here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – Nobody broke 3RR. But if reverting continues, blocks are possible. The filing IP is editing from the range Special:Contributions/2800:484:7391:3B20::/64. There is nothing from either party on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Precious delicate sweet little baby reported by User:BeŻet (Result: No violation)

Page: Socialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

etc.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Socialism#RfC on sentence discussing the definition of socialism

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

Comments:
This is not a WP:3RR violation, however user Precious delicate sweet little baby (further referred to as Precious) has been edit warring their way to force their way. I have created an RfC to try to establish a consensus, however Precious has ignored the RfC and is still pushing a variation of their version, despite their changes being reverted by several users, some of them insisting they discuss them first and seek approval (e.g. ). So far nobody has agreed with Precious regarding those changes, therefore there is clearly no consensus. Special:PageHistory/Socialism shows the edit warring across several days. I don't want to get involved in another back and forth, so I marked the contentious sentence in the article, and reporting the situation here. BeŻet (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

1) False claim that I have "ignored the RfC." I've been amply commenting in the RfC, when any argument came up. More than Bezet has. As evidence, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Socialism#RfC_on_sentence_discussing_the_definition_of_socialism

2) "So far nobody has agreed with Precious regarding those changes, therefore there is clearly no consensus." Obviously there's no consensus, by evidence of the fact that you revert my edits. But there's no policy requirement that there be consensus before making an edit. (Look up BRD). And, there's only 3 of us that have any interest in the RfC. You, and then one other person that really hasn't offered much comment.

3) "despite their changes being reverted by several users" Nope. Not that that's relevant to anything.

4) My last revert was to revert out a edit comment that I was "rude". Bezet is out line, attempting to denigrate me in the edit comments.

5) Bezet appears to be trying to use an RfC for some purpose it wasn't designed for, apparently to try to stop me from editing. The RfC process was not designed as a way to prevent another editors from editing. An RfC is supposed to be simply a way to get comments in order to try to come up with a consensus. Obviously, I've been trying to do that through my arguments in the RfC.

6) Bezet has been reverting as much as I have. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Socialism&action=history If I'm "edit warring," then he is to.

Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

By ignoring the RfC I meant that you are ignoring the attempt at reaching a consensus and forcing your version instead. BeŻet (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's false. My attempts to reach a consensus are there in writing in the RfC. And, me doing an edit is not "forcing" any changes. You're free to revert. On the other hand, you're literally trying to "force" me to refrain from editing, with this action seeking to employ some kind of police power. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how WP:BRD works. You made a bold edit, it was reverted, now you discuss. You don't continue to make the same edit while there is discussion on-going. That's not forcing you to refrain from editing, it's saying "don't make that specific edit, which does not have consensus at this time, until there is a consensus one way or another from the on-going RFC on the topic." It's a little bit different than saying you can't edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a note. The BRD article "is not one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community," it says at the top. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy... Misplaced Pages encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been discussing in the RfC. And that Edit War policy doesn't say anything about not being allowed to make edits while an RfC is going on. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If you're reverting back to the version you boldly edited, then per An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts, you're edit warring. I'm a completely uninvolved third party here, with no skin in the game, and I'm just advising you that trying to make an edit that there is currently an RFC to deal with isn't a great idea. Take that as you will. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that "My last revert was to revert out a edit comment that I was 'rude'": there was no personal attack or anything remotely similar present in the text of the edit, so there is no exemption from 3RR that may be claimed here (although, as noted, there isn't a brightline 3RR violation by Pdslb, either). —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious, you mentioned that BRD is not policy. That is true. However, CONSENSUS is. A subsection of CONSENSUS discusses what to do if a consensus related to article content can't be reached, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. " Basically a BOLD edit is assumed to have consensus until someone challenges via a revert and/or on the talk page. At that point policy says we don't have consensus thus policy dictates the change should we reverted. While BRD isn't policy, the R in the middle comes straight from the CONSENSUS policy. Your proposed change might be "right", BeŻet's support of the stable text may be "wrong" but until a new consensus is shown (and the RfC is a good tool to establish the consensus) the long standing text should be left in place. Springee (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

BRD isn't policy, but it describes a situation that is within policy and what policy says....that the third step after "BR" must be for someone who wants to pursue the initial edit, I.E. that policy generally discourages or forbids "BRR". North8000 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – Pdslb did not break 3RR, but the advice of User:ScottishFinnishRadish appears correct: "I'm just advising you that trying to make an edit that there is currently an RFC to deal with isn't a great idea". EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:75.172.13.103 reported by User:CanucksoffCoast (Result: Semi)

Page: Kumiho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.172.13.103 (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:

The following user has constantly been replacing the originally sourced statement in the article with the user's own claim without providing any valid sources. In both of the article's edit summary and user's talk page, I have asked the user multiple times to not alter the sourced content and provide the valid sources to support the information he/she is replacing, but the user has been keep replacing the original contents with neither discussion nor response.

• Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Temporary tempuras reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Albert Agarunov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Temporary tempuras (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: This user received multiple warnings on his talk page, which he deleted:

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

Comments:
New user making POV edits and edit warring. 3RR violation. Grandmaster 09:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I will use Translator. I already explained my reasons: "Biased government sources. False content of sources. Anasynchronistical content. Deleted citation needed sources." But editors Nicat49, Adakiko say I have no reason for removal. I clearly explained, but they did not answer. My hand was forced. Not POV, and if they have problems, the could say. But they did not. I sorry for editing, but my addition is valid, and experienced users bully me and accuse me of mistruths. Not problem here Translated with DeepL TranslatorTemporary tempuras (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Aramean81 reported by User:Shmayo (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Tur Abdin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aramean81 (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:

Article Tur Abdin:

Article Defence of Iwardo:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
New user. 3RR violation. Shmayo (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Basedafghan reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Alauddin Khalji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Basedafghan (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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Alauddin_Khalji&diff=1068283448&oldid=1054594722

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Basedafghan&diff=1068283594&oldid=1066730574

Comments:

Persistent and disruptive editing of page over sporadic periods of time, often erases content as a whole, basically vandalism.Noorullah21 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

He is still doing it after on the page. Noorullah21 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Basedafghan promotes the Pashtun origin of Alauddin Khalji instead of a Turkish origin. His user page (translated) says: "Khalajians and Ghorians are all Pashtuns and the founder of Ghorians was the Syrian emir of the Pashtun people". While insisting on the 'Pashtun' label for Alauddin Khalji this editor also removed a lot of references. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:KingdomScribe101 reported by User:Killarnee (Result:Blocked)

Page: Apollo Quiboloy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: KingdomScribe101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1068371134 by Killarnee (talk)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Kingdom of Jesus Christ (church)."
2. 02:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Doesn't want to discuss, just edits as they pleased. Seems like COI. I'm just on the go, but someone should take a closer look at the user please. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Killarnee Adding Potentially Libelous Content | Reported by User:KingdomScribe101 (Result: Reporter indefinitely blocked )

Adding libelous content on the following pages. Showing agenda on destroying reputation of such personalities/entities. This is strictly against Misplaced Pages guidelines which clearly state that adding information on pages that defame any person or entity is not allowed. It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Misplaced Pages is not defamatory.

Page: Apollo Quiboloy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page: Kingdom of Jesus Christ (church) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: User:Killarnee

• KingdomScribe101 indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Andrewgprout reported by User:Username006 (Result: )

Page: Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 6895 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrewgprout (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 user continuously asks me to follow WP:BRD for my "disruptive" edits lately, yet when I ask on the talk page, he doesn't reply. It seems that he himself is being disruptive by ignoring consensus per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Username006 (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring