Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:35, 21 September 2010

• 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:Enok and User:Mercenary2k reported by User:Macwhiz (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours, update: page protected)

Page: List of countries by number of troops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Enok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mercenary2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Several-day history of edit-warring on the page, but WP:3RR violated thus:

Enok

1. 03:50, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384897106 by Brainlara73 (talk) globalfire.com is an amateur website")
2. 16:36, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 384971867 by 88.244.86.99 (talk) Reverting vandalism")
3. 19:17, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385028317 by 119.154.58.177 (talk) Reverting vandalism")
4. 01:11, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "see discussion")
5. 01:23, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385087724 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
6. 01:34, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385089007 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
7. 01:55, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385090700 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
8. 02:00, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385093145 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
9. 02:10, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385093920 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")
10. 02:19, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385095216 by Mercenary2k (talk) discussion ongoing")

Mercenary2k

1. 23:03, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
2. 23:08, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
3. 23:10, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "added pakistani reserve forces.....stop making it Zero...just because it does not exist in that article doesnt make it zero")
4. 23:19, 15 September 2010 (edit summary: "")
5. 01:21, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "removed vandalism...added pakistani reserve forces...")
6. 01:30, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "adding reserves back")
7. 01:43, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "reverse nonsense...already provided two citations about pakistani reserve forces...541,000 didnt vanish overnight")
8. 02:00, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "Discussion Done. 3 reputable citations state pakistani reserve forces....numbers stay")
9. 02:05, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "revert nonsense")
10. 02:13, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "added pakistani reserve forces")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: but see entire talk discussion at talk:List of countries by number of troops#Pakistani Armed Forces

Comments:
Editor Enok seems to be engaging in a long-term pattern of tendentious editing on this page. There are a lot of reverts from this user. He does not appear to be receptive to consensus-building. A third opinion was sought, but the 3O folks don't seem to want to touch this one with a ten-foot pole, and I can't blame them. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours I will continue to watch the page to limit further disruption.--Kubigula (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected — they resumed edit warring after the blocks expired. --slakr 05:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TruckCard reported by User:Rjanag (Result: 24h)

Page: Resident Identity Card (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TruckCard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:

TC has also edit-warred over other edits and across other pages. On this same page:

• previous version reverted to:
• revert 1: (totally unexplained)
• revert 2: (totally unexplained)

On another page:

• prev version:
• revert 1: (reverting this) (unexplained, no edit summary)
• revert 2: (unexplained, no edit summary)

On another page:

• prev version
• revert 1: (unexplained)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (regarding the move edit warring); (regarding others)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Same as talk page link; see also Talk:National identity cards in China regarding that page

Comments: It should be clear that TruckCard is engaging in edit-warring behavior across multiple articles, mainly by making entirely unexplained reverts (either with no edit summary or with machine summaries) in places where he already knows the edit is controversial. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:74.226.117.61 reported by User:Stonemason89 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: The Political Cesspool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.226.117.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: ; note, this edit is from a different IP, which geolocates to the same city (Dyersburg, Tennessee), and so is quite obviously the same person. 3RR restrictions apply to editors, not IP addresses.
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Since both this IP and this one appear to be the same person, they should both receive a block. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Since the edit warring is coming from IPs, I'm semi-protecting. Trying a bit longer since it's coming off several shorter terms of semi-protection for vandalism. We are definitely dealing with a dynamic IP in this case and they could very well come back with something different in the morning. Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:122.107.154.80 reported by User:Richwales (Result: 48h)

Page: Pantyhose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.107.154.80 (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: N/A

Comments:
This IP user is repeatedly inserting a piece of inappropriate editorializing into the Pantyhose article. He has ignored requests to stop on the IP address's talk page. Richwales (talk · contribs) 08:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How about, "Re-inserting complete and utter 'bullplop', unreferenced original research"? Page protection for a minute? Or block the IP SPA for a minute longer instead? This is why I'm just a "commentator"... Doc9871 (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:68.237.216.187 reported by User:Diannaa (Result: 24h)

Page: First Council of Nicaea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.237.216.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• IP is edit warring to include WP:Weasel words in the article and posting rants on my talk page and that of another user.

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

Rants: Histories: , You can see he posts a modification to his talk page post every few seconds. Diffs: ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

--Diannaa 22:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Courcelles 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a similar experience in April with 68.237.233.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is probably the same person. --Diannaa 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Lsorin reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 24h)

Page: Jet engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lsorin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: – 22:03, September 19, 2010
• 2nd revert: – 22:09, September 19, 2010
• 3rd revert: – 22:16, September 19, 2010
• 4th revert: – 06:59, September 20, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:27, September 19, 2010

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jet_engine#Coanda

Comments:

Editor Lsorin does not appear to accept that there are serious doubts raised by expert sources which deny Henri Coandă's claim to being the first jet engine inventor in 1910. Lsorin has been putting Coandă's claim back into a number of related articles, placing them as established facts, even though there is RfC discussion being carried out at Talk:Coandă-1910 regarding how the article should present the conflicting expert sources. Editor Lsorin appears to wish for a version of events that is free from conflicting expert sources, one that contains only the version told by Coandă himself in the 1950s and '60s, but what we have been discussing at the RfC is that both versions must be told, and how to do so. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Svrznik reported by User:Laveol (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Clement of Ohrid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Svrznik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 13:30, 20 September
• 2nd revert: 13:59, 20 September
• 3rd revert: 16:57, 20 September
• 4th revert: 19:15, 20 September

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Note a couple of things when reviewing this. The user admitted that the IP from which the last revert was performed was actually him (more info here). The warning (I couldn't post a diff as it was the first edit on that talkpage) was posted on the 16 September. You'll see the user performing multiple reverts each day between the 15 and 19 of September. Plus he spend a whole day playing with a a featured article, including performing some awkward moves. I get the feeling this is actually a single-purpose account. Besides mind that the account was created just a few days after a similarly disruptive user was blocked. His whole IP range (cause he edited from a floating IP) was blocked as well. Now this editor appeared and Geolocate tracks his IP to the same village of Arachinovo. I suspected he might be the same person or at least a meat-puppet as he edit-wars in the same scope and performs similar moves and reverts. --Laveol 19:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:117Avenue reported by User:Bdell555 (Result: Protected)

Page: Edmonton municipal election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117Avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 22:31, 20 September 2010
• 2nd revert: 23:08, 20 September 2010
• 3rd revert: 23:31, 20 September 2010
• 4th revert: 00:31, 21 September 2010

Comments:
Four reverts in two hours in effort to delete all information about candidates in an election, albeit selectively in the sense that the wikilinking to the Misplaced Pages articles for some candidates was preserved. Mass deletion additionally "hid" by misleading edit summaries (eg "more sites"), in my view. Although there has been some discussion here, user declined invitation to take up matter on Talk page. Editor has been around long enough (has autopatrolled rights), a 3RR warning would presumably just insult someone who is presumably familiar with policy.Bdell555 (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Gentlemen, dispute resolution is down the hall to the left. If you continue this once the page is unlocked, I'll block both of you for edit warring. Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• It was not my intention to hide it in the edit summaries, had Bdell555 not been there, it would have made sense. I was simply attempting to prevent promotion, and maintain the links to the campaign sites, but if it is common practice to describe the candidates, then I'll have to comply. 117Avenue (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it common practice to write a person's opinion on a talk page? 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Not one of that nature - absolutely not. It has nothing to do with the article content, which is what that talk page is for... Doc9871 (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I cited several Misplaced Pages policies supporting inclusion of the content, some of which I identified. The deletion was too broad to identify every sentence that 117Avenue deleted. 117Avenue and, frankly, the entire community of editors is invited to provide counter-arguments (that support deletion). The deference issue appears relevant, since even in this case there is a clear 3RR violation and the decision has been made to protect the page for days under 117Avenue's preferred rendering. I have a hard time understanding why an editor who declines to take the edit warring to a Talk page is being encouraged to not do so, and not instead being referred to, say, Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. If we could have a little more discussion where policy calls for discussion (on the article's Talk page), and a little less opinion, I think that would help resolve the problem.Bdell555 (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing another editor's behavior. Content disputes are meant to be civilly discussed on talk page articles, and it is not proper to post what you did concerning 117Avenue's conduct. Focus on the content, and not the editor, on article talk pages... Doc9871 (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
        • At issue is the editor's arguments, or more precisely the absence thereof, for deleting the article content at issue. I would go on about confusing editors with their arguments but note the instructions above: "Do not continue a dispute on this page."Bdell555 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Correct. Continue the content dispute on the article's talk page. The content dispute, not the editor dispute. Stick to the content only. For reporting issues concerning an editor's behavior, AN/I is where you're supposed to go as a last resort, if you two simply cannot collaborate effectively. You need to learn to edit harmoniously, as it's a community project... Doc9871 (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Agreed, especially about the "last resort" part. I've been a Misplaced Pages editor for more than 5 years editing controversial articles and this is the first time I felt the matter had risen to the level of requiring admin notification.Bdell555 (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Teacherbrock reported by Avi (talk) (Result: )

Page: Messianic Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 04:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Version (1st Set) being reverted to: 09:10, September 20, 2010 Version (2nd Set) being reverted to: 00:57, 21 September 2010

1. 14:34, 20 September 2010 (Set 1)
2. 14:50, 20 September 2010 (Set 1)
3. 21:38, 20 September 2010 (Set 1)
4. 01:03, 21 September 2010 (Set 2)
5. 01:31, 21 September 2010 (Set 2)

• Diff of warning: here

While there were three reverts of one version and two of another, there have been more than 4 reverts in the period. Moreover, User:Teacherbrock has had his edits reverted as against policy (OR, for example) and practice by multiple editors and has persisted in trying to push a particular POV on the article even after explanations on the articles talk page and his user page. -- Avi (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours My first report dealt with at AN3, feel free to change without asking if you feel this isn't correct. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 04:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:McAusten reported by User:Aspirex (Result: )

Page: AFL finals system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: McAusten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

Link to warning (sent immediately prior to this report):

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have also twice attempted to open dialogue directly through the user's talk page, but on both occasions my message has been deleted without discussion.

• Diff of first attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:
• Diff of revert of this attempt:
• Diff of second attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:
• Diff of revert of this attempt:

Comments:
McAusten's talk page shows a history of ignoring requests and warnings from other editors, including a refusal to use edit summaries. Aspirex (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring