Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:11, 2 February 2018

• 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:Sorabino reported by User:Resnjari (Result: Page protected)

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: Zachlumia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sorabino (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 talkpage:

Comments:
Although other editors discussed the issue on the relevant talkpage, Sorabino insists on their own. Today blindly reverted on that article again and on two other ones and , refusing to respond on the talkpage. Sorabino was firstly warned for disruptive editing . They continued reverting, and after a second warning was placed on their talk, they asked for help from other Serbian editors instead of responding on the talkpage. They said "take a look at recent disruptive edits and reverts by some Croatian and Albanian editors on several pages Zachlumia and also Persecution of Christians, and Anti-Orthodoxy. These things are obviously coordinated and highly problematic". Sorabino seems to aim to continue edit-warring and transform the issues in a Serbia vs Croatia & Kosovo kind of clash.Resnjari (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would strongly urge administrators to take a notice of this case, and also to look at some recent disruptive edits and reverts on pages Persecution of Christians and Anti-Orthodoxy. Coordinated actions of editors @Resnjari: and @Ktrimi991: are highly problematic, including the recent reverts on the page Zachlumia. In all three cases, they were targeting content relating to history of Christian Serbs. And now, I am reported? :) Actually, this is a very good opportunity to point out those problems. I have already made some notes about this on talk pages of three projects (Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy, Serbia). Sorabino (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Those pages are on my watchlist. You were asked to comment and discuss issues on the talkpage after other editors , had disagreed with your edits, via wp:BRD. You did not and continued your course of action on a whole host of pages (as your recent editing history shows ), and were even warned by an administrator about edit warring on Zachlumia. Concerning Zachlumia, you have broken 3rr.Resnjari (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, you fully protected the article. Any thoughts as to this report? --NeilN 16:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorabino replied to Vanjegenije Did you take a look at those edits and reverts? I see that you locked the page Zachlumia on version produced by Croatian and Albanian editors, and that does not surprises me, since that is your way of promoting yourself as an "objective" administrator. Instead of replying to editors who have already discussed the issue on the talk page of that article, Sorabino is making personal attacks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to react on this! Users @Resnjari: and @Ktrimi991: did not contribute to the content of the page Zachlumia, nor to the discussion on the talk page! Those are pure facts. They just automatically sided with some Croatia editors in reverting referenced text. I was defending totally balanced and referenced version of the article, with both Serbian and Croatian designations, and now - article is locked on extreme version that eliminates Serbian designations! Any objective administrator, after taking a good look into contested text, can clearly see the difference. Sorabino (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, NeilN, the report lodged here is about 3rr violation on Zachlumia (a page on my watchlist), of which @Sorabino: was reverted by both @Ceha: , and @Ktrimi: , via wp:BRD and asking Sorabino to participate in a talkpage discussion which he did not and continued reverting others without discussion (see: talkpage history: ). I am curious now, does Sorabino think that both those editors tagteamed?Resnjari (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

One IP editor changed some text. That change of text was objected by other editors who discussed on the talk page. They concluded to keep the article neutral (they concluded that the Medieval entity was not purely Croatian or Serbian). Sorabino has not participated in the discussion, they have decided to solve everything with war. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not true! The current problem occurred with edits of users "Silverije" and subsequent actions of user "Ceka" and non of them initiated any discussion on the talk page. I was not the only editor who defended the balanced version of the article, others have also reverted disruptive edits. That can be seen in the history section. Users who originally made disruptive edits did not initiate any discussion on the talk page, and did not make any response to my questions. Sorabino (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary. The current problem occurred with edits of user Sorabino, starting on 15 June 2017, continuing on 7-8 September 2017 and 20 January 2018 etc. --Silverije (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not true! Current problems occurred on 25 January with this edits of user @Silverije:, and same problems were made even worse by his edits on 26 January. By his actions, referenced text was disrupted, some references to scholarly works were erased and also some links were broken, while some quotations were altered, and above all false titles were invented - everyone can see drastic examples in section: External links! Titles of some well known scholarly works, already listed in section Bibliography, were renamed in section "External links" and replaced with invented comments! Such disruptive editing is clear embarrassment for Misplaced Pages, and problems are becoming quite obvious when versions are compared! Sorabino (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It was only a consequence. --Silverije (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Editors need to use article talk pages more and revert less. NeilN 17:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: (responding to your ping above) There were edit-warring on both sides here, across several articles. There is no innocent side here. Even this report is obviously bad faith, as the 3RR warning linked in the report was issued after Sorabino made those edits. So, I think it wouldn't be productive to block one side only. I think the protection is enough for now, but they should know that if they continue edit-warring, they can be all blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije:, can you elaborate on what you mean by "all"? You only gave two people edit warring warnings (Sorabino and Ktrimi) and not others.Resnjari (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, @Vanjagenije: should elaborate on their own words. I placed comments on those articles and Sorabino did not respond, just reverted again, again and again. Hence, I did not war. You Vanjagenije placed a warning on my talk, and although I did not revert thereafter, you placed a second one there. Later you indicated that stuff added by the blocked IP should stay without arguments from their side. Was all of this a derivate of some kind of emotional feelings? The topic of dispute on those articles touches some editors from Croatia, Kosovo, Albania and Serbia, should people worry about your ability to stay calm and neutral in such cases? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not true! It is totally obvious that user @Ktrimi991: did not make any contribution to the article in question (Zachlumia), and he did not make any contribution to the talk page! That is a simple fact. Also, time data shows that his reverts were closely connected with his failed attempts to delete entire sections in articles Persecution of Christians and Persecution of Christians in the modern era, and also Anti-Orthodoxy. I urge administrators once again to take notice of the nature of all those actions of user @Ktrimi991:. It is obvious that he tried to remove sections relating to crimes of Muslim Albanians against Christian Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija. Sorabino (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

On Zachlumia, the dispute was discussed by some editors who agreed to keep the pre-dispute version, I and other editors told you to read what is written there and make your objections to the pre-dispute version. On the other pages, you are wrong with your expression "failed attempts" because nobody has agreed to have that stuff there. All of dispute on those three pages started after you added some stuff, and your additions were objected by me and other editors on the relevant talk pages. The onus is on you to present arguments why the stuff should be placed there. You should reply on the talk pages of those three articles, otherwise the stuff will be deleted again, not by me but by other editors who have those articles on their watchlist. By the way, stop transforming small disputes into Muslim vs Orthodox or Serbia vs Kosovo & Croatia clashes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: Thank you so very much, for proving my point, with your latest comments. Not a single word is true! It is quite clear now what was the nature of your reverts on all those pages. And I am actually quite proud now to be reported here by someone like you :) Sorabino (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not report you, read the head of this report. ;) Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, as your proxy :) that much is obvious. Sorabino (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sorabino:, can you elaborate as to what you mean by "proxy" and who it is directed to?Resnjari (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User:3PJ3W & User:37.169.107.92 Reported by User:DJ-Joker16 (Result: 3PJ3W blocked)

Users: 3PJ3W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 37.169.107.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Catacombs of Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

diffs of 3PJ3W's reverts:

diffs of 37.169.107.92's reverts:

Messages left on talk pages:

Notices left on talk pages:

Explanation: The movie As Above, So Below was FILMED within the catacombs. They claim it is a commercial advertisement and that it was not filmed there which isn't true. Read about the production of the movie on the film's article and the source it comes from. Both say it was filmed in the catacombs of Paris, therefore making it an event there. Even after leaving messages on their talk pages, with one editor backing me up, they continue to revert my edits. Update: Even after I posted the warning, message, and this, they revert again.

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing. @DJ-Joker16: If the IPs pop up to continue the disruption I will semi-protect the article. NeilN 22:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • User:NeilN Thank you. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:41DF:F746:219C:4A20:A293:3F90 reported by User:Bellezzasolo (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Edward Snowden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2607:FEA8:41DF:F746:219C:4A20:A293:3F90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 00:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 00:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 00:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 00:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 00:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Edward Snowden. (TW)"
2. 00:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours From WP:AIV NeilN 00:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

User:NHLCowgirl reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Milan Lucic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 22:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "using the CORRECT spelling of Lučić name"
2. 22:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "using the CORRECT spelling of Lučić name"
3. 22:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823549517 by Power~enwiki (talk)"
4. 22:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 20:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Milan Lucic. (TW)"
2. 22:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Milan Lucic. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Note that this editor is also edit warring over List of ice hockey nicknames (with the same rationale). General Ization 23:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Jorm reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Note. Was blocked then unblocked)

Page

Patriot Prayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC) "If we don't want the infobox, we'll leave it out, but we stay with the consensus version."
2. 02:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC) "We're going to roll back to here first to get to the version that has consensus; I'll add the infobox back in my next edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Article is under a 1RR restriction which Jorm is well aware of he was previously warned over breaking it Darkness Shines (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Bless your heart! The end result of my edits was a single revert. You're the one who reverted me. I was removing the changes to the lede; it was not possible to do without killing the infobox that was added afterwards; I rolled back to the last "good" version, and then readded the infobox. And then you rolled back to the bad version. Whatta class act.--Jorm (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The end result was two reverts by you, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The question then, chum, is why didn't you just revert the infobox addition I made, which was a single edit, instead of rolling back two edits to undo the reversion? I have my theories on that.--Jorm (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I really don't care about your theories, you can self revert and follow policy Darkness Shines (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Chronological order of reverts:
  1. 21:09, 1 February 2018 by Jorm to revision 821553651 made on 00:33, 21 January 2018
  2. 21:11, 1 February 2018 by Darkness Shines to revision 823559940 made on 19:17, 1 February 2018
  3. 21:16, 1 February 2018 by Jorm to revision 823574557 made on 21:10, 1 February 2018

  Clearly 1RR has been broken.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • But this isn't what 1rr means. Jorm de facto reverted once --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Note Was blocked then unblocked NeilN 13:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Pk100000000000 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Tarek Fatah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pk100000000000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823554925 by Adamgerber80 (talk)"
2. 23:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823553461 by Adamgerber80 (talk)"
3. 23:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823552422 by Adamgerber80 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Likely a sock of Nangparbat going by the edit summaries Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours The SPI may obviously turn this into an indef. NeilN 13:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:DuncanHill reported by User:Andrew Davidson (Result: Article protected)

Page: Dorothy Tarrant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DuncanHill (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:
The user broke 3RR, was asked to self-revert and stated plainly that they would not do so. They have reverted a warning placed on their user page and so this seems to be the necessary next step, alas. Andrew D. (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply by subject I have not received notification of this report, despite the large, bright red, warning at the top. There is no prohibition on reverting warnings on talk pages. I have not reverted anything on the Dorothy Tarrant page since the warning from Andrew. This is essentially a content dispute - a couple of editors are tag-teaming the Dorothy Tarrant page to insert a wording which is not supported by the sources, despite request for them to respect the BRD cycle. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Notifications were posted here and here. Andrew D. (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The notice on my talk page was ten minutes after you posted here, and two minutes after I pointed out that you hadn't informed me. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• A better diff of an attempt to resolve the dispute would be here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Protected until such time as consensus is reached on the talk page. Start an RFC for goodness sake folks. I could have handed out blocks all around; this has been going on almost a month. Instead of that, lets talk about it, get outside input, and achieve a consensus. When we have a clear result of that discussion, I will unprotect it. --Jayron32 16:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Indigowestern reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: )

Page: "Polish death camp" controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Indigowestern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. massive revert with insulting edit summary

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In addition, the user behaves extremely aggressively, accusing people of vandalism and anti-Polonism, instead of discussing content disagreement in article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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