Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:11, 7 April 2020

• 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:Doremon9087 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )

Page

Yogeshwar Dutt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Doremon9087 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 948880246 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
2. 15:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 948879231 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
3. 15:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 947762837 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Yogeshwar Dutt. (TW)"
2. 15:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Yogeshwar Dutt. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps on adding caste of the subject when there is an established consensus that caste of a WP:BLP requires self-identification . I've explained to them multiple times in the edit summaries and their talk page. This particular user is known for their Brahmin caste POV push and have been reverted and warned by many users besides me.

Pinging Utcursch since one of the discussion happened in his t/p here. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging other users familiar with this topic @Sitush, Paisarepa, RegentsPark, NitinMlk, Alivardi, Kuru, Ifnord, Arjayay, and Fowler&fowler:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Fylindfotberserk, they are a suspected sock of the disruptive, blocked editor Pandit9087108. So I've filed a relevant SPI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pandit9087108. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• A simple glance at the user's talk page is more than enough for me to attached a WP:NOTHERE to them. Ifnord (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm seeing a persistent problem with not including verifiable sources, with an instance as recently as this morning. This is despite previously receiving a final warning for this behaviour (as well as several more warnings since).
  Alivardi (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Đông Minh reported by User:Mztourist (Result: )

Page: Second Battle of Quảng Trị (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Đông Minh (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: warning was deleted by Đông Minh (Oh ! Phải, bạn là thành viên wikipedia, tôi cũng vậy, bạn lấy tư cách gì mà đặt bảng báo bất lịch sự đó Đông Minh (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and revision summaries. Đông Minh left this message in Vietnamese on my Talk Page:

Comments:
Tôi vi phạm 3 lần nhưng bạn cũng vi phạm 3 lần, bạn vi phạm trước. Và bạn lấy quyền gì mà cảnh báo tôi. Chúng ta sẽ tập trung vào nội dung tranh chấp chứ. Đông Minh (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mztourist#C%E1%BB%ADa_Vi%E1%BB%87t

User:188.77.231.243 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Semi, Block)

Page

Rapunzel (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

See page history, it is obvious.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rapunzel (disambiguation). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation, slow moving edit war that resumed immediately after 3 month protect on this page expired. Same user as before as is obvious, different IP. Last was blocked for edit warring. See previous report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive400#User:188.77.231.152 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked 1 week). User still ignores messages and refuses to communicate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:MelanieN has put indefinite semiprotection on Rapunzel (disambiguation). I am blocking the IP for two months at Special:Contributions/188.77.231.243. (For the future we should keep an eye on the /24 range at Special:Contributions/188.77.231.0/24, where the same person may have been active since 2018). Let me know if you see related pages that would benefit from semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that the range used is mostly Special:Contributions/188.77.230.0/23. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:AmirsamanZare reported by User:LissanX (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ali al-Ridha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Hasan al-Askari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AmirsamanZare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: ,

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User arbitrarily wipes sourced content. According to his inflammatory attacks on my talk page, it's apparently just because it makes scholars he admires look bad. I asked him to prove his claims that the content on the two pages were malicious lies, as he inferred, which he ignored and persisted in wiping the content. — LissanX (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I wiped the sources because they simply aren't true, also I mentioned that a website linked as a source isn't available anymore! I created a separate section with the sunni opinion of the Mahdi but you keep removing it and refusing to be neutral and instead of spreading religious and sectarian hatred by claiming sunni scholars hated the family of the prophet or that they accepted someone to be the mahdi. I ask you again, please stop adding shia propaganda to articles that are supposed to be neutral AmirsamanZare (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are serious about WP:Neutrality, or about Sunni opinions on the Twelve Imams, then why did you claim that no Sunni scholars accept the son of Hasan al-Askari as the Mahdi, when you were told that in fact there were? Madelung, Wilferd gave a list of Sunni scholars who did accept that the Mahdi was Hasan's son, in "Al-Mahdī" (Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. 5, 1986, pages 1231–1238, ISBN 90-04-07819-3), so your edits are not neutral, but WP:Biased. Leo1pard (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Can User:AmirsamanZare explain why they shouldn't be blocked for personal attacks, for this comment? ("Stop attributing lies to Sunni scholars..") You gave LissanX an ironic award, naming him "The Shia propagandist of the year, Misplaced Pages edition". It doesn't appear that AmirsamanZare is capable of editing neutrally on these topics. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for calling him a shia propagandist but I have given suffecent proof on the talk page of Ali al-Ridha to prove that those are lies against al-Dhahabi! Aslo I added a seperate section in the article which expalins the belif of the sunnis when it came to Hassan al askari being the mahdi, the article claimed that scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ad-Dhahabi saw him as the mahdi is completly false and twelver propaganda, becouse if they had accepted him as the imam they would have left the fold of sunnism. AmirsamanZare (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I meant the son of Hasan al-Askari, not Hasan himself. A number of Sunnis accepted that the Mahdi is Hasan's son Muhammad. Leo1pard (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s pretty clear, to me anyway, that AmirsamanZare has severe anti-Shia animosity which fuels his bad faith edits and personal attacks. He keeps making outlandish, libelous claims like "stop adding shia propaganda", "The Shia propagandist of the year, Misplaced Pages edition", etc. The irony is that I’m not even a Shia Muslim, I identify as non-denominational. He even admits here that his changes are solely his own personal POV, saying "the article claimed that scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ad-Dhahabi saw him as the mahdi is completly false and twelver propaganda, becouse if they had accepted him as the imam they would have left the fold of sunnism." For what it's worth, this claim doesn’t even make sense theologically as Sunni scholars could simply accept the son of Hasan al-Askari as the Mahdi while still rejecting the other Imams and not contradict their Sunni views. — LissanX (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for personal attacks. User:AmirsamanZara did not withdraw his charge that his opponent was engaged in 'lies'. He also 'wiped the sources because they simply aren't true'. This user should become familiar with the usage of WP:Reliable sources. If you think bad sources are in the article, identify them and explain the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:EamonM25 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned)

Page

Brisbane Transport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

EamonM25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC) "This is the final time I will edit this and this is now on the version it was on prior to the editing spree which nobody had come up to me to talk about. Cya Davey2010"
2. 12:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC) "updated name sourcing, changed it back to yours just so you could see this edit before I put it up full time. Overall delivery, livery status and depots have been removed and only the name, image and fleet number remain as some buses had the same livery."
3. 13:51, 5 April 2020 "updated name sourcing, changed it back to yours just so you could see this edit before I put it up full time. Overall delivery, livery status and depots have been removed and only the name, image and fleet number remain as some buses had the same livery."
4. 13:24, 5 April 2020 "Sourcing for the Special Livery Section"
5. 10:23, 4 April 2020 "In this, I have changed all issues that you have described to me for this to count. I have kept the fleet list as I believe it adds crucial detail that makes this page one of the most interesting bus pages in Misplaced Pages. All copyright changes have been made via wikimedia commons and shall be visible by clicking on each individual image."
6. 15:25, 3 April 2020 "" (no edit summary)
7. 14:50, 3 April 2020 "" (no edit summary)
8. 12:05, 3 April 2020 "" (no edit summary)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on EamonM25. (TW)"
2. 13:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC) "3rr notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Discussion on my talkpage

Comments:

User is currently edit warring at Brisbane Transport, I've repeatedly told them to source their content via edit summaries as well as on my talkpage, and even went as far as pasting the entire article to their subpage (User:EamonM25/Brisbane Transport) however none of this has had any effect, Thanks –Davey2010 10:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to ban as I already said I have given up editing pages. I understand he has a task to do and I respect that, all, in the end, I was trying to make the page a lot better. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EamonM25 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Giving up editing the page doesn't make it okay nor will it make it go away, I feel I did everything in my power not to have you blocked yet you continued to revert, I even gave you 2-3 tutorials on how to source articles too....., I told you yesterday if you revert I'd take you here ... and here we are. –Davey2010 11:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Overall really don't care so yeah. There are many bad words I could say but I don't wanna use em so cya. Ill be back and you will never know

EamonM25 (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Sticks and stones ....., Threatening to sock doesn't help your case here and before you dig yourself a hole unless you have a valid reason to have another account then you're not allowed to have 2 accounts...,

Given this isn't going anywhere I'll stop replying now. –Davey2010 11:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Bye Felicia — Preceding unsigned comment added by EamonM25 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:EamonM25 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they edit Brisbane Transport unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Tullyo reported by User:Nihlus (Result: )

Page

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress */The queens got positive and negative critiques and as always they were called safe in that order (from best to worst leaving the top 2 last for the lipsync of course), this is also how the first time the board was updated and its also like this on the official wikia. By that being said stop changing it and get over it."
2. 15:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress */"
3. 10:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress */"
4. 00:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 20:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC) to 20:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
   1. 20:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress */"
   2. 20:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Discussion can be found here

Comments:

User is well aware that they are edit warring as they have essentially had a pattern of it before. Please check the removed messages on their talk page for more information. Nihlus 20:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Cdneh95 reported by User:Deancarmeli (Result: )

Page: List of UFC records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cdneh95 (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 report comes four months after the firts attempt to reach Cdneh95 was made over the page's talk page. Even after being noticed on his own talk page (links above) as well as on the page's talk page the user kept reverting the page, against the agreed upon form for it, reached over the talk page. I'll ask for Cdneh95 to be barred from editing the page anymore. Deancarmeli (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Qiushufang reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: )

Page: Template:Matchlock
User being reported: Template:Qiushufang

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The user is editing warring over the same thing over a range of articles, including Matchlock, Arquebus, History of the firearm, Handgun, History of gunpowder and others. The subject of the dispute is a claim that rests on a source that I removed because it was quoted falsely. I gave in the edit summary the correct wording of the source plus page title (here, for example). Could someone please tell the user that he has to provide the full source on talk page if he wants to keep it? IMO the burden of proof is now on him. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile he has done so. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

XXeducationexpertXX reported by User:2600:1015:B05D:E89E:558:7D67:48F3:68B0 (Result: no action )

Page: Big Tech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: XXeducationexpertXX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• No violation Also malformed report.  EvergreenFir (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:ArchimedesTheInventor (Result: )

Page: Crank (mechanism) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The user is ignoring sourcing or preventing the updating of articles by using old sources while not understanding what those same old sources are saying. This includes dismissing a source for being "out of its depth" on the basis that it's not written by an archaeologist . And when mentioned that the source is in fact written by an archaeologist named Burnham (and specialized in the subject, I might add), he ignores the response and still deleted relevant quotes from Burnham from the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Trip_hammer&diff=949560207&oldid=949500696). User also tries to paint his own sources as "more recent scholarship" here even though they were published in 1997 and 2002 whereas the sources provided to him which says contrary was published as recently as 2017. Look at Cam (mechanism), Crankshaft, Trip Hammer. For example, the user keeps deleting Chinese applications for the usage of the crank-and-connecting rod in the pages Cam (mechanism) and Crankshaft, and justifies this by repeatedly quoting Lynn White about how he knew examples about the Chinese 'crank', which is not the same as the crank-and-connecting rod. This author had only 1 example for the Chinese application of the crank and connecting rod in which I quoted to him in the talk page. I showed him a more recent source which provided 21 examples spread over 5 different applications for the Chinese crank-and-connecting-rod, making Lynn Whites statement debunked. Despite this, I offered to keep White's quote in the article as long as I get to add in examples for Chinese usage of the crank-and-connecting rod as the article makes it sound like they made no applications for it (even Lynn White would disagree with that). Instead Gun Powder Ma added in my examples as Chinese usage for the 'crank', which is not the same as crank-and-connecting-rods, and used those examples to quote Lynn White again about how the Chinese didn't covert reciprocal motion to rotary motion (in other words, what a crank and connecting rod does, for a crank by itself only converts rotary motion to rotary motion) here, ignoring that those very examples he put in are examples about Chinese applications for the crank-and-connecting rod, not just the crank as he painted. They would contradict Lynn White's quote if he put them in correctly. Although told that the 'crank' is not the same as the 'crank and connecting rod' repeatedly here, I don't think Gun Powder Ma understands here. I would like to see that more updated sourcing be provided for these articles, in areas that updates the old sourcing. Lastly, I am a newcomer to[REDACTED] and am only recently aware of the 3RR rule. Please note that every mistake I made regarding the 3RR rule has to do with me being unfamiliar with wiki editing (such as editing a page over and over again to make sure that the source is correctly referenced as I did not know how to reference them correctly previously, though I thought I did), and have nothing to do with edit warring (repeatedly changing other people's edits over the 3 times per day limit). ArchimedesTheInventor 2:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring