Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SNUGGUMS (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 30 September 2015 (OneClickArchiver archived User:Debresser reported by User:Huldra (Result: blocked 24 hours) to [[Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive295#User:Debresser reported by User:Huldra (Result: bl...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:Simpleabd reported by User:AsceticRose (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Muhammad in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "ok. we add good source already."
2. 12:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "we add good source."
3. 09:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "i already messaged you. you are making mistake already."
4. 09:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "the source and information is clean. kindly do not make it complicated."
5. 08:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "kindly check the source Quran 3:19. it states Islam is the only religion in the sight of ALLAH. Quran 2:285, ALLAH is make no distinction to any of His messengers."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user as notified by User:Materialscientist about his unconstructive edit and was asked by User:AstroLynx to discuss his controversial changes on talk first . Instead, he keeps edit warring. -AsceticRosé 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the history of article, he is continuously changing the sourced information. -AsceticRosé 05:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Edit warring on multiple article with multiple editors. NeilN 12:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Tounsimentounes reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: Semi, Warnings)

Page: Demographics of Tunisia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tounsimentounes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. (This last one is rather dubious for reasons discussed below)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and on the user's talk page under

Comments:

I am not sure this is a 3RR violation, because the 41.x IP seems likely to be the same person who recently necessitated page semi-protection on Moroccan genetics - the edit summaries and nature of the edits are suggestive to me that that is the case. If so, perhaps the 4th revert is justified as reverting a persistently disruptive editor - indeed, one I also reverted.

If it _is_ a 3RR violation, of course, that also means I'm up to 3 reverts from 15:07 GMT on the 28th September onwards, so if that necessitates action, so be it.

Like last time I was here, for all I know Tounsimentounes is _right_, but I'm not getting anywhere on having them produce sources to demonstrate it. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. User:Tounsimentounes and User:Pinkbeast are both at three reverts and are warned not to continue. Tounsimentounes stated on Talk: "We had already approved of that on the "Religion en Tunisie" French page, so we started cleaning the errors on the other language's pages" This doesn't excuse you from persuading editors here that your changes are an improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:AdrianGamer reported by User:131.123.122.231 (Result: Page protected)

Page: EA Sports UFC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AdrianGamer (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:

• I have tried to communicate with all the involved editors twice and I heard no response from them. Adding WP:GAMECRUFT is definitely not acceptable. What I did is to simply revert them, as adding GAMECRUFT can be considered as vandalism. I did not break the 3RR Rule. I revert you within a 48-hour period. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT it is not a valid reason to remove content. Removing valid content is vandalism. --131.123.122.231 (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that you were reverted by at least three editors for adding content that adds nothing to the article and which can be considered WP:GAMECRUFT so you are the one going against policy. And anyone who looks at the article history can see that you are the one edit warring.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not valid content. It's inappropriate per guidelines that are already established. If you want to re-add it then you need to open a discussion about why this case is exempt from the guidelines. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected There's a few IP's that sound the same at the article... NeilN 21:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hawljo reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: The Naked Communist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hawljo (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: Also this warning, for a separate article:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - not article Talk page, but mine, where I recommended taking this persistent edit to the article Talk page

Comments:
Newly created account, edit warring on at least two articles, no engagement on any Talk page, persisting beyond warnings. JohnInDC (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Also at or beyond 3RR at Sexual orientation and Miscarriage. JohnInDC (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note. I've indefinitely blocked the user as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hal2k1 reported by User:Cartesian5712 (Result: no action)

Page: Uniformitarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hal2k1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: "Uniformitarianism is the assumption that ..."

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:14, 26 September 2015‎ "Uniformitarianism is claimed to be an assumption that ..."
2. 23:36, 26 September 2015 "Uniformitarianism is the principle, claimed by some to be an assumption, that ..."
3. 10:23, 27 September 2015‎ "Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that ..."
4. 11:06, 27 September 2015‎ "Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that ..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hal2k1#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Uniformitarianism#HELP.21.21.21.21_Page_has_been_sabotaged_-_Once_again.2C_.22Uniformitarianism.22_is_not_an_assumption

Comments:

Please be advised that this account was created with the sole purpose of using the 3RR noticeboard and hopefully settling this dispute. I have been posting as the IP in the attempt at dispute resolution linked above. I'm unsure whether or not this would count as a 3RR violation (the warning was issued after the final edit, and I am also at the third revert, meaning that I am also at least due a warning, if not more) but there is quite a lengthy dispute surrounding it for which I have asked administrator intervention.

Since around March of this year, Hal2k1, first under an IP, then with a registered account, began attempting to add original research (stating conclusions from sources that are not stated by the sources themselves) to the article that directly contradict the reliable sources. Though corrected several times by other editors since then, he continuously re-introduces his edits, insisting that the reliable sources are "wrong" and refuses to acknowledge that his edits constitute original research despite explanations and warnings from at least two other editors.

The diffs listed above have been part of an attempt to obfuscate the meaning of the opening sentence, which describes uniformitarianism as an "assumption" in accordance with the reliable source underpinning it. Hal2k1 believes that this contradicts his original research and should be removed from the article. Cartesian5712 (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note. I've semi-protected the article for one month to at a minimum reduce the disruption from accounts who are not logging in. Another administrator is free to take more focused action against a particular editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Re. Your semi-protected notice, I think it should be clarified that I have been posting and editing under the 217.x IP. It is a dynamic public IP which I have no control over, so not an attempt at sockpuppetry.Cartesian5712 (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Stale The report was stale even at the time of posting. I see the editor has now taken to writing huge walls of text so hopefully the edit warring is now over. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Heimdallr of Æsir reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked then unblocked)

Page

Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Heimdallr of Æsir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "(I used to consider myself a Hellenophile (listening to Dalaras, etc.) but thanks to Greeks like Dr.K and Athenean, I can't help but wish for the complete economic collapse and starvation of Greece.)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) to 14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Adding the original link, which is given as the source of this map in Wikimedia Commons: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kurdish_lands_92.jpg"
   2. 14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "I checked out the Talk page and there is obviously no consensus at all. Unlike the situation in Iraq and Iran, there is no regional district or subdivision named "Kurdistan" in Turkey. Also, the map is from 1992 and therefore obsolete."
3. 06:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Those are two different, separate sources. The precise definition in the original CIA map is "Kurdish-inhabited area". Changing this definition amounts to "POV", while combining separate sources to reach a new result amounts to "original research"."
4. 13:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "This is what the original CIA source says. Stop POV pushing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg"
5. 11:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "The CIA map says "Kurdish-inhabited areas", not "Kurdish-majority areas": https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Obvious sock of Lord of Rivendell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Will not stop relentless edit-warring. Edit-warring MO identical to other socks. Has been blocked for edit-warring recently. Δρ.Κ.  14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that there's actually a two-week-old SPI on this user still active at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Was blocked then unblocked by Black Kite. This is also being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring and personal attacks at Turkey by a_ user who was recently blocked for it. Suggest we close this discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Calidum (Result: blocked)

Page

Narcos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683508500 by Calidum (talk)"it's an issue of undue weight to include only negative reviews". this version contains the same reviews - explain"
2. 18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683507906 by Calidum (talk)dont be ridiculous. you made 1 cmt so far, that the reviews are all negative, which you yourself dont even believe"
3. 18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683507133 by Calidum (talk)no consensus - or discussion - for your change"
4. 18:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Reception */ per talk"
5. 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683213820 by Antinate (talk)justify your edit on talk"
6. 21:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683212909 by Antinate (talk)no, re-adding the source of the contradiction, and splitting RT section in 2 is clearly not an improvement. please justify this on talk"
7. 21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683211591 by Antinate (talk)youve replaced the "positive reviews" self contradiction, moved RT because it's not "positive" enough, not an improvement"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Narcos. (TW)"
2. 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Narcos. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Ongoing discussion at talk:Narcos.

Comments:

Signedzzz has been edit warring with myself and another user for the last couple days (there are likely more than the seven reverts provided above, but four in 20 minutes should be enough to prove the edit warring exists). There is a discussion on the talk page but I'm not honestly sure what his objection is, other than there being "no consenus" for said changes (despite the fact that two other users find the changes to be improvements). The user in question has also been blocked thrice since last November for edit warring. Calidum 19:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has made 2 comments on talk:

• one in which he agrees with the other user that the reviews are all negative (and therefore the section needs rewriting) - which he doesn't believe, since his preferred version contains precisely the same reviews
• and today, he claims to have added a positive review, which is simply untrue

Reverting his reverts seems to be the only way to get him to engage on article talk. Unfortunately his 2 comments there indicate that, so far at least, he is unwilling or unable to make any honest or useful comments. zzz (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I've explained why I feel the version you keep reverting from is better . You haven't explained why you keep reverting to that version. Calidum 19:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• You say you've explained. Which of your two comments contained the explanation, the first one or the second one?
• My comment explained very clearly why I prefer the old, stable version. zzz (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Did you read it? What is "The reviews selected by Rotten Tomatoes clearly make more sense in the RT section" if it's not an explanation? Why do you claim that a) the reviews were all negative and b) that you have added a positive review? These are both completely false claims. zzz (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Now you are using a comment you only just added after filing this report, to cover up for the fact that you never attempted to explain your reverts before. zzz (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but it's hard to take seriously any comment that opens by dismissing concerns raised by two users with the phrase "which no one believes." You should also see how other articles handle critical reception: it's not the way you think it should be. Finally, your little comment does not justify reverting four times in 20 minutes. That's the issue here and I'm done responding to your pointless queries. If you'd like to consider improving the article, great; that discussion goes on the talk page. Calidum 19:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• And by the way, I already mentioned, and answered, your only explanation "putting the negative review separately is better", before your belated comment just now confirming that. I shouldn't have to guess what your argument actually is, you should just state it to begin with. zzz (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week. Calidum: it takes two to edit war and you are not blameless here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:RajanMarwaha reported by User:Amortias (Result: )

Page

Poppy straw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Opium Poppy straw can be one of several different things: ## What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for tr"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) to 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
   2. 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
   3. 18:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
   4. 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
3. 19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Decorative Dried Flower producer/growers and wholesalers ( such as UK FLOWER POWER) based in Europe, hand pick the decorative mature seeded pods/heads with or without the stalks for use as floral decorations for visual gratification in arrangements, these"
4. 19:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Poppy straw (also poppy chaff or husk) is a by-product of the poppy seed harvest, used as seeds in food such as bread. To get poppy straw from opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum.L) the crop is harvested when fully mature and dry in the field, minus the ripe"
5. 20:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Poppy straw (also poppy chaff or husk) is a by-product of the poppy seed harvest, used as seeds in food such as bread. To get poppy straw from opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum.L) the crop is harvested when fully mature and dry in the field, minus the ripe"
6. 20:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Editing requested"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Well past 3RR Amortias (T)(C) 20:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've just given the user advice to discuss desired changes on the article talk page and to go in smaller chunks, requesting specific changes. We'll see what the user does based on that advice. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User: Lord Laitinen reported by User:Funkatastic (Result: )

Page

Hell in a Cell (2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lord Laitinen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683523276&oldid=683523111 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683525106&oldid=683524649 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683525934&oldid=683525476 User has clearly broken the 3RR, he's claiming that the content can't be added because it hasn't been officially announced but WP:Spoiler says otherwise. Also claiming that the source isn't reliable by his standards. I could easily get 5 more references that say the same exact thing, but the problem is when he undoes these edits he's also re-adding unreferenced material I removed from the page.

Additionally, this was left on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AFunkatastic&type=revision&diff=683526014&oldid=683524744 Claiming I've been adding unsourced material, even though as you clearly can see from the sources above that I was adding sourced content and removing unsourced and inaccurate content. And he was reverting said edits meaning he was doing otherwise.Funkatastic (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Would also like to refer to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=681980048 where roughly two weeks ago I reported countless users/IP's as the page Night of Champions (2015) was under intense vandalism on the day of the event. I think it's possible one of the users that owned one/multiple of these IP's/usernames could possibly be attempting some sort of "revenge/retribution" as I reported a large amount of users. Normally I wouldn't assume this but seeing as this user is edit warring on another wrestling page I felt necessary to point it out. I've discontinued editing this page until this report is reviewed as the user showed no signs of stopping.Funkatastic (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment My main complaint against this user was their clear violations of Misplaced Pages:Crystal, though their source, which contained naught but speculation and events expected, but not assured to happen, was a secondary concern of mine. In summary, I am simply trying to make sure that this user does not pass off speculated events and announcements which have not yet happened as facts. I also wish to note that this edit war started with a blatant insult by User:Funkatastic against my editing skills in the comment section of his first revert of my correction. Thank you. Lord Laitinen (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User keeps claiming WP:Crystal was violated, despite sources all over the internet saying the same exact thing. This is clearly a spoiler and not speculation (Show is taped Tuesday and airs Thursday) WP:Spoiler clearly overrides WP:Crystal. As for the user in question as you can see by the three edits I linked above, he reverted three of my edits (technically four because the first edit reverted two edits I made) based on his own interpretation of the guidelines and not the actual guidelines in place. Funkatastic (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

1. http://www.wrestlingnewsworld.com/another-bout-announced-for-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-spoiler/
2. http://www.pwmania.com/spoilers-wwe-smackdown-taping-results-for-10115
3. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2573757-wwe-smackdown-spoilers-complete-results-and-analysis-for-october-1
4. http://whatculture.com/wwe/wwe-spoiler-big-match-added-to-hell-in-a-cell.php
5. http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0929/602170/spoiler-another-main-event-revealed-for-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-pay/
6. http://www.24wrestling.com/spoiler-another-hell-in-a-cell-match-announced/
7. http://www.prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-News-New-Hell-in-a-Cell-match-announced-Smackdown-spoiler-44233
8. http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/625069-new-match-added-to-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-ppv-spoilers
9. http://www.inquisitr.com/2458973/on-upcoming-smackdown-wwe-to-announce-roman-reigns-match-for-hell-in-a-cell-card/

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring