Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 09:20, 7 May 2017 (→User:Kzl55 reported by User:Somajeeste: 24-hour boomerang). 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:Kandi reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kandi (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:

• talk page: ,
• request for third opinion:
• third opinion:
• suggesting other forums of dispute resolution:

Comments:

I am afraid, he is not here to build an encyclopedia. For further info, I refer to his Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

He seems to have accepted the third opinion. It is quite time-consuming that consensus can only be reached through reports about him on this notice board. I am not sure that he is able to cooperate with other editors. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, he is still at it with this edit Scr★pIron 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet again, here That makes five reverts of two editors in the last 20 hours. Scr★pIron 14:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. This is Kandi's second edit warring block this year. He chose not to accept the WP:3O, he continued to revert at 14:05 on 5 May, which is after this report was filed. The user has also made personal attacks at Talk:Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria. If he comes to this board again I think an indef should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Antinoos69 reported by Eric the fever (Result: )

Page: First Epistle to Timothy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: "Antinoos69" is not a valid project or language code (help).

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I went to his user page instead Discussions I had with a wiki admin over this, who suggested that I go to dispute resolution over this, so here I am.

Comments:
The editor in question here has engaged in edit wars with no fewer than four other editors on this page over the last 6 weeks, see history . He has raised false allegations of sock puppets against two other editors. He has shown a long history of vitriol and ad hominen attacks against editors with which he disagreed Just search through his talk history page for more examples.

EDIT: One brief note on the history of the article, prior versions of the article contained similar (and better sourced) material to what is currently being warred over. However these sections were deleted by an IP editor in 2010 with no explanation given, and no discussion on the talk page at all. Since that time, I counted at least 15 edit wars over this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric the fever (talk • contribs) 01:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

EDIT2: I have found additional warnings to this user about edit warring on his talk page history, should I link them in this report or file a new one? Eric the fever (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JaySmith2017 reported by User:GabetheEditor (Result: Article deleted, socks blocked)

Page: Jay T M Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have attempted several times to place a db-hoax template on his page, due to the fact that the notable claims on the page are wholly false. The editor continues to repeatedly remove the template. GabetheEditor_cont) 14:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the article. ~ GB fan 14:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Article deleted as a hoax and socks blocked per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JaySmith2018. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Tarook97 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: )

Page: Nasrid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tarook97 (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:

User:Tarook97 has been edit warring, under this particular name, since 30 April. It should be noted that an IP has been doing the exact same edit-warring since 5 April. Tarook's edit warring has included;

• Why did you revert? The Nasrids were in fact Arabs. And "Lineage" is much more appropriate than "Nasab" since this is an English article. No source given.
• See the "Lineage" or "Nasab" section for for your reference. No source given.
• Going by your tactic, I'd remove "Muslim" too. No source given.

When Tarook finally posted a source, researching this source indicates the Nasrids, claim and presented themselves as Arabs. Nothing in the source states they were Arabs. As I explained on the talk page and was met with a snide comment(Your opinion is not more reliable than academic sources), Misplaced Pages does not present claims as fact.

Judging from Tarook's previous block for edit warring, their continued edit warring whilst logged out(multiple IPs), this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:TaivoLinguist reported by User:Judist (Result: Semi)

Page: Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
Violation of the 3RR. I didn't use the talk page, but I reverted only once.Judist (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a baloney report because the reverts were for different items in each case and in different sections of the article. WP:3RR does not apply to reverting edits of different content in different sections of the article, it applies to reverting the same content. Revert one is of an anon editor from the article's infobox. Revert two was of the same anon editor inserting contentious material in the article. Revert three was of the reporting editor inserting different material into the article. Revert four was a combination revert of the reporting editor and the anon IP, neither of whom seem to understand WP:BRD and the need for discussion on the Talk Page to build WP:CONSENSUS. --Taivo (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The reporting editor is quite right about one thing--he/she has made absolutely no attempt to discuss their addition of material on the Talk Page or to gain a consensus for doing so.

I apologize if I made a mistake with the report. I will withdraw the report if Taivo justifies any exemption. I report per WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.... A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."Judist (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months by User:Materialscientist. Some statements above are not correct: (a) all reverts count, whether of the same or of different material, (b) TaivoLinguist did not exceed three reverts, since some of their edits were consecutive. This article is subject to WP:ARBMAC. I have previously explained to Judist that they should be more careful about neutrality. It would not come as a shock if some other admin decided that Judist's behavior already justifies a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

User:67.14.236.50 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Page protected)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (films) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.14.236.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (some point between their fourth or fifth revert from the diffs above)

Discussion takes place on the article talkpage, but the IP goes ahead and makes the changes without consensus. Also a request to protect the page was declined, so the IP editor was free to continue with their edits.

This IP editor makes changes to this guideline with the summary "see talk" as their believe a consensus has been reached (which it has not). This slow building edit-war has been going on for about 2/3 weeks now, with every single edit made by this IP user reverted by multiple editors. Lugnuts 10:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me just point out that only three of the six reported edits were reverts, and one of those was weeks before and unrelated to the others. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This isn’t edit warring. It’s the B part of WP:BRD. You are free to join in the discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

So both Rob and Neil are incorrect when they posted in this section on your talkpage asking you not to edit war? Lugnuts 17:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you were talking about the outdated Hills Have Eyes example, with the demands to seek WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Yes, I thought we had standing community consensus on that one. But that’s over. And that was isolated to the 26th, so I don’t know why you bring it up now. What you’re apparently reacting to now was, I received feedback on a proposed change, altered it to address concerns, then implemented the change days later with no further objections. If someone came along and started doing that to a page I felt I owned or considered sacrosanct, then yeah, I might say he was edit warring. Otherwise, it’s the normal process. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair IP, it is BRD, not BRDBRBRBR and I am not convinced that BRD should even apply to a MOS. All substantive changes to naming guidelines should arguably gain consensus before installation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: BRBR is actually suggested as a viable alternative to BRD. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought what we’ve been doing was BRDBRDBRD. Occasionally with myself being the only one attempting the third step, so yeah, it doesn’t really work if no one else participates. But even if BRD is inappropriate here, we should certainly discuss the change, which is intended as mere clarification rather than a substantive change. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Several editors have participated in the dicussion. As I noted there you seem to be coming up with solutions looking for a problem. I think the reason the discussion hasn't caught fire is because there seems to be no evidence of the current guideline causing problems. If it were leading to articles being given the incorrect name there would probably be more desire to "fix" it but nobody seems to be arguing that the articles should be called something else! Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted a revision six days ago. It has gone undiscussed, even when the change was eventually made and reverted. Yesterday I posted a response to the revert. Still nothing. So yeah, I seem to be the only one here even attempting discussion. Anyway, there’s a subtle difference between a solution looking for a problem, and a solution to a problem that you can’t or won’t see. Fresh eyes would help here, rather than the local consensus opposed to making any changes whatsoever. But this is a matter for the talkpage (or DRN, etc.), not AN. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This was moved into the archive without any action being taken. The IP continues with the same disruption on the page concerned. Reverts this edit saying their are no objections (incorrect), which is then itself (correctly) reverted by another editor. That IP revert comes after they have commented here and the original report was archived.

Can some please either block this IP or protect the page. This will go quiet for a few days, then continue again, as per the edit history shows. Thanks. Lugnuts 14:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks CBW. Lugnuts 07:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kzl55 reported by User:Somajeeste (Result: 24-hour Boomerang)

Page

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

User being reported

Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:34,6 May 2017 ‎ (UTC)
2. 09:37, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC)
3. 12:46, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC)
4. 15:17, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC) "

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: 3RR Warning"

Comments:

User:Kzl55 has reverted four times now, on another article this time Bosaso, with out explaining, and claiming old 2004 article and removing 2014 municipality website which claimed that the city have 700,000 population. and he is keep doing disruptive edits again and again violating NPOV.

This is getting ridiculous. I have already explained to you in the article's talkpage why you cant remove estimate numbers cited by UNOCHA and UNDP and replace their estimate with a number not based on any study from a reliable source that we know of. The number you are using is taken from a website that is no longer operational. I have also given you advice to search for updated numbers from UN agencies currently working in the region. Please stop your disruptive edits. Kzl55 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Boomerang block. It's not about who reports whom first. 2nd edit is not a revert. Somajeeste has, however, violated 3RR (). As well as failed to participate on the talk page. Please cite reliable sources so that your numbers may be verified. El_C 09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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