Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:08, 27 August 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:Taivo reported by User:B Fizz (Result: User warned, having indicated acceptance of advice.)

Page: Linguistics and the Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Taivo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: rev372824217

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I (B Fizz) provided no warning.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon#English Errors

Comments:

Continues to insist that a particular section remain as is. One editor has proposed adding a counterargument, and I first supported that idea, then proposed and removed the entire section as WP:UNDUE. To his credit, Taivo explained himself on the talk page, but continued to revert each time. See the talk page for further details. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

B Fizz is conflating two different issues. First, there is an editor, Mavasher, violating WP:OR. This has been explained to the editor on the Talk Page, but it's not certain that the editor understands the issue. Second, there is B Fizz's own editing to blank a stable, long-standing section without gaining consensus. My reverts have been to deal with both of these two separate issues. WP:3RR does not apply when the issue is of WP policy--in this case WP:OR and WP:CONSENSUS. --Taivo (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that the one time I blanked the section, Mavasher undid it. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tavio, exactly what verbiage of WP:3RR states that it "does not apply when the issue is of WP policy?" --Chris (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who "Tavio" is. The user adding the original research had been told several times already and had the violation explained to him in detail on the Talk Page. After a violation is explained and a user continues to add material against policy, I consider that vandalism. --Taivo (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be obvious that I was speaking to you. The talk page of the user you were reverting is redlinked. When exactly did you inform them about the OR policy? The article talk page and edit summaries may not be enough to catch the attention of an inexperienced user. --Chris (talk)

There are different sets of times (some local, some universal) in the various histories, so I think this is the first mention of original research, although I had mentioned the need for secondary references prior to that: . I consider it simple good manners to take two seconds to spell another user's name correctly. I apologize if I sounded snarky, but it's the third time it's happened today. My user name is not exactly SZckYR45LMrq%. --Taivo (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for misspelling your account name. My monitor at work is ridiculously large and I haven't yet adjusted font sizes to compensate, so for small words I frequently read letters transposed.

As for the dispute, I see that the other editor has engaged on the talk page. However, this does not make warring appropriate by either party. In the future I would recommend limiting yourself to three reverts and advising an administrator (via this noticeboard) if the other party continues to war over additions that are not policy-compliant. Except in cases of blatant vandalism (or the other exceptions) you should be wary of 3RR. Note that vandalism requires malicious intent. I'm not yet convinced that there is malicious intent here, nevertheless it would be better to report the other user for edit warring than risk getting blocked yourself. --Chris (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand. --Taivo (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not blocked The user was acting in good faith, and appears now to have accepted advice on how to deal with such cases. I have explained to Taivo that this closure is based on their accepting the need to avoid edit warring in future. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Serienfan2010 reported by User:ChaosMaster16 (Result: Already blocked for 31 hours by GorillaWarfare.)

Page: List of Nikita (TV series) episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), List of The Vampire Diaries episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Various
User being reported: Serienfan2010 (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: 3rd Warning

Vandalism warning/revert

Other user's warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User has shown no sign of stopping persistant reversions. It hasn't just been on the pages I mainly work on; Looking at his contributions, he is a new user and has reverted many of registered and older users edits. I am concerned about this; especially since the user has not started a discussion after many summaries asking to do so.

 ChaosMaster_Chat 00:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Already blocked I have also given advice to the user on their talk page. Re-report if the problem continues after the present block expires. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Abonazzi reported by User:FFMG (Result: Not blocked, as no edit warring since being warned.)

Page: War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abonazzi (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Not blocked The editor has made no related edits since receiving a 3RR warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:24.176.191.234 reported by User:202.128.18.230 (Result: Declined)

Page: Stella Bonasera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.176.191.234 (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:

Comments:

This person has been apparently violating Misplaced Pages policies, by expecting other people to edit like a "happy contributor instead of getting pissy" on my talk page, while she started yelling by using exclamation points on the Stella Bonasera article to another editor because the editor thought that this was a fansite. 24.176.191.234 feels the need to yell at this person, as well as call me "snotty" on her talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.18.230 (talk • contribs)

• Declined Two reverts in ~3 weeks hardly counts as edit warring. --Chris (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:AgadaUrbanit reported by User: Unomi (Result: Protected)

• Page: Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 08:32, 25 August 2010 (edit summary: "revert: 79 explained this change very well, 208 revert remained unexplained.")

• Diff of warnings: here, here and here

—un☯mi 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Comments:
As is clear from the talk page, this reinstatement of a contested edit from an editor who is currently blocked for editwarring took place in the midst of an ongoing discussion which AgadaUrbanit largely refrained from engaging in. The article is under 1RR, it is a hotly contested topic and editors are trying their best to avoid editwarring and incivility. AgadaUrbanit is currently topic banned from Gaza War, seemingly for acting in much the same manner as he has done here. The talk page bears the following notice: "This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details. All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page.". After I explained to him that his edit was against consensus he linked me to The Soup Nazi, and commenced to use the edit summary "festival" in what I can only assume was an intentional form of further incitement. Such behaviour in the face of strenuous efforts at calm discussion completely undermines any efforts at resolving the underlying content dispute. un☯mi 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've did single revert on the relevant page. I was convinced by 79's argumentation and saw 208 revert as unexplained. I've contributed considerably also on the article talk page, looking for ways for dispute resolution. It was sugested to approach NPOV noticeboard, un☯mi agreed, still we found ourselves here. I've also expanded on Syrian POV in Current Status section, the changes was ce reviewed already, so I hope it is up to Misplaced Pages standards now. I'm just calling to assume 79's good faith till completion of noticeboard procedures. I'll try to post relevant diffs later, I'm kinda busy right now. in case the reviewing administrator finds it is useful. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You must be joking, you consistently ignored my pleas for you to self-revert and respect consensus. You acted unilaterally in the face of continued discussion and at least 4 editors who made source and policy based arguments against the proposed edit, instead you link to The Soup Nazi which is such a blatant sideways smear that I lack civil words for a proper description. Your actions constituted an attempt at disruption rendered no less obvious by your 'festival' edit summaries. I welcomed the suggestion to take it to npovn but I also asked that you self-revert to maintain the status-quo indicated by the parties to the discussion. un☯mi 12:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if you find Seinfeld reference for demand of an exaggeration of the excessively strict regimentation offensive, relating to infobox/WP:LEAD sourcing requirements. There was not my intention to hurt you in any way, just to improve the Misplaced Pages content. 79's said the change was improving neutrality, I think we both agreed to seek NPOV noticeboard help. There was also sock theory put forward, though without any evidence. I'm still waiting. Meanwhile I'm just calling to assume 79's good faith till completion of noticeboard procedures. If the reviewing administrator recommends self-revert, I'd gladly comply, the change is not that important anyways. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Protected by User:Wgfinley. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User: Altivia/User: 72.89.241.5 reported by User: Stonemason89 (Result: Warned user, on both talk pages. Edit war is not currently active, but a block will be justified if it restarts.)

Page: Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altivia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 72.89.241.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's fairly obvious to me that Altivia and 72.89.241.5 are the same person (the latter made quite a few edits before I warned him/her for edit-warring; following this warning, the account "Altivia" was created, and it began making edits that are uncannily similar to the ones 72.89.241.5 were making, with no sign that he/she has been heeding the warning. Diffs of the offending edits are:

Removal of mention of Geller's husband: and

Removal of mention of controversial Atlas Shrugs claims:

Insertion of puffery; in one of these edits he/she absurdly accuses Geller's critics of being racist:

Insertion of "crying need" paragraph:

Proof that Altivia is 72.89.241.5: (made by the IP; note the "honor killing" stuff) versus (made by Altivia; nearly identical wording, indicating the same person wrote both). Also see (made by Altivia; dovetails with 72.89.241.5's obsession with removing Michael Oshry-related material, as described above).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: This user/IP won't stop edit-warring, and has already been warned. I think something needs to be done. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I left an edit-warring warning for Altivia and put an IPsock template on the IP's talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from NickCT - After a brief review; I concur with Stonemason89. Very naughty behavior. This user/IP ought to be dealt with swiftly and harshly. NickCT (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Warned I would certainly have blocked both of these but for the fact that no editing has taken place for thirty nine hours, so the edit warring is not current. However, even one more edit from either IP or registered account will, I think, justify a block. In the meanwhile I have given final warnings to both. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, neither have edited since I placed the earlier warning. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sfnativesfortruuth reported by User:Native94080 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Gavin Newsom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sfnativesfortruuth (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:

Comments:
Comment from NickCT - Briefly reviewed; seems like a fairly blatant example of new account created solely to push POV. 3RR clearly exceeded. Suggest short block and a longer topic ban. NickCT (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad. 3RR was not technically exceeded. NickCT (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• No 3RR violation (look at the dates, Nick) but nonetheless very blatant and persistent warring. Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Chris (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Geniusbrainus reported by McGeddon (talk) (Result: 36 hours)

Page: John G. Roberts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 09:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 18:32, 25 August 2010 (edit summary: "added /* Animal cruelty */")
2. 21:07, 25 August 2010 (edit summary: "rv - no difference to my original entry")
3. 04:49, 26 August 2010 (edit summary: "reverted - double link")
4. 06:05, 26 August 2010 (edit summary: "reverted 1th double link 2nd go to talk page")
5. 07:00, 26 August 2010 (edit summary: "without me that info would not be here")
6. 07:55, 26 August 2010 (edit summary: "you change it again, you can´t obviously decide which one")
7. 09:10, 26 August 2010 (edit summary: "reverted vandalism - no consensus on talk page")

• Diff of warning: here

—McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of thirty-six hours -- tariqabjotu 09:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Cmadler reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: Page protected for one week)

Page: Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cmadler (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This editor wants to include minor party candidates with less than 5% support going against consensus and Misplaced Pages editing conventions for election articles like this one.

Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The first revert was considerably prior to the others: no clear 3RR violation. Slow edit war? Possibli. Possibl"y"... Doc9871 (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now there is, a 5th revert was added above. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected The edit warring going on is hardly one-sided, and Cmadler has requested an RFC on the talk page. Let's see what comes of that. --Chris (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Avionics1980 reported by User:ggia (Result: 24 hour block for both)

Page: Komotini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Avionics1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

The user likes to delete foreign names of cities. Some of the articles that this user delete these information are from the region of Thrace where mixed population exists. Ie. in the above article half of the population is speaking turkish (minority) and this user deletes the turkish name of the city.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There is also an old discussion about the same issue in the article talk page: Talk:Komotini#Gümülcine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggia (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

This users removes information (names of cities in other languages than the official greek) from other articles of cities as well: Echinos, Thermes, Sidirokastro, Aigeiros, Neo Sidirochori‎, Sostis, Kechros‎, Amaxades, Xanthi‎, Alexandroupoli‎, Kos, Naousa, Imathia

Ggia (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours When the block expires, you both had better settle this out on a talk page before going on a revert-spree of each other again. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Beserks reported by User:Athenean (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Qeparo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beserks (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:

Comments: If this revert is included, that makes 5 reverts in 26 hours. The 4th revert is to a different version, but it is nonetheless a revert, thus 3RR has been breached. It is also particularly problematic because it is a clear cut instance of source falsification by this user, which I have documented here . The source in question, Reed, clearly says the village is mixed Greek-Albanian in plain English. In this edit, Beserks switches the sources around falsifying Reed. He has falsified the source in the past (falsifying Reed to imply that village is bilingual, which the author doesn't claim), for which I have warned him repeatedly, both on the article talkpage and on his own talkpage . Attempts at engaging in discussion are futile, as Talk:Qeparo shows, this user just uses the talkpage to troll and bait other users . Athenean (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ReaverFlash reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ReaverFlash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 02:22 Aug 1

• 1st revert: 18:59 Aug 25, removes from the lead "Alvar Ellegård argues that theologians have failed to question Jesus's existence because of a lack of communication between them and other scholars, causing some of the basic assumptions of Christianity to remain insulated from general scholarly debate."
• 2nd revert: 11:48 Aug 26, ditto
• 3rd revert: 18:31 Aug 26, ditto
• 4th revert: 20:21 Aug 26 ditto

Attempt to resolve issue on talk page: Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Alvar_Ellegard_in_the_lead.

ReaverFlash is reverting up to the 3RR limit, then waiting a couple of hours and reverting again. He has so far reverted against four editors, and has engaged in similar reverting at Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). SlimVirgin 20:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We are currently discussing the issue at the talk page. I probably did revert more than I should have, but I did not receive any warning prior to my final revert. SlimVirgin, an administrator, did not warn me or advise to me to stop reverting. I don't know why SlimVirgin would want to block me from editing and discussing on the talk page when we are currently discussing this issue. Flash 21:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You've been editing since June 2009. You've been blocked once for edit warring. You were asked to stop reverting. Four editors undid your reverts. You don't in addition need a special warning to tell you that you're about to violate 3RR. SlimVirgin 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not receive any notice to stop reverting prior to my final revert. Why do you want me blocked from discussion when I'm clearly not going to revert anytime soon after I was told to stop edit warring? Should you not, as an administrator, encourage discussion instead of asking that I be blocked, or at the very least tell me to stop edit warring before reporting me? Flash 21:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no requirement to tell someone that they ought not to revert again; you can't expect people to baby you. And you were doing the same thing at Historicity of Jesus during the same period, repeatedly removing a sentence from the lead: SlimVirgin 21:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said you were required to tell me. I'm just asking why you want me blocked when we are discussing the very controversial issue at the talk page, and why you did not, at any time, advise me to stop reverting, and then suddenly reported me. Flash 21:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Similar pattern on related article:

Maybe a topic ban is in order. Noloop (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of forty-eight hours -- tariqabjotu 23:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:204.152.219.51 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: )

Page: K2 (drug) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.152.219.51 (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: Please see User Talk:204.152.219.51, where issue was discussed, and editor was requested to join the prior merge discussion on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The editor was given multiple warnings at various points in the reversion chain. The other IP who took over the reverting has been blocked as well. Mkativerata (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jonny84 reported by User:Radeksz (Result: Page protected)

Page: Zabrze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jonny84 (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:
• 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:The 3RR warning was given to the user after the violation of 3RR rule that took place on August 26th. At the end of that day the user removed the warning from their talk page with an edit summary Don't bother me. On August 27th the user resumed edit warring on the same article and apparently has no intention of stopping.

• Page protected Plenty of edit warring to go around. --Chris (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• For reference, there is an ongoing discussion on this matter. Once consensus emerges from that discussion the protection can be lifted if it has not yet expired. --Chris (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protected? Whatever for? The user who repeatedly and defiantly broke the guidelines and ignored the warnings should be blocked. The discussion can continue but there is no need for the page being protected. It's an appalling example you are setting there: a disruptive user who breaks the rules doesn't even get a as much as a warning. The 3RR thing exists for a reason, if users can break it at will then what's the point of having the rule? Not to mention he is uncivil as well .  Dr. Loosmark  18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring