Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:42, 13 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:Valerius Tygart reported by User:MarnetteD (Result: OK now)

Page: Antony and Cleopatra (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

While this was my first work on cleaning up the page it still contained a few MOS:DAB errors. This one came closer but I still discovered that I had left in some piped links so this version the one that I was aiming for. I know that this is a later version than the one that was being reverted so please see the comments section below for clarification of what is going on.

A note about the 1974 television version. I was in error with my first attempt to create a name for it. After I had a chance to think about it I changed the entry to include the RSC page that Valerius wanted to go to without it being hidden by a piping.

Due to the fact that Valerius makes several small edits at a time the only way to see the edit warring going on is by looking at the page history here .

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have tried to discuss this with the editor on their talk page here User talk:Valerius Tygart#Disambiguation pages rather than on the disambiguation talk page

Comments:

The main problem is that this editor is ignoring the fact that the MoS guidelines are different for disambiguation pages than they are for articles. In spite of my giving Valerius links to the proper guidelines the editor is ignoring them and continuing to add piping to the main article links and to add numerous other links. When we edit disambiguation pages we even get a nice instruction box at the top of the page explaining what should and should not put on the page. This is also being ignored.

As you will note the bulk of this occurred on August 6th. I decided not to file a report at the time as after my last message on Valerius' talk page the incorrect edits stopped. Sadly today IP 140.139.35.250 made the exact same edits that Valerius had. Per this page Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Valerius Tygart/Archive (towards the bottom of a long list of socks) this IP is one that Valerius used before in a sockpuppetting situation. Valerius received a block at that time. I feel that another one is warranted. If you decide that a new sockpuppet investigation needs to be opened please let me know and I will get the ball rolling on that also. MarnetteD | Talk 17:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: It seems that I acted too swiftly this morning. The anon IP did not go back to the MoS violation version that Valerius was insisting on. Thus you may close this with "No action needed" if you wish. I would remove this completely but the socking situation is still worrying as Valerius and the IP also worked on the same article here today. We might want this report here just for the record. Sorry for wasting your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about Valerius' usage of 140.139.35.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to edit articles which he also edits with his main account. This is an issue under our sockpuppet policy. If Valerius will promise to stop using IPs, it seems to me that this report could be closed with no further action. This IP's talk page shows that it has has previously received warnings and has been blocked in its own right. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action needed. Valerius has placed a voluntary alternate-account notice on his Talk to explain his usage of the IP. MarnetteD's original concern about the DAB page has been resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Nsdave1 reported by User:NuclearWarfare (Result: Warned)

Page: United States Academic Decathlon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nsdave1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not exactly a 3RR matter here, but I have an editor who has repeatedly added the same content over a period of months and refuses to discuss on the talk page. I would appreciate if someone could help me out in giving him some advice. NW (Talk) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be intermittent for some reason. My guess would be that its a sock of someone else,but thats just my opinion. Hard to see it as a huge problem as I don't see it as actual vandalism, but I don't see it as productive either. I'll add to my watch list though.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have left a warning for the editor that points to this discussion. Not sure we can do more here, because he was never notified of 3RR policy and has very few edits. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. Restoring a link to Facebook, over and over, is a slow edit war. Action can be taken the next time. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:75.51.166.54 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Page semi-prot)

Page: Artsakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.51.166.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 00:16, 11 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 378273734 by Materialscientist (talk)")
2. 00:19, 11 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 378274442 by Til Eulenspiegel (talk)")
3. 01:05, 11 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 378280855 by Dabomb87 (talk)")
4. 02:04, 11 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 378288455 by Mann jess (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: Please check the article history. This user is a sockpuppet edit warring with a number of users.

—Jess_talk|_edits 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected by Fastily. If that doesn't solve the problem please make a new report or drop a note at my talk page. If the problem recurs after 25 August, request an extension at WP:RFPP. CIreland (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:70.251.231.183 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Article semi-protected for 3 days)

Page: Baraminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 70.251.231.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

1. 03:17, 11 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 04:40, 10 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 20:23, 9 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")

User also appears to be 70.255.228.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1. 7 August 2010.

User 205.250.9.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1. 2 May 2010

And also 70.136.102.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1. 12 January 2010
2. 11 January 2010
3. 11 January 2010
4. 11 January 2010
5. 11 January 2010

As well as others. All 4 ips map to Dallas, Texas, USA, all edits add the same word in, and revert behavior is identical.

• Diff of warning: here

Comments: Edit warring over this phrase has been going on for years. e.g. July 2009, February 2009, June 2008, and so forth. Even back to 2006. All of these represent one part of a 5-10 revert edit war from an anon, and only skim the surface of the article's long history. Can we have this page semi'd for an extended period?

—Jess_talk|_edits 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi for 3 days. --Chris (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:The Cleanup Kid reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result: TCK blocked for 24h, page protected for one week)

Page: Pontiac Silverdome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Cleanup Kid (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:
• 8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Note that 7th and 8th revert came after the warning. Also note the second user involved (X96lee15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) made no further edits to Pontiac Silverdome after being warned. 07:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are many editors involved in the dispute and reversion has been going on over several days by several different editors. However, TCK is the only editor with a to-the-letter 3RR violation. Therefore,
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours
• Page protected --Chris (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Freshfighter9 reported by User:UrbanNerd (Result: No action for now)

Page: User talk:UrbanNerd (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Freshfighter9 (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:

• Not sure if this constitutes edit warring but I assume it does. Unfortunately I was lured in by his taunts and received a 24 hour block myself, which is regrettable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanNerd (talk • contribs)

  Edit warring? If anything you were the guilty party... constantly reverting the warnings you were issued in order to hide them. Was it not you who received a temp block for harassment, and not I? I'd be happy to share the fomenting comments you left on my talk page if need be. Who was attempting to lure whom? Freshfighter9 00:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  You are not an admin, I left the official block notice up. You have no right to repeatedly interfere with my user page, especially after repeatedly being asked to stop. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note that though UrbanNerd is allowed to remove comments (even legit warnings) from his/her talk page per WP:OWNTALK, Freshfighter9 performed only three reverts (as such didn't break WP:3RR) and was not warned for 3RR. Additionally, UrbanNerd was not blocked for edit warring, but for a personal attack prior to the edit warring. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW Freshfighter, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, so UrbanNerd is correct in that regard. I would note on this report, however, that since being advised to disengage, Freshfighter did so and has not interacted with UrbanNerd since. He was also provoked by Urban Nerd who, after a series of WP:NPA violations at Talk:Ottawa Senators, brought the personal attacks to FreshFighter's talk page. As it stands, until this report, FreshFighter had completely disengaged from UrbanNerd as requested. Any sanction would be punitive at this point. I would advise UrbanNerd to consider backing away himself. Resolute 00:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This may not be the place to bring this up, but UrbanNerd is currently reviewing my list of edits and reverting as many as he can. I view this as an attempt to provoke, particularly if you look at his history of WP:NPA violations. Freshfighter9 00:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just noticing the same. This is bordering on wikistalking and WP:POINT. I'm inclined to take it to WP:ANI if UrbanNerd doesn't back off. Resolute 00:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

He's hitting my talk page again now as well. This is getting creepy at this point and I'd appreciate it if an admin would take action. Freshfighter9 01:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed a few of your edits to see if you had a history of edit warring and noticed two very pov unreferenced edits. I hardly consider reverting two edits "as many as I can" I will not be reviewing anymore of your edits but if I see any pov unreferenced edits by ANY user I will revert. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You just confessed to wikistalking. Thanks. Freshfighter9 02:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not wikistalking. Please stop flooding this page with allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanNerd (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:STALK, "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles", which seems to be what UrbanNerd (for 2/3 edits) did. In any case, UrbanNerd said he will stop-- problem solved. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• So far, UrbanNerd was blocked (now expired) for personal attacks and Freshfighter9 was proven not to have edit warred, and in the meantime, the debate at Talk:Ottawa Senators seems to have cleared up. I don't think any more admin actions are required; can't we all just get along and go back to normal editing? -M.Nelson (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Result - No action for now. If these two editors resume abusing one another on any talk page, I suggest that both should be blocked for disruptive editing. In the mean time, I suggest taking the advice of Djsasso that the two editors should disengage. This means not reviewing each others' edits and not commenting on each others' talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian (Result: Stale)

Page: Electric power transmission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 05:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 15:58, 4 August 2010 (edit summary: "copyedit caption")
2. 19:27, 4 August 2010 (edit summary: "Those aren't 700,000 volt lines; restore caption Undid revision 377140568 by Floydian (talk)")
3. 21:37, 4 August 2010 (edit summary: "Two circuits per tower? Count the insulator skirts! These are not EHV or UHV lines. Undid revision 377189946 by Trekphiler (talk)")

My apologies for this late report, but I did not notice that another user had come along to revert in my favour only to be reverted again until today. Wtshymanski is a generally uncivil editor, but this is an actual violation to go behind the rude methods this editor uses to get his way.

After an edit to Electric power transmission on August 4, I was reverted by Wtshymanski with the misleading edit summary of "copyedit caption". In reality, the caption was almost entirely reverted. Only one word was retained, one which wasn't important whatsoever. I reverted this edit with a summary of "That's not copyediting, that's changing the meaning outright." and was promptly reverted by Wtshymanski with a summary of "Those aren't 700,000 volt lines; restore caption"

The caption I changed read "Electric power transmission lines", which I changed to "High-tension transmission lines can carry several hundred thousand volts". No mention of 700,000, nor even a reference to the specific object in the picture necessarily.

I did not revert this. I instead left a polite, but affirming message at the talk page of the user. The response was certainly less than friendly.

I admit in frustration, I later warned another user about the behaviours of Wtshymanski on his talk page.

However, a second editor, User:Trekphiler reverted Wtshymanski with the summary of "I see no sign of a 700KV claim, but they're surely 100KV range"., which was again reverted by Wtshymanski with yet another misleading edit summary of "Two circuits per tower? Count the insulator skirts! These are not EHV or UHV lines."

I think everything speaks for itself. — ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 05:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Stale That was more than a week ago. -- tariqabjotu 09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So? It was still commited. Basically this editor gets away with it because it wasn't caught right away. Oh the beaurocracy of wikipedia, moving along the rails of progress. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the editor does get away with it because it wasn't caught right away. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Considering there have been no reverts in over a week, blocking Wtshymanski will prevent nothing. -- tariqabjotu 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I left a warning for Wtshymanski not to describe routine 3RR notices as 'harassment', and suggesting he could respond to the edit warring charges here. He has already removed my warning, and seems uninterested in discussing the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll be back here soon enough if nothing changes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ValenShephard by User:Cptnono (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Gaza flotilla raid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ValenShephard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The page is currently under a 1rr/24hrs restriction. The editor has made two reverts in less than an hour:

His first edit summary said that it was removing duplicate information but it worded it to be something completely different (almost to the point that it was hard to assume good faith). His second said that YouTube was not reliable so that was the reason for removal. There are times when YouTube is acceptable. I am sure all of this can be worked out on the talk page but two reverts is prohibited, has been for some time now, and it says so right there. If it was a mistake than it happens. He needs to self revert and see the talk page Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Shooting in the legs. Others have been blocked for less though so I don't care that much what happens on that end as much but wouldn't mind it either.Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd given this user a warning, twice, and he's received warnings from administrators before both in terms of 3RR and straight edit warring. As awful as this sounds, I'm not surprised. So far as I can tell this user has done nothing but push a point of view and edit war since coming on Misplaced Pages, and I was planning on opening an RFC until SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) told me that just reporting him for a block would be a better solution. By the way, I have been in no ways associated with the above edit conflict, but I saw the notification that Cptnono placed on his talk page and decided to comment on it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: in case it isn't clear, I believe a block of this user would be more than appropriate; it probably should have occurred beforehand. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was all feeling bad sine he has a clean block log but if he has a history of edit warring and then disregards a 1/rr I really have no sympathy.Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he does have a history of edit warring, and shows signs of WP:TEND. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of forty-eight hours -- tariqabjotu 07:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronz reported by User:Dr. Lords (Result: No action taken, not 3RR)

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

Comments:
On the article in question I have attempted to question the notability of subject (Jain), due to several reasons (WP:BLP1E chief amongst them), but every time I added the template for notability dispute I get reverted, regardless of the fact that I'm not the only one of mind in that regard (see talk page Talk:Naveen_Jain#Notability and Talk:Naveen_Jain#Adding_Tags).

I and others have attempted to discuss it in the talk page but get responses which are terse and dismissive in nature ("No, this article is about Jain. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)", "This is nonsense. Jain meets WP:N and WP:BIO many times over, and has for over a decade. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)", and "It's nonsense. We've multiple, reliable, independent sources with significant coverage about Jain. That's much, much more than enough. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)").

I am not sure on how to approach this in a manner that is within the guideline of Misplaced Pages (still relevantly new here), and would appreciate intervention of more experienced users before this escalates further (frankly this behavior makes me feel unwelcome, and leaves me with a bad taste in regard to editing :( ).

Thank you in advance, ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Info: See also this ANI thread Hasteur (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --Chris (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this is a place to report any edit waring, not just the breaking of the WP:3RR (which I was trying to prevent by reporting about my concerns before it happened). Quoting from WP:EW

In particular, the three-revert rule  prohibits any editor from performing more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period (note that this does

not necessarily mean exact reverts, and that there are certain exemptions, like reverting vandalism—for details see below). Breaking this rule is sufficient—but

not necessary—to warrant a block for edit warring.

and Misplaced Pages:Three_Revert_Rule#What_to_do_if_you_see_edit_warring_behavior

If, despite trying, one or more users will not cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or will not move on to

appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm.

 (emphasis mine)

If I'm mistaken, then please advise as to the proper venue of such complaints. Thank you, ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the recent report on ANI etc, I would like to see how this situation is going to play out now that the user is aware that more eyes are on the article. I am watching it and will step in if the edit war does not cease. --Chris (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Finn Diesel reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked for 1 week)

Page: Attila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and Turanid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Finn Diesel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

F.D. was already blocked three times for revert-warring over this same article (in fairness, note that the second of the three recent blocks in his log was partly in error, cf. here, but the revert-warring charge is pertinent). Returned immediately after his block, continuing the exact same reverts against consensus of multiple other users. This is exacerbated by the fact that he blanket-reverts irrespective of multiple unrelated intermediate edits, without ever discussing any objection to anything except one aspect (image use). Conduct on talk page shows he is utterly incapable of engaging in a constructive dialogue on this matter and simply doesn't "get" what others are saying.

• 11 August 21:32
• 12 August 11:30
• 12 August 11:40
• 13 August 08:44
• Probably also this sock IP: (see for explanation of evidence)

Warnings since latest block: ,

Also now edit-warring at Turanid, using fake sources .

I request a lengthy block and/or topic ban (possibly indefinite) under WP:DIGWUREN. See earlier report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Attila the Hun. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Future Perfect, I'm not going to treat this as an arbitration enforcement action, please file at WP:AE if you wish, but this block is explicitly for the 3RR and only the 3RR. Courcelles 09:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Monkeymanman reported by 90.200.240.178 (Result: )

Page: Racism in association football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ] (] · ] · ] · ] · filter log · ] · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An editor in clear breach of 3RR here. Perhaps more worryingly, he or she is refusing to WP:FOC and insists that additions from a particular user are de facto "bad faith" or "pov". He or she is now repeatedly deleting them apparently without even examining them. I would note this editor has caused problems for other editors at the same article before and has been warned for edit warring in the recent past Personally, I have made genuine attempts to discuss content on the talk page, which has only been met with ad hominems. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring