Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:49, 15 June 2023

• 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:Vipersage reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Both editors blocked)

Page: CBS Broadcast Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC) "Undid unfounded and disruptive revision 1159402584 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Both editors blocked Viper for 24 hours since they have never been blocked before, Blueboy for a week due to long history of edit-warring blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Vipersage reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Both editors blocked)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1159402108 by BlueboyLINY (talk). Source is indeed reliable, it's the company's website."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Both editors blocked Viper for 24 hours since they have never been blocked before, Blueboy for a week due to long history of edit-warring blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Vipersage reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Both editors blocked)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC) on WLNY-TV "Undid revision 1159402358 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"

Comments: Both editors blocked Viper for 24 hours since they have never been blocked before, Blueboy for a week due to long history of edit-warring blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:BlueboyLINY and User:Vipersage reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Both editors blocked)

Page: WLNY-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BlueboyLINY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vipersage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of BlueboyLINY's reverts:

Diffs of Vipersage's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Possible content dispute. Who's right? Also, paging @Sammi Brie: Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Both editors blocked Viper for 24 hours since they have never been blocked before, Blueboy for a week due to long history of edit-warring blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Baseboom reported by User:AlanS (Result: Indefinitely blocked as a sock)

Page: Ben Roberts-Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Baseboom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Suspect from style and editing that this is User:Gugrak who has been indefinitely blocked because they are a sock.

Clear edit-warring for the sake of it, going so far as to incorrectly revert a correction of the subjects family name that they had pointed out in a previous edit. AlanS 13:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the name change because you did a blanket RV and I needed to do that to revert you other bold removal of sources and your reversal of my good edits. You only just responded to the discussion on talk that I started before running straight here Baseboom (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I've restored your version minus the editorial source Baseboom (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You disagreed, therefore you edit warred? Is that the story you're going with? AlanS 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Jimgerbig reported by User:Linkin Prankster (Result: Warned)

User has recently added two long statements of reactions from city officials regarding Keechant Sewell's resignation.

I removed their edit, asking them not to add such long statements and they reverted back without explanation. After I reverted them a second time and asked them to seek a comsensus for their changes, they restored their edit a second time, again with no explanation.

Following this they left a warning on my talk page. And he has still refused to seek a consensus. Their formatting obviously also isn't per Misplaced Pages's standards nor they've bothered to correct it. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

] reported by User:Galaxy21ultra (Result: Nominator blocked)

SUFISM:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
Kashmiri : Template:Kashmiri

'

@Kashmiri has been removing authentic sources from the Cambridge Companion of Islamic Theology on the Sufism page. I have tried to reason with him on his talk page but is refusing to engage. I am new to Wiki so if someone can help me with this block request I would be grateful

• Nominating editor blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Enix150 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Salvatore Pais (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Enix150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Salvatore_Pais&oldid=1157088816

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1160048258 by MrOllie (talk) that's your third revert today."
2. 03:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1160046076 by MrOllie (talk) you've reverted this page twice now. You're very close to being in violation of WP:3RR. If you want to argue that the sources aren't reliable, then take it to the talk page."
3. 03:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1160043616 by MrOllie (talk) there was never a discussion let alone a consensus, and in your previous revert you gave no reason for deleting this section"
4. 22:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC) "/* Career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Salvatore Pais."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC) "/* Sourcing of recent edits */ new section"

Comments: Reverting back text from this revision. MrOllie (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• MrOllie as I warned you several times on your talk page, you are the one who was approaching violation of the WP:3RR rule having already made 3 reverts to the page today. You are prematurely reporting me after my third revert instead of discussing it on the talk page as I asked you to do.

1. 03:29, 14 June 2023‎ "Reverted 1 edit by Enix150 (talk): Onus is on you to get consensus for additions"
2. 03:09, 14 June 2023‎ "Reverted 1 edit by Enix150 (talk): Edit warring this same collection of unreliable sources won't keep this content in the article"
3. 02:44, 14 June 2023‎ "Restored revision 1159152071 by CodemWiki (talk): Consensus clearly against this"

Enix150 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You made 4 reverts, which are listed in the report. The last one came in as I was posting on the talk page, so I brought it here. MrOllie (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. #4 was not a revert. Check your logs again before reporting prematurely. Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose we'll see what third parties think. But it is clearly another revert back to the same stuff you tried to add in January and again in May. MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, except that I added the section in January, and the only reason I had to restore it in May is because you were the one that had tried to delete it in April.

We had this same issue on the Pentagon UFO videos article, where I also asked you to take it to the talk page and welcomed you to reword the section without deleting it and the citation completely. The difference is that over there you actually did, and we were able to work out a compromise. Enix150 (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Most recent edits don't quite violate 3RR, but there has been a pattern of reinserting this graf regularly for the past couple weeks, then telling editors to go to the talk page, where what consensus there might be seems firmly against including the graf. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Jack4576 reported by User:Nythar (Result: Editor blocked from article indefintely due to technical limitations)

Page: Ben Roberts-Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack4576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version prior to any diff presented below: 09:05, 13 June 2023

Diffs of the user's (Jack4576) reverts:

1. 10:43, 13 June 2023
2. 07:58, 14 June 2023
3. 07:59, 14 June 2023
4. 08:00, 14 June 2023 Striking diff (since the revert involved only the capitalization of the letter "a"). However, the other reverts still amount to a 3RR violation. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
5. 08:04, 14 June 2023 <-- this edit brought back the content that Jack4576 added in his first revert (e.g., "war criminal").

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion, along with a discussion at WP:BLPN here.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: notice

Comments: This is part of an ongoing edit war between users who believe it is appropriate to refer to Ben Roberts-Smith as a war criminal and users who do not. After I warned Jack4576 for edit warring (which took place after the reverts presented above), he denied edit warring and ordered me to never post at his talk page again: "I am not engaged in an edit war, let alone 'currently involved in edit warring'." "Your accusation is improper. Please never post on my talk page again Nythar". The first claim is false. He has clearly edit warred, and yet he refuses to get the point. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576's response (copied from his talk page):

"Only TWO of those diffs are about the use of the word "war criminal" in the opening sentence of the lede.

The other edits are about the use of criminal in OTHER areas of the article.

I did not revert another editor three times.

I request a WP:BOOMERANG on Nythar for this pointy ANI nomination please.

One of the diffs you've quoted in the ANI is a change of a single letter 'a' to 'A'.

This ANI nomination is in part motivated, no doubt, by our recent run-ins at ANI over AfD in the past."

Please copy the above, verbatim, to the ANI, as I am currently blocked from editing in that space. Thanks.

Jack4576 (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576's second response (copied from his talk page, where he requested the above response be stricken):

After reading the context more closely, I can see that the timestamp of this diff on 13 June 2023; (which was a reversion of Iskandar323)

is within 24 hours of these two instances of reversion:

• Further Reversion number (1) (consisting of these two edits) which reverted Morbidthoughts for a first time
• Further reversion number (2) (consisting of this edit) which reverted Morbidthoughts for a second time

and that I can see this was an breach of the 3RR. As arguably, the content of these edits overlap.

However, in my defence, I considered the editorial choice of whether to include the phrase "war criminal" in the opening sentence of the article, was a separate issue as to whether the term "criminal" should be used in the page at all.

I accept any punishment meted out in response for that breach; and I apologise for the 24 hour breach.

It was not my intention to edit war. I withdraw my request that Nythar be boomeranged.

Kind regards

Jack4576 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Nythar decided they would drive by tag my usertalk for edit warring or I wouldn't be aware of this. can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak. Nythar might have thought I was up to three reverts myself if they disregarded the fact that one of my reverts was reverting a sock and therefore I was up to two. It's almost 1am in the morning here, can admin please review Nythar reverts on the page and if they violate 3RR sanction appropriately. AlanS 14:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@AlanS: I noticed that you continued the edit war today, the same edit war you were blocked for on 4 June; however, I didn't report you because you hadn't reverted 4 edits, only 3 (excluding the sock revert where you were aware that the account was a sock): 08:40, 13 June 2023 and 12:56, 13 June 2023 and 09:15, 14 June 2023. You could still get blocked for this, but I thought warning you first was a better idea. And... are you accusing me of being Gugrak? Nythar (💬-🍀) 14:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll find another of those reverts was changing the subjects name from "Roberts" to "Roberts-Smith" and this was done with the consent of the person I reverted and the revert got a thanks from them. Perhaps check update comments where they advised they were reverting to last clean version after sock and invite an revisions if incorrect. The app is working properly right now and I'm on a phone so I can't really check your diffs properly. Per Gugrak, no accusation, simply a request. Given how much that user has been popping up over the last couple of days you'll have to excuse the thought that things may be connected. I do find you coming from nowhere and bringing this up quite abusive given you have had zero engagement on the Ben Roberts-Smith talk page. AlanS 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I won't excuse the thought that things may be connected. Sockpuppetry accusations require quite a bit of evidence. And the edit where you changed "Roberts" to "Roberts-Smith" is the one I excluded (since you were aware you were reverting a sock edit). Other than that, you are edit warring. You also don't seem to have a good idea of Misplaced Pages processes. For instance, leaving you a 3RR warning is recommended so that you are aware of the fact that you are edit warring. In addition, I am not required to engage with a user before reporting them here; for example, both you and Jack4576 were involved in multiple discussions simultaneously as you were edit warring (where you had edit warred only 10 days ago), and that is enough to justify a block. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Another of the diffs you show was against the sock and it is quite evident from my report of them that I was aware that they were a sock and now historically proven that they are a sock. The revert is excepted under WP:3RR. You should reframe from your abusive claims of edit warring. It's clear I only undertook 2 reverts in that 24 hour period. I suggest you drop your abusive claims. AlanS 02:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@AlanS: Incorrect. There's no evidence that you were aware they were a sockpuppet; it doesn't matter that it was discovered later that they were a sockpuppet, since you couldn't have been completely sure that they were. (After all, you were reverting edits made by other users, so this is not a good look.) That does not excuse the revert. Even if you made only 2 reverts, it can still be edit warring: WP:3RR "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached." I am warning you to refrain from casting aspersions and referring to my claims as "abusive." Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You made one revert against Ben Roberts-Smith talkpage consensus when you have made zero attempt to engage there. Even 1 revert when performed against established consensus can be be edit warring. You shouldn't be so fast to throw around abusive accusations towards other editors engaging in good faith editing especially when you are not even engaged in any attempt to form consensus and seem to be only interested in badgering users with administrative solutions as a way of winning your side of the argument. AlanS 03:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just had a look at the Ben Roberts-Smith talk page and I have not seen a single comment in there from User;Nythar. I note that when they made this report they falsely claimed that they had tried to resolved this dispute on the Ben Roberts-Smith talk page and that in fact has not occured. This report is an abuse of process and I request admin sanctions on User;Nythar. I find their accusations of me and others edit warring and them engaging in drive by tagging when they made no attempt to enter into dispute resolution to be offensive.AlanS 15:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I've further had a look a look at discussion at the BLP Noticeboard and I have found zero interaction from User;Nythar there, in particular they have not taged User:Jack4576 there. Their claim to have attempted to enter into any sort of dispute resolution at all in any sense of the word is false and misleading. Admin sanctions are required for lodging a report containing false information. AlanS 16:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely from article, only because he is already indefinitely blocked from project/project talk namespace and we cannot as of yet set separate expiration dates for individual namespaces and/or pages. Had this not been the case I would probably have set the block for a week or two. If in the future other involved editors are satisfied that Jack has accepted consensus against what he presently advocates, this part of the block can be lifted by any admin.

This was not an easy call to make. Frankly the scope of this is well beyond edit warring and thus this noticeboard. We are very limited here in what more we can do in the way of sanctions, since the page was put on six months' ECP yesterday, with further protection options available but inadvisable (I do not think full-protect would be a good idea as, again, we cannot layer levels of protection because the software does not allow that yet, and other people are editing other parts of the article, and six months would be far too long for full-protection and I do not want to have to reprotect anytime soon). But ...

I was frankly surprised, given its history, that this page was never marked as coming under CTOPS since it certainly qualifies, and the six-month ECP is so rarely applied outside of articles in those topic areas. So I have added a notice to the talk page to that effect and logged the recent ECP.

For the time being, I think the best thing for any other parties to the dispute to do is see how the BLPN thread works out—that is exactly where this dispute needs to be. But I am mindful of the complaints that the pro-"war criminal" side is forum shopping, so if a consensus is reached there and ignored by editors at the page without any change in the underlying facts, then that dispute should be resolved at AE, not here, or perhaps at AN/I, where 1RR may have to be considered.

Good luck and happy editing. I hope this is the last time any noticeboard sees this dispute, but honestly I'm not optimistic. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:GreatBigCircles (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: These four were in a period of 24h 43m:

Earlier:

... there are more. Every one of MrOllie's edits on the page in the last two months has been a revert, except one, when reverting again would have been a violation of 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Immediately reverted by MrOllie:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

The fourth revert was 43 minutes outside the 24-hour window. One of the four reverted two unrelated changes in one revert. MrOllie is blocking all attempts by multiple editors to improve the article in good faith, posting false and inflammatory attacks and comments on the talk page, and refusing to engage in constructive discussion or compromise. There is also a larger conflict involving more editors, which I intend to post on another appropriate noticeboard. This report is just about what appears to be a violation of 3RR by MrOllie. GreatBigCircles (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days. Figure it on the talk page please and note that the WP:BURDEN is on the editor adding or restoring content to get consensus for its inclusion. Ponyo 23:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for responding and taking action. But I'm confused. There will be more investigation, right? This report is about a particular editor violating the 3RR, not an ongoing edit war. Can you explain the utility of protecting the page? GreatBigCircles (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring