Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sepsis II (talk | contribs) at 15:58, 17 November 2012 (→User:Sepsis II reported by User:Shrike (Result: )). 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:Spshu reported by User:Fairlyoddparents1234 (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

This user has removed ownership info on the station, as it is considered an O&O. But the user calls it an affiliate. I have even used a ref in the form of NBCU's 10-K AR, but he still goes on, saying it is for biz only. I can understand the info in the 10-K.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has previously been warned on edit warring...

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment You have also been reverting to your preferred version in this article. Consider starting a discussion on the article talk page and waiting for other editors to build consensus, requesting input at related projects like WikiProject Television Stations, or posting at third opinion. Assuming the reverting stops, this case can be closed while alternative forms of dispute resolution are hopefully pursued.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Response

User:Fairlyoddparents1234 first posts Reminder section at my talk page like, I am some to be ordered around. I rename the section to a more appropriate title "Station Venture Operations" and explain my position. Fairlyoddparents1234 doesn't care to respond and slaps a Template:uw-delete1/Removal of content, blanking on KNSD and Template:uw-delete3/disruptive editing which is of course untrue as the content exist at the Station Venture Operations subarticle and I previous point out "Station Venture Operations" why. I even point out that he is not responding to the discussion perhaps do to the name change and move the notice up to the original topic. His sole reponse instead of discussion it to indicate that he is taking it here. Then litters my talk page with additional sections with a notice then does what he should have done second (since he failed to discuss the issue in the first place) third a uw-3rr warning then makes it out to a seperate issue with another section. So in no way did Fairlyoddparents1234 attempt to resolve the issue; all he did was to attack me.

Counter report

He also engaged in edit warring - ignoring my attempts to discussion or directs to were the discussion is taking place in my edit summaries:

1. 00:02, 13 November 2012
2. 22:17, 13 November 2012
3. 22:46, 13 November 2012

Spshu (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. There is an edit war, although 3RR was not broken. Neither party has made any effort to use the article talk page. If reverting continues with no discussion, blocks are possible. You can use an WP:RFC or a WikiProject discussion to settle this kind of issue. This is the third appearance of Spshu at WP:AN3 since July 1st. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And it is disturbing that you, EdJohnston, fail to completely look into the matter for the second time as the only reason I am "appearing" here is Fairlyoddparents1234 failed to continue discussion at my talk page as pointed out and was quick to continue edit warring and report me here. All for the fact that Fairlyoddparents1234 finds that is too difficult to click on a wikilink. And also your mischaracterization that all my appearance here should be seen in a negative light as in one case I was the reporter and was told by an administrator to do so (instead of him blocking the page). With no action against them (since I supposedly didn't request a page lock before and they didn't show up to the article discussion page) they continue to act in an ownership manner of those articles and edit war although I have boldly made edit compromises on both - accepted on one but not on the other. Thus forcing a recent RfPP. I am sure that you look all that up before you made your statement "This is the third appearance of Spshu at WP:AN3 since July 1st." as some sort of negative against me.

Fairlyoddparents1234 with Bagumba comments took it that he would not get me ban. Thus taking it apon himself to harass me with

Also, in another case here that you, EdJohnston, handled that I was involved in. You fail to note that you handled it poorly, as the other side made 5 reverts, ignored talk page discussion launched months before, failed to establish verifibility for their sources then when a source that is actually verifies what they wanted they continued to edit war against that. You issued no warning against them. Spshu (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gilmario Rocha reported by 177.65.53.191 (Result: Declined; 48 hours)

Page: White Brazilian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gilmario Rocha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: that in which he placed Tom Cavalcante in the list of notables.

• 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:

2RR dude insistently adding completely non-notable Tom Cavalcante to the articles White Brazilian and Brazilian people. Early on he tried Michel Teló, what is less absurdical, but still impossible to include on "most prominent Brazilians of group/ethnicity X". I didn't take a closer look, maybe some of his various little edits include some helpful things. 177.65.53.191 (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. Putting aside the malformed report, you never warned the editor they were edit-warring and you never notified the editor of this report. That said, it looks like the editor has an English problem. All 33 of their contributions have been to article space, and all of them have non-English edit summaries. The editor hasn't reverted since yesterday, but their reverts have been sporadic. I've left an advisement on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand it, Bbb23, I had an English problem here too, from 2010 (comprehension) until June 2012 or so (communication). He was not being disruptive, I did this report because I wanted someone to take care of the novice as I'm afraid of undoing edits several times because the last time I did, I got a 24-hour block, what was pretty humiliating, since the guy with which I had a dispute - that got blocked too - was just some random n00b pushing his opinion, but people agreed with him because the topic in which I was working is waaaaaay obscure even in WP, so the discussion I tried to do after the mess, with the help of a nice admin, got immediately stale. I can't whine openly about it though, almost 2000 edits and two years here, people would see me as more childish than I think they already do right now. You probably don't remember as you handle tens of cases of things like this in a frequency close to everyday and it was about a month ago, but you commented on it. 177.65.53.191 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Without responding to my advisement, the editor simply reerted again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Ceco31 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ceco31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• Initial edit: 7 November
• 1st revert: 9 November
• 2nd revert: 9 November
• 3rd revert: 9 November
• 4th revert: 13 November
• 5th revert: 13 November
• 6th revert: 13 November
• 7th revert: 14 November
• 8th revert: 15 November

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The latest series of near-identical tries to push in certain edits consists of two things, as far as I can tell, removing information about the Roma and replacing it with some census figures, and changing some images. The Roma dispute is new to these edits, but the image changes are a repeat of a previous incident. The diff of attempt to resolve dispute above is a post User:Tourbillon made on the talkpage about images, which has up till now had absolutely no response. Ceco31 has already been blocked for edit warring on this article before, so they should really know better. CMD (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Not a 3RR breach but a consistent slow war with a tendentious attitude. As an aside, the editor has only been blocked once before for edit-warring (I didn't check to see which article).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies about the mistake, I misread their talkpage. They had indeed only been blocked once prior. CMD (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User:74.96.169.227 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: No action)

Page: Dari (Persian dialect) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.96.169.227 (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:
IP repeatedly redirects article. Multiple editors are undoing.

Jim1138 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In the IP's defense, no one objected to their edits at the talk page, even though the first one occurred almost a full hour before they violated 3RR. Furthermore, there appear to be at least some grounds for a legitimate dispute, so, if the IP is blocked, I'd request that that block not extend to the article's talk page, if possible. (I've started a section there to discuss this dispute.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was not aware of this..all I have done is change Afghan-Persian to the former page of Dari-Persian and Dari-Persian to the page of Afghan-Persian based on the sources I used in the talkpage. I have some expertise in the area, and I do not like to be rv'ed just because I am an ip. I gave my reasoning in the talkpage and I did not hear an argument from anyone,..--74.96.169.227 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you follow all of the instructions I just laid out at your talk page, I'll stand by my objection to blocking you, but otherwise I will be forced to withdraw my support. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay fine.. I give up and I won't revert. But no one else is discussing..they are simply reverting my correction. And I have been in Misplaced Pages for 8 years..I just didn't want to come back and so I used the ip.. sorry for any hassles. Thanks.--74.96.169.227 (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to declare my official opposition of any sanctions: No harm, no foul, and 74.96.169.227 appears to be editing in good faith, and simply didn't understand the problem before, which isn't entirely unreasonable, since they were being reverted without anyone objecting to the underlying proposal. I think I've cleared things up, and it would be a shame to see an editor blocked for a harmless misunderstanding, especially when they have valuable knowledge to contribute. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Per the above discussion and this comment by the IP it seems that the editors are now working together. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:41.249.32.254 reported by User:Fort-Henry (Result: Semi)

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.249.32.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP adress 41.249.32.254 is systematically deleting a contribution here in the article Morocco.

He did so:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert: , stating that no one country has an insultative description like that of sexual tourism
• 3rd revert: , stating that morocco is not an official destination of sexual tourism. very biased section with ideological sources

Could you please remind this IP:

• As he deleted this section three consecutive time (3RR)
• To stop initiating an edit war
• To respect other people intelligence by using appropriate arguments

Fort-Henry (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. In addition to this particular edit war, there's also been vandalism from a variety of IPs. Please use the talk page to reach consensus on the material about sexual tourism. The IP was blanking the whole section. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:24.238.92.20 reported by User:Bejnar (Result: 48h)

Page: Ahmet Zappa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.238.92.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. 16:28, 29 September 2012‎ (edit summary: "/* Career */")
2. 20:27, 27 October 2012‎ (edit summary: "/* Career */")
3. 15:51, 14 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Career */")
4. 14:15, 15 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Career */")
5. 21:32, 15 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Career */")

1. Diff warning:
2. Diff warning:
3. Diff warning:

1. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
2. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
3. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This same behaviour of adding back in the same text also occurred in the same time frame in the Peter Hedges article.

1. diff notice

I hope I did this correctly. I did not find it easy or pleasant, which I guess is part of the point, there should be a barrier to reporting to keep out all but the serious reports. --Bejnar (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours. The IP's only activity on Misplaced Pages is to edit war at two different articles to insert a claim that someone else was the true author of a certain idea about mythical children that grow leaves. The movie featuring this idea is The Odd Life of Timothy Green. I'm reverting the IP's change at both articles for reasons of BLP. The IP is claiming that the subject of the article stole an idea, while providing no reliable sources to back up the claim. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:212.14.57.130 reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: )

Page: Lech Kaczyński (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.14.57.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure if I just should report it as vandalism or here. I chose this board.

Instead of diffs which can be easily obtained from the narrow IP's edit history:

Since Nov. 4 this IP is inserting and reinserting false fringe information to the article. They are also implying that Putin is involved if not behind an assassination conspiracy (BLP issue). Here the last diff of the repeated edit in question:

They received several warnings on their talkpage but to no prevail. Not sure what the proper action should be here; Either blocking the IP for a prolonged period of time or semi protect the article itself for a prolonged period of time. The latter could be reinstated if the IP comes back after protection expires while the former might affect uninvolved editors in the long run since it comes from an educational institution.

For sure is that something has to be done.TMCk (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. Too many problems with warnings and lack of discussion to block immediately. For example, one of the warnings said the IP added unsourced material to a BLP, even though the subject died over two years ago. However, I agree that the IP's edits are disruptive. I have therefore reverted the latest edits and left a personalized warning on the IP's talk page. If they insist on re-adding the material, I will then block them - or if I'm off-wiki, another admin, if they feel it is appropriate, may do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The BLP issue I pointed out was in re. to Putin who is quite alive ;) TMCk (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto .TMCk (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: S. E. Cupp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tjelsund (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: No diff: the edit is blatant POV pushing; more importantly, 4 different editors reverted Tjelsund's insertion.

Comments:
No further comments; will notify after making report. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II reported by User:Shrike (Result: )

Page: Operation Pillar of Cloud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: is revert of this edit
• 2nd revert: is revert of this edit
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He was warned by admin to mind 1RR in ARBPIA area as he might broken it already.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• The article is clearly part of WP:ARBPIA so WP:1RR applies.
• Just to make it clear the first revert is a removal of phrase "Rocket fire from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip against... "
• I know its a news item.But those edits are not simple updates of the events(for example number of killed) but a content dispute edits that advance one of the POVs in the conflict.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Really I'm not too sure what edit warring is. What I do know is that I have been editing this news item article to try to make it better and keep down the bias which is being added at a fast rate. I don't know the technicalities of if I broke any rules, but I do know I have made the article better by adding sourced pertinent information and removing bias such as people calling groups "terrorists" or editors changing the chronology to make it seem one side attacked first when the opposite is true. What can I say, do? I am finding editing wikipedia to be interesting. Sepsis II (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring