Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Sebastian (talk | contribs) at 06:59, 3 January 2020 (→User:Oknazevad reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: ): expand). 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:KIENGIR reported by User:Sebi Buduroi '99 (Result: No violation)

Page: Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: click

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. click
2. click
3. click
4. click
5. click

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: click

• The report is malformed, but, in any event, there's no violation. There has been a very slow edit war at the article that has been discussed with no resolution by the two editors. I suggest you try to get more editors involved or use other dispute resolution techniques.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• In any case, I fully protected the page and also undertook the rare step of restoring the status quo ante version for the duration. El_C 21:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, @El C:, I just noticed this report that is anyway almost a BOOMERANG case of the user's behalf, seeming no familiar with some basic WP policies (anyway a fringe POV-psuhing he done). Anyway Happy New Year both of you! (sorry to wish you in such circumstances).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC))

Thanks! Happy New Year to you, too. Anyway, the user seems to be edit warring against multiple editors, which in itself is not a good sign. That said, I see no need for further administrative action at this time. El_C 14:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:75.191.40.148 reported by User:TheBlackKitty (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

• 75.191.40.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Continuously reverts my edits to Would You Rather (film). The user left me warnings, despite the fact that I have not vandalized the article - I cleaned up the wording since 75.191.40.148's wording was very wordy. I noticed in the user's talk history other editors have had issue with 75.191.40.148 in the past and 75.191.40.148 was blocked before. Maybe 75.191.40.148 should be blocked for a brief time again? TheBlackKitty (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Page: Would You Rather (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.191.40.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Reporter: TheBlackKitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
Moved from WP:AIV. On first glance, seems like a case that may require a block on both sides. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually I'm not in disagreement that if I get a block, the other side also should get a block. Further discussion with TheBlackKitty is useless; he/she deletes all comments. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to cause an issue, I just stated that the edit that is worded better would be more appropriate. In 75.191.40.148's edits the wording was wordy in places that it shouldn't be. I tried to explain it to this user. I noticed that the user has had issues with other editors before for similar reasons so I felt I should report the user, hoping someone could resolve this. TheBlackKitty (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours 331dot (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Barumba reported by User:Bastun (Result: Blocked)

Page

Pro Life Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Editor is inserting a claim that the "The Pro Life Campaign has no policy on LGBT issues or at least none can be found in any material it has produced and no reference to it has ever ben made on its website. Individual members and spokespersons are free to hold personal opinions." (unreferenced). The very same section contains referenced material outlining the exact opposite. Bastun 17:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933541348 by 911ChickenCop (talk) In the absence of proper references this section needs to clarify that remarks not made in the capacity of chairmanship of an organization do not represent the views of that same organization."
2. 14:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933450473 by Bastun (talk) This point really needs to be made clear since several people seem to believe a disproportionate part of this article is dedicated to an unrelated issue. No references are provided showing the Pro Life Campaign has any policy on LGBT issues."
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC) to 22:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 21:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "/* LGBT issues */ For some reason people think a single issue organisation needs a section on a different organisation therefore it needs to be clarified that the Pro Life Campaign has no position on LGBT issues."
   2. 22:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC) "/* LGBT issues */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning given: here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC) "/* LGBT issues */"
2. 15:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC) "/* LGBT issues */ r"
3. 17:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC) "/* LGBT issues */ warning"

Comments:

In addition to the above diffs, this one by IP 80.111.74.38 is the same user, as evidenced on the Talk page. Bastun 17:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

From comments left on the article talk page, it is clear that User:Barumba and the IP are the same person. Between them they have violated WP:3RR at Pro Life Campaign. I hope that Barumba will respond here (they have edited in the last half hour) and agree to wait for consensus before changing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that, if they self-revert (the current version is their edit and contains the incorrect information outlined above.) Barumba? Bastun 18:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

So the issue is that the accusation is that the organization in question has a policy on LGBT issues. The only reference to this is one that claims that two branches made a submission that suggests that they do have an opinion. However no relationship between the named organizations and the Pro Life Campaign has been shown. Even if they were branches, and as I say this is not clear, the argument is that a branch of an organisation determines national policy. This despite there is no mention of that same policy on the national website. I am not even asking for the removal of the section, though that would be a perfectly rational response, I am just asking for a clarifying clause at the beginning saying that the group has no policy on LGBT issues. To believe that they do is to believe that a branch directs national policy and that the national organization does not seem fit to mention the same policy. Barumba (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Barumba, we are not going to discuss the content matters here at the noticeboard. You need to self-revert and promise to wait for consensus. Otherwise you will most likely be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No idea who you are, what you are trying to say, the entire process here or what authority you have so I am not inclined to respond positively to your threats. Barumba (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Bold Clone reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Protected)

Page: The Mandalorian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bold Clone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Previous version reverted to: A Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: B, C }}Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - D - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Jack Sebastian reported by User:Bold Clone (Result: Protected)

Page: The Mandalorian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

User repeatedly reverted different edits to one page without waiting for clear consensus to develop on the talk page, possibly indicating a sense of page ownership. --Bold Clone 23:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: Part A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revert 3
4. Revert 4
5. Revert 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - Part B: Notified editor on talkpage

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - Part C: Keeping Star Wars lore and fancruft out

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - Part D: When the series takes place

--Bold Clone 23:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note

• The 2nd revert noted above appears to be a copyedit, not a revert
• The four reverts listed took place over a 28.5 hour period (16:38 UTC 31/12 - 20:07 UTC 01/01)
• However the filer, User:Bold Clone has also reverted four times in a shorter period (19:34 & 21:18 UTC 31/12, 19:24 & 20:25 01/01)

• Given that, it would not be logical to block one editor and not the other. Blocking both, however, would probably not be useful.
• I have therefore protected the article for three days.
• The disputed material does appear (to this editor) to be WP:SYNTH, as the name of the object is not referred to in the primary material. One could however, change the line to something like "...with what is believed to be the Darksaber..." using a source like this, for example.
• Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Black Kite. I had suggested, during discussion, that utilizing sources like that in an article about the episode would be a more efficient use of sources speculating about the nature of the item seen in the last moments of the season finale, as it was never - as you noted - described within the primary source of the episode, and had no bearing on the plot whatsoever. Apart from the Synthesis of adding the info, my deeper concern is giving the appearance of an unnamed far more weight than it has at this moment.

While it may become a major plot point next season, we cannot know that (as per WP:CRYSTAL), and can only use what we are given in the primary source material. It was pointed out that how this discussion plays out has wider implications of all derivative material. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Devonw24 reported by User:SQGibbon (Result: Blocked, 24 hours)

Page

Dark skin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Devonw24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings given and offers to discuss the issue on relevant Talk pages. The editor also appears to be edit warring on the Ruby McCollum article as well. SQGibbon (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT => and then turned into edit warring. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Was just coming here to report him. Block him. In fact, indefinitely block him. Editor is not WP:NOTHERE. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Baloopa33 reported by User:Jmorrison230582 (Result: Indeffed)

Page: 2014 Scottish independence referendum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Baloopa33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:41, 2 January
2. 14:07, 2 January
3. 20:05, 1 January
4. 19:43, 1 January

(there are more reverts that predate this, but these are the most recent)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . I also posted on the user's talk page on 29 December (when they initially tried to add the material), and explained there yesterday why it was being reverted. I then proposed a compromise (posting the material in a neutral way in the article body, rather than the lead), but the user has insisted on adding the same edit to the article lead.

Comments:
Jmorrison has been completely destroyed in rational argument. Having been so destroyed, it appears that this is his way of trying to win the argument through procedure rather than through substance.

The dispute is very simple. Jmorrison seems to think that the relevant sources say that the rival factions in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum debate agreed merely that the result COULD settle that debate for a generation. I have demonstrated that they say no such thing. They in fact say that the factions agreed that the result WOULD settle the debate for a generation. That is what I have been trying to insert. Jmorrison now appears to accept he is wrong on that point, since he hasn't responded to it. And this appears to be his attempt to be to win the argument by default... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloopa33 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sock puppet indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Senaiyaar and User:Tiruchengode reported by User:Jerodlycett (Result: Stale; no violation)

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

Diffs: 2019-12-14T17:35:02 – 2019-12-12T18:33:04 over a period of two days. (There may be more stuff outside those to be reviewed.)

Comments:
I was simply doing some WP:WCW work and came across the history in that article. I am making no judgements over who is correct, leaving that to you admins (sorry). My suggestion is both being told to discuss changes on that page from now on or get banned. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• This report is malformed. Putting that aside, the two reported editors haven't edited since mid-December.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:86.29.168.108 reported by User:Jasonbres (Result: )

Page: List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 186.29.168.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_characters&oldid=933788438

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_characters&oldid=933788062
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_characters&oldid=933787511
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_characters&oldid=933785822
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_characters&oldid=933780517

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Edit5001 reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Self-revert 60 hours)

Page

Catholic Church and abortion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Edit5001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC) "2 editors is not consensus"
2. 01:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC) "Sources don't focus on what this says. It's the dictionary definition of WP:UNDUE."
3. 21:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC) "You need consensus."
4. 19:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933261258 by Helper201 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Content dispute resolution */"

Comments:

User has been repeatedly warned and reported about edit-warring on both this and other pages, eg. . Also, I'm unclear if this article is under a 1RR restriction (I only noticed people saying it was after my second revert had already been reverted; it doesn't have tags indicating it is at the moment, so it probably needs them if it is. In any case this is a 3RR violation now so it doesn't matter immediately.) -- Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I self reverted. I didn't realize that was the third time, and was eager to try to correct what I saw as a violation of WP:UNDUE in the article in question. Edit5001 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Not blocked. But that was close! El_C 02:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if an administrator would want to look at Edit5001's ongoing edit warring in all kinds of places governed by discretionary sanctions. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • See also this clearly-retaliatory revert on a page they had never edited before. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 02:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 2020-01-02T04:12:44‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2020-01-03T04:54:40
2. 2020-01-03T02:11:22
3. 2020-01-02T19:02:17
4. 2020-01-02T06:55:43

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor is already aware of 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Lightsaber#Noting_Mandalorian_info (discussion in progress)

Comments:
This diff 2020-01-02T15:32:29 is also troubling: Don't threaten me. I've been here a lot longer than you and have a clean block log for a reason. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk page notification of this discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the comment below, I'd recommend a one week block so this editor has a chance to rethink their attitude towards other editors. I may seek a more permanent solution at WP:AN as I believe there are severe behavioral issues with this editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

And I recommend a WP:BOOMERANG for continuously ignoring the fact that these edits that I have reverted either willfully misrepresent or outright remove reliably sourced info from articles. oknazevad (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, you can clearly see in the edit summaries you were made aware of both the talk page discussion as well as WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. Despite repeated attempts to reason with you, you elected to revert instead of discuss. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You speak of WP:ONUS, but clearly ignore that one of my edits was not a revert but the insertion of an additional source already identified in that talk page discussion. Indeed, in that discussion there has been only one editor arguing against the incluseio, while all others have either called for its inclusion or even enhanced the case by identifying reliable sources that support the inclusion. So the consensus burden is already met. The subsequent outright removal of the passage because it was well supported and disproved the claims against is was the WP:POINT violation I identified in my subsequent edit summary. Seriously, do you really think that looks like anything but a temper tantrum? oknazevad (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is a valid reason to exceed 3RR. Removing reliably sourced info to make a WP:POINT is vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I was actually preparing my own 3RR complaint when I saw that Locke had already filed. I fully concur with Locke's assessment of Oknazevad's behavior. He has been at times bullying, rude and tosses out expletive-laden tantrums when he doesn't get his way. I know this is supposed to only be about the reverts (1, 2, 3,4 - all of which I can guarantee are in fact reverts), but I think drawing attention to the personality motivating the edit-warring behavior is going to help demonstrate that the block needs to occur to prevent further destabilization and civility issues arising from Oknazevad's behavior.

Oknazevad's editing in the Lightsaber article is motivated solely as an effort to end-run an ongoing discussion in The Mandalorian, wherein the user is one of a group that want to add information to the article. He is not getting his way there, so he is attempting a fait accompli to achieve his goals - in short, he is seeking to add content to one article so as to declare a foothold for inclusion in another. This cynical attempt to game the system barely conceals his lack of respect for and civility towards other editors, as evidenced by such edit summaries and discussion comments:

• "cut the bullshit"
• Revert for the obnoxious edit summary alone. Including weasel words in the edit itself is also grounds for reversion. It's not just one source identifying it, and it's not just speculation. This has grown incredibley(SP) tiresome and increasingly straining AGF. One article gotocked(SP) because someone can accept basic common fucking ssmense(SP), and now he's attacking other articles because he can't accept he's wrong.)

These are perhaps the milder examples I can provide here, but there are plenty of others. I know (from personal experience) that when someone uses edit summaries to argue a point, they are far too angry to be editing clearly. Flame wars are made in such ways.

This user has touted how much more experience they have over other users; it would appear that civility is not part of that experience. There are ANI discussions about this user's abrasive manner going back almost a decade, and yet the user has a clear block log. This suggests to me that the user only skirts past the civility line if they feel they can get away with it. I myself have tried to address the civility issue in both article discussion as well as on Oknazevad's user talk page. To no avail. I am left with the impression that he thinks he's smarter than all of us, and therefore his behavior is somehow allowed. He just doesn't care.

A longer than usual block is called for imo, seeing as the user - with all of their experience - should know better. I'd opt for a week block or a ban from any Star Wars-related articles for 90 days. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

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