Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:37, 29 May 2018

• 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:Mr KEBAB reported by User:Softlavender (Result: No action)

Page: Richard Wagner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr KEBAB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Just read my edit summaries, which the OP has refused to do. (S)he also required me to provide a citation when the transcription was unsourced to begin with. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I did no such thing. Provide diffs of your claims. Softlavender (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • , , Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • The first diff is not me; the second and third diffs prove your claim is false. Softlavender (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, but that doesn't change much. It still means you didn't read my edit summaries. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Provide diffs or other proof to substantiate that ad hominem claim. Softlavender (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
            • I think I'll quit this pointless discussion. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, when the comment <!-- Do not change this without a source --> was added to the article, the vowel was already . It appears it was changed to by an IP, probably inadvertently, as their summary explains other changes in the edit but not the one to the first vowel. So I doubt those who reverted Mr KEBAB had any grounding, but Mr KEBAB also could have certainly handled it in a more respectful manner. Nardog (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• I must also note that the fourth diff provided by the reporter is not a revert, just a removal of a comment telling people not to edit something already unsourced without providing a source. This strikes me as an WP:OWNERSHIP issue on the part of the two who reverted Mr KEBAB's edit. They reverted it simply because it was a change to something that stood in a featured article for very long, without examining the validity of his edit, which they could have done by simply clicking the notation and reading Help:IPA/Standard German. But Mr KEBAB also could have and should have spared passive-agressive or uncivil comments in summaries on his talk and continued trying to get his point across, such as quoting or pointing to the relevant part of the help page, initiating a conversation on the talk, or citing an external source like Duden. Nardog (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:3RR. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (underscoring mine) Softlavender (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, if it weren't him someone should have removed such a silly comment a long time ago, if you ask me. Nardog (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • He was warned about 3RR but made a fourth revert anyway. That's a 3RR violation. Softlavender (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I didn't revert anyone but removed an inappropriate hidden message. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Please read WP:3RR. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (underscoring mine) Softlavender (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Has Nardog's edit resolved the dispute? --NeilN 18:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No action. This war may have stopped. Report again if it continues. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: :I noticed outside of harrassing a couple users this past month as seen with this report, and one done here , he has been harassing various users. He recently told and admin to fuck off a couple times for a block and called then an idiot. And threatened to quit wikipedia. Is this something that should be looked into? He's done this about three times in the past month. He also leaves very demeaning messages to people he comes in conflict with as seen in these edit noticeboard postings he's made and these edit summaries: , The admin did handle what he said to her, but I do notice this has become a pattern with him. Kebab has never apologized for any of it. Jakeroberts93 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jakeroberts93 and EdJohnston: There seems to be a lack of information that needs to be clarified. The block log and thanks log reveal that what led Bishonen to block him for 31 hours, at least ostensibly, is not his use of language but his thanking Cassianto, who was involved in the dispute at ANI involving Mr KEBAB and Curly Turkey (and me somewhat) last December and just declared retirement. This information was somehow not immediately available to me and I wish Bishonen or EdJohnston clarified it so that other editors could have assessed the situation more easily. Nardog (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nardog: to clarify, Mr KEBAB "thanked" Cassianto for retiring (as he clarifies himself here), which is a common way of trolling. A lot of admins watch Cassianto's user & talk pages, as he attracts this kind of behaviour, so Mr KEBAB was unfortunate in whom he chose to troll (he would've gotten away with it if he'd done it to me, for instance). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey:@EdJohnston: I brought it up as it seems this is something he has done numerous times. Jakeroberts93 (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I was responding only to Nardog's question. I'm not interested in starting something over an editor who has announced they've retired. If they unretire and keep it up, they've bitten enough other editors that it'll be dealt with soon enough without my involvement. Now excuse me—I have some Canadian cock to suck and other useless things to do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Violetriga reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No action)

Page: Young blood transfusion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Violetriga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• Issue #1 diff, their preferred version of the lead when they nominated it for DYK on May 7: Young blood transfusion refers to the transferral of blood from a young source into an older animal with the intention of having a medicinal effect
• Issued #2 diff, removing "The scientific community currently views the practice as little more than snake oil" at 12:30, 25 May 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts: with respect to "animals" vs "humans" in the lead

1. diff 20:53, 25 May 2018, Reverting restoration of material they had deleted per issue #2 above.
2. diff 00:34, 26 May 2018. Reverting on issue #1 above changing "human" back to "animal"; edit note Not just people, that’s the important fact
3. diff 01:13, 26 May 2018. Reverting on issue #1 above; edit note No! The article talks about mice. The term is not just used for humans, that’s the argument! And I removed snake oil because it’s not in the source!!)
4. diff 15:26, 26 May 2018. Reverting on issue #1 above; again restoring "animal" in the lead

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff; note that they removed it, and promptly gave me such a notice. Classic behavior of an aggressive new editor who doesn't understand that these are notices, not badges of shame; unfathomable for a former admin.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Issue #1 Talk:Young_blood_transfusion#Comparing_blood_from_mice_of_different_ages; Talk:Young_blood_transfusion#Mice, just now, Talk:Young_blood_transfusion#First_sentence

• Issue #2 Talk:Young_blood_transfusion#Sentence_in_lede_is_not_indicative_of_source; Talk:Young_blood_transfusion#Snake_oil

Comments:

Last month they were subject to an ANI thread about their edit warring and bad behavior on other articles they have created, which was closed after they wrote here, showing apparent self-insight, I clearly have WP:OWN issues on articles that I have just created and my behaviour was not appropriate.. They have continued demonstrating the exact same behavior described at ANI at Young blood transfusion, and I opened an AN thread on this, which was (frustratingly for me) closed early. So, a more narrow venue. They have reverted me, User:Natureium, User:Seraphimblade, User:Winged Blades of Godric, and User:Doc James over the past four days, and are more or less single-handedly and single-mindedly trying to force their vision of the page into the article.

I am looking for an edit warring block to help them actually understand that they have a pattern of OWN behavior and they need to change it. There is much more but I have focused on the clear breaking of 3RR in the last 24 hours. There was lots of edit warring before, by people including me. Everyone but violetriga has stepped back from that. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s amazing that it’s taken until now for you to say that this is the problem. I’ve been asking for an age why you think this is about humans only. I think you’ll find the creation of a straw poll on the talk page will solve this issue without need for any punitive action. But all you are after is getting me blocked, as evidenced by the rudeness and the threats. The change from person to animal was made by me to try and solve the issues you have with the article rather than me trying to push my own viewpoint. I’ve created so much discussion on the talk page there it should be evident what I’m trying to do. violet/riga  17:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the history.

• I explained here and here. Doc James explained it here. Roxythedog explained it here. It was explained in each of the edit notes where you were reverted.
• I added appropriately sourced and written to the article in this diff, and said I did so here.
• You are misrepresenting, and you have very clearly violated 3RR over the last 24 hours. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a single person problem; Jytdog's behavior on this article has been aggressive and vitriolic which tends to put other editors' backs up. I would suggest both editors be careful of edit warring and tone and that Jytdog might consider a more collaborative manner when dealing with other editors.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC))

Agreed. violet/riga  17:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The snake oil issue is now resolved. I removed it simply because the source did not say specifically that young blood is snake oil. Since then other sources have been used to back up the claim and I am happy with that. That is how collaborative editing works. Jytdog is spending more time trying to get a block than actually trying to improve the article. violet/riga  17:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And a resolution presents itself. The fact that this procedure is only notable because it is in humans has now been described. That is fine with me and I agree that it should be "person". The only reason I wanted it otherwise was because Jytdog was pushing for it to not have any content about mice which is where the vast majority of the research currently is. If he spent more time actually discussing things then maybe we could have arrived at this resolution literally days ago. violet/riga  17:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Per the talk page stats, I have used the talk page as much as you. You are again misrepresenting what has happened. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Littleolive oil has taken to following me around WP and arguing with me, and is heading for a one-way Iban. See interaction analyzer.Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog that's silly. If I wanted to follow you around Misplaced Pages there be a lot of crossover which there isn't. Given that I teach movement, dance, and have worked in theater, Alexander Technique for example is a place I definitely want to be if there is a concern with the content. And there are several places where other interests may crossover. Are you going to try and tell me I've followed you to TM articles. I have most certainly landed deliberately in a few places where I saw Jytdog's treatment of editors, especially new editors, which really, really bothered me. I have found myself in position of trying to smooth over hurt feelings with a sense that we are losing editors when people are treated to an aggressive editor. In truth, I try to stay away from Jytdog; he isn't pleasant, and have avoided interactions in many cases. And when I felt I have had to deal with him try to be as neutral as I can. His comment that I am arguing with him is an example of how this editors feels he owns some aspects of Misplaced Pages. I could care less about Jytdog's opinions;I care a great deal about editors who are treated to his incivility because this impacts people and Misplaced Pages as a whole. If he wants to pursue a ban of any kind; he should go ahead. I would advise against it given my experience with him.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC))

• Again, violetriga has a serious OWN problem that they can name but cannot control. I am looking for a preventative block to underline the importance of them managing this. The misrepresenting etc are issues for other boards. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I'm being rather restrained given the barrage of abuse you are giving. I don't have issues with people who properly discuss things. Your solution is to block and ban anyone who disagrees with you. It appears to me that you have a lot of history fighting fringe-pushes. For that I applaud you, but you appear too quick to label other people that way. violet/riga  18:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    • You provide no diffs of "barrage of abuse". This is just rhetoric - speech intended to persuade, with regard for truth, much less evidence as is everything else you have written here.
    • The actual diffs are clear, regardless of the words you write here. Admins will do as they will, but you should be blocked, preventatively. You are showing no signs that actually you understand that your behavior is not OK even though you were able to articulate that you have an OWN problem. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't present diffs because I don't want to spend my time looking through your edits, not because such evidence does not exist. That is supported by Littleolive oil above. violet/riga  18:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't want to be sucked into your game but it all started when you came along and tore the article apart with edit summaries like "remove crap" and "incompetent citation". You did not try to engage in discussion, you just pushed your view. That's not a good start to a collaborative editing relationship. You yourself have since shown WP:OWN. violet/riga  19:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks for making it clear, that all you are doing is making unsupported aspersions. The behavioral issues are very clear here. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
          • You would say that, just as I would say that I have found your comments and your tone to be dismissive, confrontational, and rude. My behaviour has not be ideal and I apologise for that, and you will note that I have not done anything but discuss for quite some time. violet/riga  21:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
            • • I appreciate your apology, and that you stopped edit warring while this thread is open. I have no confidence that you will not immediately recommence once this closes, just as happened after the April ANI thread was closed. You went right back to the same behavior. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
                • My actions or lack thereof have not been influenced by any of your reports but instead by discussion with (mostly other) users. As talk page discussion keeps going there are further gains being made and the article is once again looking like it has good coverage. Some of that is down to you, some is the interaction with others. violet/riga  23:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • More speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. This is the fourth example I have now of you turning into a pussycat when light is shined on your behavior at a notice board. If I have to file another one of these that pattern will be very obvious to everyone. Jytdog (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • Wow, you really have nothing better to do. I didn’t change my stance after your other reports so now you’re just making idle threats implying that you have some sort of dossier built against me. You’ve really lost your focus. violet/riga  11:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Result: No action. There is a well-structured discussion on the article talk page. If there was an actual revert war on the article, it does not seem to be continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ScepticismOfPopularisation reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 04:01, 27 May 2018
2. diff 06:19, 27 May 2018
3. diff 08:32, 27 May 2018
4. diff 09:10, 27 May 2018‎ with edit note I could tell you the exact wording right here and right now. If you are going to lie and say it isn't there when it is, I will have to revert you. Don't be paranoid and accuse others of wickedness when you haven't even really checked the source. It is there. I could tell you the exact text right here right now.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here about adding unsourced content and following BRD; here about edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here, where this person has already contibuted. In fact, he self-reverted until he puts in what consensus the discussion comes up with.

Comments:

This is an FA and ScepticismOfPopularisation has been very disruptive and come very close (and past) 3RR before as a quick scan of the article history will show you. They are not hearing that aggressive editing on a high profile FA is completely not OK. They appear to have the The Truth; that last edit note, about says it all. Jytdog (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Very well. I will revert myself for the time being (that is, until we settled this after discussing). What edit note are ypu talking about? The only reqson I reberted you is because you are incapable of checking the sources competently. Multiple times you asserted the sources don't contain something they do.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I will call admin's attention to for the time being". The intention to continue edit warring could not be more clear. Jytdog (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing flying hares will do nog good to anyone. Ajust clarified what I meant in parentheses.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I was going to start a discussion-didn't know one was already started.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

See also Talk:Origins of Christianity#Jesus' life diff for the same "intention to continue edit warring":

SInce, I "made my reverts in a series on edits; this makes it count as only two" thi sis only my third rvert, thus I did not break 3RR (which requires more than 3 reverts). Please don't revert your edit back per WP:CONSENSUS.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• This user appears to be abusing Misplaced Pages for the purposes of proselytising. A topic ban may be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

1. A tooic ban will prevent me from discussing 2. None of my edits are "proseltysing". I virtually always cite reliable soirces, most of them secular, and secular authors of course don't proseltyse.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Joshua, that edit was made when I didn't understand 3RR, amd has nothing to do with this discussioj.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We have a term for someone who will be prevented from editing by a topic ban: single-purpose account. That's usually indicative that someone's interest in Misplaced Pages is driven by a personal agenda rather than a desire to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

While much of my edits are related to a topic, they are more or less helpful, and we, of course edit what we choose. There is a reason editors don't edit in some areas and edit in others. Editing around a topic does not make one a single-purpose account. Nevertheless, I will take up the idea of spreading my range of topics.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "that edit was made when I didn't understand 3RR": you were blocked for edit-warring at origins of Christianity at 23 may. The moment that block ended, you started edit-warring again at that article, for which I warned you diff. You removed that warning, with the edit-summary "Archiving nonesense." I further responded, writing "Blanking your talkpages is not a good sign... You're lucky that you made your reverts in a series on edits; this makes it count as only two." You reverted again, after which I posted a second warning at your talkpage: "That's three..." So, I think you were already quite familiair with edit-warring, and the Wiki-policies in this regard. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Second case

Add Origins of Christianity.

ScepticismOfPopularisation prefers this version

• Two consecutive reverts:

• diff. (Removed maintenance-tags without addressing them; and broke a reference)
• diff. Removed sourced text, from source they provided themself. Edit-summary:

Broken ref. Also can't access source.

They broke the ref themselves. And they can't access a source which they provided themselves.

• diff. Removed the maintenance-tags a second time. Edit-summary:

You see, I accessed this source through a non-literary work which quotes only this quote. Either way still does not fir failed verification criteria. Also should you be aslo abel to access this yourself if you are able to cite material from the same page?

• diff. Removed the maintenance-tags a third time. Edit-summary:

Very well. Dubious is only used whn doubtimg the SOURCE's accuracy, and neither of us do. We ar eonly alllowed to sue the failed verificatiin template when we have actually checked the source-and it is inaccessible for you, and largely inaccessible for me save for this quote.

The "failed verification" tag was already replaced by a "dubious" tag, which this edit removed. The "which" tag was removed a third time.

Warning at user-talkpage: diff.

Discussion: Origins of Christianity#Dubious.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Already self-reverted. No problemo.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, You did not warn me that you felt I was edit warring, so this second case violates Misplaced Pages policy and is unfair.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You also removed sourced info, for the second time; and I warned you about removing maintenance-tags. And you've already shown that you're very well capable of counting your reverts, so don't say that "this second case violates Misplaced Pages policy and is unfair." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but I thought edit-warring is an attitude. Also, I was attmepting to adjust my edits per your requests.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, that "sourced content" has nothing to do with the edit war-the fact that you are brinigng it up suggests that you are trying to bring people into the discussion over there. Also that "sourced content", while reliably sourced, goes against Bart Ehrman and the consensus of virtually all scholars, so keeping it would go against Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I am obligaged to remove to per the guidelinesScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record: that "self-revert" is technically part of a third series of edits, but is de facto revert no. 4. It was done 15 minutes after I notified this editor of this second case here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:ScepticismOfPopularisation is warned for edit warring at Jesus. Your change has now been reverted by three different editors, which could be a sign that it does not enjoy consensus. If you restore the material again (without prior consensus on talk) you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:FloridaArmy reported by User:Exemplo347 (Result: )

Page

Samuel J. Reader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "Filled in 1 bare reference(s) with reFill ()"
2. 16:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 16:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "Edit conflict"
4. 16:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "Edit conflict"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit Conflicts */ new section"
2. 16:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor working on an incomplete article in Article space. I moved the article to Draft space, per WP:ATD. This has been reverted a number of times, editor is just ignoring the issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I may be wrong but as I understand WP:DRAFTIFY once the article creator has objected to the move to draft space (reverting is obviously objecting) the mover must move it back to mainspace and nominate for Afd. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Also I don't see the obligatory notification on FA's page. Maybe it was removed? Dom from Paris (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The notification was made correctly and @FloridaArmy: deleted it immediately here so has duely been informed of this discussion. It might be a good idea for him to come here and comment. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether that is correct or not, FloridaArmy has a poor grasp of notability and other things that arise at AfD. Hence something like 10 per cent of their creations have been deleted and more are in the pipeline. That's a lot of extra work. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I am having an issue as well. This user, who has been blocked once already for edit warring, would benefit from 1) engaging in discussions on the article talk page or user talk pages rather than edit warring and 2) be at least a little more open to listening to what is being said. (See WP:DISRUPT).–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Joining the club. This sort of behaviour has been going on for months - see here for my last comment and is one of several worrying aspects. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Me too. It's almost as though he/she is trying hard to alienate the rest of the community. I have temporarily protected the Betty Bartley article. Deb (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Example: This is the user's typical MO. Create a stub, eg. Indianola, Kansas, or Adele Lacy, with no categories, few or no references and no claim to significance. Wait until another user improves it and then make pointless little edits like this and this, just to make sure he/she has the last word.Deb (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If we're talking about other issues then I'm happy to add my two-penneth too. My main problems are the creation of non notable content and systematically !voting keep on Afd without justifying their !votes with policy and refusing to respond to questions. I don't get the feeling they really care about notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment-on notablity ONLY this AFD is the best example where I had to source by source explain to them whatsoever things is needed for notablity Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Sun_Plaza_Park. For draftification, if the author refuses, per WP:DRAFTIFY, I know that that document is not through proper RFC, just take it to AFD. I am reluctant to even do NPP on their articles given how long the AFD will be. --Quek157 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment There is now another attempt at edit warring at Rockfort (Kingston, Jamaica) discussed here, after very frustrating interference while I worked to improve the article and synch up source info to the content added to the article discussed here. There is zero attempt to listen to the points about why the photo was removed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think this needs to go to ANI for a possible community sanction. FloridaArmy habitually creates articles that positively beg for deletion, every article seems to cause drama. I think that this user should create articles in Draft space and not be permitted to move them to mainspace, instead waiting for an independent reviewer to verify that there is adequate sourcing. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll let someone else (preferably an Admin) do that, if I do it someone uninformed will just jump in and accuse me of forum shopping. Give me a ping, whoever does open an AN/I case & I'll add my thoughts. At the moment though, I'm just hoping for the sanctions that usually follow when an editor, previously blocked for edit warring, starts edit warring again. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI is too heavyhanded at this stage and the editwarring was in the case of a draftspace move which is permitted to be reverted. Agree that the articles should be started and finished out of mainspace before posting there, will speak to the editor so please wait for response before any further action, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

When you get no response from FloridaArmy, pop back here & hopefully an Admin will take the required steps. As you can see from reading the comments from other editors, this is clearly not just about my edit warring, it's happening with others too. Everyone above has tried to reason with FloridaArmy to no effect. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: do you have any idea how many people have tried to engage positively with FloridaArmy? They're not interested in collaboration. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Gulejane456 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Blocked indef )

Page

Azerbaijanis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Samad Behrangi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gulejane456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts at Azerbaijanis

1. Rv 1
2. Rv 2
3. Rv 3
4. Rv 4
5. Rv 5
6. Rv 6
7. Rv 7
8. Rv 8

Diffs of the user's reverts at Samad Behrangi

1. Rv 1
2. Rv 2

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Comments:

Clear irredentist disruptive pro-Azeri agenda. After his dozenth violation of WP:WAR and WP:BRD, he left me a note, referring to other Wiki editors as "racist Persians". Clearly WP:NOTHERE. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Support a block (indef ?) : I quote from WP:NPA what is considered as being a personal attack : "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."---Wikaviani (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Bastun reported by User:194.67.193.213 (Result: Filer blocked as a proxy)

User:Bastun has breached the 3RR by reverting 4 times in the space of five hours on the Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018194.67.193.213 (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment. WP:BOOMERANG nom (via an open proxy) from LTA warring sock. Same proxy/sock sought to avoid 3RR (on same topic) by IP/proxy hopping. Regardless, WP:3RRNO applies. (#3: "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users"). Guliolopez (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Guliolopez there are two fatal flaws in your argument. The first is that I am not a sock. This claim seems to be plucked out of thin air. I am not blocked as a sock, hence how I am able to write this. The second is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Bastun thought I was a sock while reverting me. In fact the evidence suggests he did not believe I was a sock, he has not mentioned it as of yet. However he may now use this as an excuse and pretend he did. Either way I am not blocked as a sock and he had no right to break the 3RR considering this.194.67.193.213 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Range has been hardblocked two years by SQL which was a good call because it is 95% sock edits from 2-3 different masters. 194.67.193.213, a check reveals that you are a sock. These IPs are confirmed as the same editor:

• 194.67.193.213 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 194.67.211.160 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 194.67.211.143 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Very good block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Special:Contributions/194.67.192.0/19 blocked two years by User:SQL as a proxy range. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:MontyKind reported by User:Batreeq (Result: Filer warned)

Page: Ta'wiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MontyKind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ta'wiz (only discussion)

Comments: I do not believe this will be resolved without administrator intervention.

– Batreeq 00:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I have no idea why you have taken this to the 3RR board when only 2 reversions have taken place and neither over the course of 24 hours.

Secondly, I undid your changes because they violated some core Misplaced Pages principles. In particular, WP:RS and WP:OR - this was explained on the talk page.

Thirdly, I will once again suggest discussing the material you wish to add on the articles talk page so that we can gain consensus before trying to make mass changes. MontyKind (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Nonetheless, I am willing to discuss this on the talk page of the article provided each and every one of my edits to the article are not reverted and my sources constantly criticized. I have placed a new message there. Also, please note that consensus is not required for editing. Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in edit wars § Fixed page. – Batreeq 01:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Batreeq is warned. If you continue to add badly sourced material to articles you are risking a block for disruption. Consider asking at WP:RSN if you sincerely believe this material is usable on Misplaced Pages and are not convinced by MontyKind's arguments. Your personal interpretation of the Quran is not decisive as to what is considered fact in the encyclopedia. If you have not yet read the policy at WP:Reliable sources you should do so before going further. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Alex Duilius reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: )

Page: Miss Universe 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alex Duilius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Miss Universe 2018#Kyrgyzstan

Comments:

In fairness to the reported user, I note that I too would have made the first revert, because the information was being sourced to a bulletin-board forum. But the same information began to be reported in more reliable sources over the next few days, and yet the reported user rejects all attempts to re-insert the (now properly) sourced information. There has been extended discussion on the Talk page of the article, but has succeeded in doing little more than make clear that the reported user believes all of the sources to be wrong and intends to overrule the judgment of all users who disagree (and, thus far, the material has been inserted by five different editors).

I do not seek sanctions against the reported user. Instead, I ask only that an administrator stop by the Talk page of the affected article and make clear to the reported user that WP:DRN (or some other dispute resolution procedure) is the better way to resolve this disagreement. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTICE OF REPORT was given to the user here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Bleucheeses reported by User:FlightTime Phone (Result: )

Page

Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC) to 18:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 18:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC) "not you again, FT. you can start something yourself on the talk page. read the article; also no one but you has said that."
   2. 18:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC) to 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 18:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 843345849 by Lord Bolingbroke That is the source, the link."
   2. 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 12:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 843327966 by Akhiljaxxn (talk) ok, why?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 04:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC) to 04:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 04:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has removed multiple warnings - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Rather, FT or FlightTime uses multiple accounts and tries to stir up drama. The user mentions talk pages but does not utilize them personally. Bleucheeses (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Hushoney reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: )

Page

Brahms' Lullaby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 843424172 by ClueBot NG (talk) Please, please stop reverting me! I am still working on this! It takes a while to find what I need so I am adding a piece at a time. How is anyone able to be productive here??"
2. 02:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC) "Please do not revert. I am still working on this and reverting before I am done is disruptive and slows things down."
3. 02:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC) "BTW several of these, including DFD's and Anne Sofie von Otter's are considered classic (not just classical) recordings. Please stop reverting. I am still working on this."
4. 02:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC) "Yes, these are notable classical artists and much more representative of the discography. Please do not revert without consulting an expert in this field. I am still working on this list. Please do not revert."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Brahms' Lullaby */ BRD"
2. 02:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC) "Notice of edit warring"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Removing sourced content and sources from Brahms' Lullaby that considers "not by a classical artist". Doesn't seem to be reading their talk page. Asked to stop and discuss on Hushoney's talk page without a replay Use of talk:Brahms' Lullaby seems useless. Jim1138 (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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