Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:04, 27 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.

Click here to create a new report

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)

User:Altamimi579 reported by User:wikaviani (Result: Blocked)

Page: Al-Awamiyah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altamimi579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1.  : first straight revert
2.  : second straight revert
3.  : third straight revert
4.  : fourth straight revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Please note that Altamimi579 has made more disruptive edits : , and . This last edit reverted my attempt to bring back the stable version and occured after many attempts to discuss with the reported user : , , , and . The user Altamimi579 firmly declined any attempt to gain consensus : . I would welcome the eye of an admin regarding this user's behavior. Best regards.Wikaviani (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Aligulla reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Alia Bhatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 11:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 10:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "she is not british actress however she got british nationality.if she is proud of to be british not indian then she has to work in british movies."
4. 22:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 22:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alia Bhatt. (TW)"
2. 11:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "/* May 2018 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly changing the actress' nationality despite reference in article (which I also posted on their talk page), in which the actress and her father claim otherwise. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Nilkpo reported by User:Saqib (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Mary Gill (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Political career */"
2. 17:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Political career */"
3. 17:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Political career */"
4. 17:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Political career */"
5. 16:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Political career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Mary Gill (politician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clearly engaging in edit warring and writing BLPs like a news story. see the user talk page for warnings. Saqib (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I blocked Nilkpo for 24 hours. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User:108.206.145.38 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked)

Page

Template:Demi Lovato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC) to 14:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 02:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC) to 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Template:Demi Lovato. (TW)"
2. 03:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "more on reasons"
3. 19:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:Demi Lovato. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Harvardgrad8897 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocks)

Page

Gail Lese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Harvardgrad8897 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842956611 by Meters (talk) this is a factual news item with a verified third party noting Gail else’s arrrst."
2. 20:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842955090 by Meters (talk) no violation. Gail lese is a public figure. Her arrest of assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon were reported in the daily item and it has been properly sourced."
3. 20:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842955090 by Meters (talk)"
4. 20:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842945205 by Chevoitkate247 ( ]) this is from a credible newspaper “the daily item” which is part of the Essex media group publications. Gail leases arrest was published in the police log section of this daily newspaper. Gail lese is a public figure (ran for state senate) so the argument of BLPCRIME is not relevant. Users should be able to add relevant third party sourced data about a public figure."
5. 18:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842501290 by Chevoitkate247 (talk) Gail Lese is a public figure that ran for state senate. this is referenced in the article. she is also a published MD and American CEO. the arrest reference is attributed to a credible third party media outlet."|warnings=# 20:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gail Lese.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gail Lese.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:29, May 22, 2018‎ (UTC) on Talk:Gail Lese "Removed personal life, violates WP:BLPCRIME

• full thread has multiple posts

Comments:

Restoring BLP violating criminal material. Subject made one unsuccessful run for public office so is unlikely to be a public figure, thus this violates WP:BLPCRIME. Even if the subject is considered well-known, the one source does not pass WP:WELLKNOWN. The editor has made no attempt to respond to the article talk page or user talk page posts. Meters (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The source is just a police blotter report of an arrest, with no mention of any trial or conviction. Meters (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And now that this user is at AN3 a new account user:Gregtravelp is created and three minutes later restores the edit with a similar sounding summary Meters (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours to User:Harvardgrad8897 for edit warring and one week to User:Gregtravelp, an apparent sock. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 26 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:Miaow reported by User:Alolanle (Result: )

Page: Camila Cabello (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miaow (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:

User:Miaow appears to be insistent upon an edit war which I have tried to resolve. I have responded to her questions on my Talk page, her Talk page, and the Talk page of the article in question, all of which has been fruitless. The user has made several disruptive edits, undoing true and factual information I have updated the infobox of the artist whose article is in contention. The user initially claimed the issue was with a lack of sources, which I responded to. The user then stopped responding to me, and when I went ahead to update the article (with references this time) in addition to listing several more references on the article's talk page, the user came up with another arbitrary metric. The problem is the metric in question (awards shows) is incredibly arbitrary and pales in comparison to the many other sources I provided (multiple concert tours, articles from respected publications, live broadcasts on television and radio shows, multiple YouTube videos) when it comes to gauging the notability of an artist's use of an instrument.

This has resulted in the user making 4 reverts in just over 24 hours and they show no interest in resolving this. Alolanle (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation and you need to reach consensus to your edits, Alolanle.

The user left this message on my talk page, and he didn't wait my answer cause he edited the article before i replied to their. So i left my reply on the article's talk page today. I told to the user here and here why we can't add their edits and that i will restore the infobox waiting for more comments about it (until consensus is reached about their edits) but now he undid my edit again and they report me here. I don't want problems because of this.

I have lost interest in the article since the user doesn't want to wait for consensus. I will no edit their change. Best regards. --Miaow 23:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for your suggest Neil. Of course a third opinion would be good but can someone restore the previous version before edit warring? All the best and thank you. --Miaow 23:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Alolanle, you neglected to notify Miaow as you are required to do. I have done so for you. Both of you are at three reverts (consecutive edits count as one revert) so any more reverts on either side may result in blocks. I suggest asking for a WP:3O to get more input regarding tthis dispute. --NeilN 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960 reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Page protected)

Page: Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 15:18, 25 May 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 15:18, 25 May 2018 revert1.
2. Revision as of 12:24, 26 May 2018 revert2.
3. Revision as of 12:36, 26 May 2018 revert3.
4. Revision as of 12:48, 26 May 2018 revert4.
5. Revision as of 16:19, 26 May 2018 revert5 (of different content - however E-960 has reverted this tag placed by @François Robere: previously without providing a quotation - and other editors supported a quotation for it - e.g. here).
6. Revision as of 18:19, 26 May 2018 revert6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 12:49, 26 May 2018 appraised by @Slatersteven: he had broken 1RR. See AE record below on this article by this user as well.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision as of 07:21, 26 May 2018 - discussion open (quite lively).

Comments:
Article placed under 1RR due to ARBEE sactions by @NeilN: here. Disputed content (in reverts 1,2,3,4,6) is a rather broad generalization regarding Jews based on initially a collection of blog posts, and now brief coverage in a couple of low impact journals - content has been objected to by multiple editors, and ONUS has not been met for inclusion - it also misrepresents sources such as they are (interestingly, E-960 has admitted lack of coverage of this "taboo" subject - ). User previously had 1RR issues on the article and let off with a warning - here and a voluntary restriction here. User indicates 1RR awareness in this edit summary, in this article talk page message, and several times here. User has also made comments directed (NPA/ASPERSIONS) at other editors, e.g.: . To summarize - multiple 1RR violations, and reverts 4,5,6 all violate 3RR (revert6 being the 5th revert in 24Hrs, 4,5 4th reverts)Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

RE comments below - I will note, the most of the reverts above were not of my edits, but rather of @Slatersteven:, and @François Robere:. The two AE filings vs. E-960 (links above) indeed did not conclude with a sanction (beyond a voluntary restriction) - however in both cases there was a violation of the technical rule ending with: "E-960 needs to be more careful when reverting" (after another editor said he undid some of E-960's edits by mistake and E-960 corrected that mistake), and "E-960 will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours". I chose to file here and not in AE as this will probably be examined by NeilN, and because this is a straightforward edit warring report (and in hindsight, possibly the two prior reports should've been filed here). As for consensus, the interpretation of consensus below by E-960 is not inline with the English Misplaced Pages's policy (in some foreign language wikis there is a "stable version" (not that there is clear there is one here) - but that is not English Misplaced Pages policy) - and there is no consensus on the talk page to include this sweeping generalization in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As for the hagiography comment, the full sentence was - In this case the text inserted is making a sweeping generalization, with hagiagraphical depictions of Polish suffering based on cherrypicked incidents from low impact, and mainly ignored, publications - a comment on the text. I do, of course, recognize the Polish losses during WWII - I was commenting on a particular piece of text inserted into Misplaced Pages.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by e-960:
This topic is currently under DISSCUSSION on the article TALK PAGE: Non-RS. The reverts that user Icewhiz listed were of changes which were made WITHOUT gaining a prior CONSENSUS, while the discussion was still in progress, and thus reverted (pls see the Edit Summary of each revert). The rules clearly state in the Active Arbitration Reminder notice placed in the article that: With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.

Also, user Icewhiz's behavior can be interpreted as Misplaced Pages:Forum shop. In the past 3 weeks, user Icewhiz filed two 'Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement' reports against myself , and GizzyCatBella , both of which were DISMISSED as lacking merit and did not result in an action. Now, using the same questionable approach, user Icewhiz has moved on to the 'Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring' filing more reports alleging misconduct by other editors. Pls notice this example which illustrates exactly what user Icewhiz is doing — he states in the original complaint: "E-960 has reverted this tag placed by François Robere previously without providing a quotation - and other editors supported a quotation", but please notice that the tag NEVER ASKED for a quotation, it stated: . So, after VERIFYING the source, I placed a note in the Edit Summary that this information was located on page 140. Again, the tag never asked for a quote (there are tags that specifically ask for that , however this was not one of them), but user Icewhiz in a manipulative way is trying to mischaracterize what the tag placed by François Robere actually asked for. Another good example is revert1 that was listed by user Icewhiz, which simply restored longstanding text (with reference sources) that was removed by user François Robere, and per rules stated above that's not a violation of anything. As for the alleged 1RR violation made by me regarding user Slatersteven, pls notice the actual FULL CHRONOLOGY of the edits: first here user Slatersteven changed the text with out consensus , and here I reverted those changes as they were not agreed to on the talk page , then again here user Slatersteven restored his original edit . Yet, user Icewhiz is alleging that I broke the 1RR rule? So, I would request that maybe the ADMINS who were involved in the past (NeilN, Bishonen and Sandstein) are brought in to assess this situation and help out with sorting of facts, as they may be already familiar the specific nuances involved.

Finally, I would like to raise this point, and bring to everyone's attention that user Icewhiz's comments can and do at times come across as anti-Polish. Just today, to disparage some of the content that was being discussed user Icewhiz made this statement: "hagiagraphical depictions of Polish suffering". I find it extremely TROUBLING when such comments are made during a discussion on the Holocaust. --E-960 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by GizzyCatBella

• Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reported here GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Page protected Looking at the history, if E-960 is blocked then at least one other editor needs to be blocked as well. As the current restrictions don't seem to be working, I will be implementing the dreaded "consensus required" restriction. NeilN 23:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

How is it any different from this? Why did you got with a page block here, but a personal sanction there? François Robere (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: I wasn't the admin who blocked you. --NeilN 12:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Yourmistake reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: Blocked indef)

Pages

Parvatii Nair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Neerali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by JJMC89 (talk) to last revision by Yourmistake. (TW)"
2. 20:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Let There Be Sunshine (talk) to last revision by Yourmistake. (TW)"
3. 19:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Let There Be Sunshine (talk) to last revision by Yourmistake. (TW)"
4. 19:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Let There Be Sunshine (talk): Adding unsourced . (TW)"

1. 20:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Let There Be Sunshine (talk) to last revision by Yourmistake. (TW)"
2. 19:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Let There Be Sunshine: Cast order was mohanlal,parvati,nadiya etc,,, why did you change it? latest trailers n posters clearly shows the cast order why did you changing it then? pls give a solution. (TW)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC) to 19:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Let There Be Sunshine (talk): Pls explain why did you change official poster and credit list? (TW)"
   2. 19:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC) "OFFICIAL THEATRE POSTER OLD VERSION"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Parvatii Nair.

Comments:

For administrators, this user is the newest sockpuppet of User:Abhinand1234, a hardcore Parvatii Nair fan. The user is now edit warring with me to place the actress's name on top of Neerali cast order, also removed mass content (all dreadful films from her filmography table) from her article. The former socks were blocked after struggling to remove the same (a discussion can be seen here, his then sockpuppet was Calicutspecialist) as well as for other edits regarding the actress. Calicutspecialist is suspected of maintaining COI with actress (again see that discussion), and here Yourmistake also almost admits that he maintains COI. This person has this trait of requesting full protection for pages while edit warring, right after making a blind revert or a problematic edit (so that his version stays if fully protected): Abhinand1234 - diff, diff, full; Calicutspecialist - diff, full. Yourmistake does the same thing (multiple times) - diff, diff, full; diff, full; diff, full; diff, full (current). The user just wants to promote the actress, and takes whatever it costs, even making a fool of himself . I can file a more detailed SPI if necessary.--Let There Be Sunshine 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely NeilN 22:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:112.200.72.225 reported by User:JustBerry (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page

List of terrorist incidents in April 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 00:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 14:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 14:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 13:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 10:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 10:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by Ohnoitsjamie NeilN 03:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

User:70.240.153.210 reported by User:Billhpike (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page

Briarcrest Christian School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "/* =History */false references and inaccuracies in text"
2. 03:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "fixed number of campuses"
3. 03:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "/* History */deleted inaccurate text"
4. 02:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "no longer active"
5. 02:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "No longer active"
6. Consecutive edits made from 01:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC) to 02:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 01:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "added content"
   2. 01:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
   3. 02:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "There is a person who is putting false and vulgar information on this page. Requesting for this page to be deleted."
7. Consecutive edits made from 00:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC) to 00:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 00:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "took out outdated and false information."
   2. 00:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "took out outdated and inaccurate information."
   3. 00:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "All references are inaccurate and totally made up."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Briarcrest Christian School. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by TonyBallioni NeilN 03:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

And this new tread is really incredible.First claimimg that Porter states

this belief in bodily resurrection was at odds with the both the pagan and Jewish customs of that time, thus marking Christians off from all their contemporaries.

And then, when it turns out that Porter actuallu argues for Greek influences on Jewish thought and Christianity; and refers to three cults from the Graeco-Roman world which propgated a beleif in resurrection; then to start arguing that

...we cannot use Porter to support the connection between pagan cultic connections to the resurrection-which is not something consensual scholars like Bart Ehrman would agree with.

First make a big fuss, cherrypicking quotes from an undisclosed source and edit-warring, and then, when the real source turns out to be opposite one's own opinions, starting to question the use of this source. WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:55, 27 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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