Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:09, 30 August 2017

• 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:97.117.16.185 / 97.117.54.205 reported by User:RexxS (Result: IP editor warned)

Page: Scuba set (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.117.16.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
97.117.54.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version before reversions:

Diffs of the user's edits/reverts:

Warnings given:

• Breaking links
• Unconstructive editing
• 3RR warning

Comments:
The first edit to Scuba set made by the IP user made around 20 changes, many minor, but one broke the link to Diving regulator#Demand valve and others in that paragraph changed the tense from past to present, despite the item described being a 1990s prototype which was only of historical interest. I restored the original paragraph with edit summary "restore previous version of one paragraph : section links are case-sensitive", and left a message on his talk page explaining: If you're making a dozen edits, then make them in batches, so that it's easier for other editors to review and correct your mistakes. The change of tense in that paragraph was unnecessary anyway.. However the IP user reverted it back, once more breaking the links. He was reverted by Pbsouthwood, but he reverted again. I restored the paragraph once more, only to be reverted by the IP yet again. In the process he has called my edits to the article and his talk page "vandalism" three times 1, 2, 3, which breaches WP:NPA.

I don't believe that this IP editor has any intention of discontinuing their edit-war against two other experienced editors in good standing, so the only way I think we can fix the damage to the article is to block this user. If they return with a different IP again, I may have to ask for semi-protection, but I'd prefer to keep the article available for other IPs to edit constructively. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, "buddy," thanks for just assuming I'm "not experienced" too just because I'm only an IP. And I wasn't trying to force my broken version back into the article. I was just using the same tactic you were using to redo the GOOD edits, which happened to redo the bad ones, which is the same irresponsible tactic you were using on me to undo the bad edits, so that you can see that you were making the mistake of ruining good, unrelated edits while fixing bad ones. So if you have no problem with my other changes (adding the needed hyphens and removing the stray quotation marks), then why do you keep reverting them along with your reversion of the broken links? How do you figure that the onus is not on you to make the repairs and then leave the edits you have no problem with alone?

And then you say, "In the process he has called my edits to the article and his talk page 'vandalism' three times." Really, you're going to be hypocritical by complaining about my having done the same thing you did by summarizing your reversions of my warnings with "rvv" ("re------vert vandalism" )?

97.117.54.205 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: This is getting messy. There's a bit of an edit dispute going on within the article, yet this IP User is being considerably troublesome, as his last Revert had an edit summary that sounded aggressive, and they have since decided to retaliate by nominating the reportee for edit-warring. It may be best to block them for this, disregard the report below, and put the article into protection for a few days so that the editors can determine whether it should use past or present tense for the information in dispute. GUtt01 (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Uh, NO, GUtt01, it's rexxs who was being troublesome. This started with his stubborn insistence that he revert some of my perfectly good edits for no good reason while trying to correct some links that I accidentally broke. Okay, fine, so I broke the links. Then he should fix only those links; not several good, unrelated edits. So my putting them back was only using the same method that he thought was so "okay" to use on me: "Uh, yeah, let's just make sure that none of this editor's edits get through even though all we're really worried about is broken links." Since when is that an okay attitude to have? Is it not his responsibility to change only the things that really should be changed, rather than reverting a bunch of unrelated stuff just for the hell of it?

And where did you get the idea that they should disregard the report below just because it came in second? Where did you get the idea that just because a report comes in second that it's "retaliation"? What are you saying: there has to be a race to who makes the report first, because if it's not first then it's "retaliation"? What kind of absurd attitude is that?

97.117.54.205 (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@97.117.54.205: First and foremost - How can RexxS be the troublesome one? You got reverted by him and two other editors, which means he's not troublesome, but you are. Even when you took it to the article's talk page, there is a clear concern from what I read, that you are reverting information back to your style, and thus not in a neutral manner, per WP:NPV. The way you responded to my comment shows me that you aren't being civil, and are giving off a hint of aggression. A reported editor doesn't make a report against the reportee at all, because it just shows that you are in dispute with someone else and acting childish because "you aren't getting your own way". Don't drag me into this, and leave this report up to an admin. GUtt01 (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I must also condone the IP for believing the warnings they received were a form of vandalism. They are not; warnings given that have no basis, may be considered as a personal attack, but the IP should not claim that, as, although they have the right to remove warnings and messages from their talk page, these were made because of their edit war they have engaged in. GUtt01 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: The IP editor is warned for edit warring using more than one IP address (See WP:SOCK). If you revert again before consensus is reached, blocks or semiprotection are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS reported by User:97.117.54.205 (Result: Filer warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

We have these two, but remember, as it says above: "edit-warring has no such strict rule" (as 3RR):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , , and .

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

And then he's being uncivil by telling me that he will report me just IF I revert my improvements back into place again (which happened to rebreak the links, but I told him he should correct the links WITHOUT reverting the unrelated material for no good reason), and even though I did NOT do that since his warning, here he is, still reporting me anyway. Why tell someone that you will just report them IF they do the thing again (implying that you won't do it if they don't), if you're just going to do the report even when they have NOT done it since the warning?

97.117.54.205 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: The filing IP is warned for using multiple IPs in an edit war per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:WikiEditCrunch reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

Page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Investment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WikiEditCrunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 20:19, 24 August 2017 (removal with no edit note)
2. diff 09:47, 25 August 2017 (removal with no edit note)
3. diff 22:41, 26 August 2017 (removal with no edit note)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, removed by them here with edit note, Uneccessary threat..Cheers.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Investment#Scope where this was agreed to by WikiEditCrunch twice (the first time before the content was added) here, and again here after their first reverts. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Investment#Major_scope_change.3F where someone else asked a process question.

Comments:

Not over 3RR but I find the agreeing but then removing-without-edit-notes tactic to be dishonest at best; the "cheers" when they removed the edit war warning notice, pointy. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And they have now misrepresented their own behavior, here, writing The reason is that we never agreed to adding it.I agreed with you on what certain things not going into the scope but did not agree to keep the scope restriction (I once said it can stay temporarily) My advise to you:Move on.There is no actual issue here that is worth disscusing mate. Cheers!. In addition to being dishonest, this misrepresents the fact that there is a dispute at all, and thwarts the DR process. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:Not this again.Here is the thing;You are actually being disruptive by adding these things to the scope.I agreed that certain things have no place in the scope, but I never agreed to your edit.

WikiProjects define their scopes and since you are not a member/participant you adding to the project scope without consent is disruptive.

I nicely asked you to revert your edit on the talk page ("We have also disscused this so it does not need to be mentioned in the scope.Could you please revert the edit?I would appreciate that.").

Also I end almost all my comments with "Cheers" as it is friendly.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You are still not threading your comments competently. argh. You appear to be unaware of how that "cheers" comes across. Both of those are not exactly relevant to this matter.

Trying to argue "members only" is invalid, and so is reverting on that basis (if that is what you are saying, and it appears to be). I am participating, so I am a "member". You tried to make that claim on the talk page as well (diff); it is not how Misplaced Pages works.

What you quote from yourself there, is not an actual disagreement to restricting the scope, and you consented to the restriction after you wrote that, in the second agreement that I provided a diff for, above. Please be aware that both you and I mistook Sphilbrick's diff in their new section on "Major Scope Change?" - they were actually objecting to your changing of the scope back on August 11, here is the diff they presented.

Again, you need to state your objection to the edit; if you don't we cannot work out the disagreement.

Edit warring without edit notes, and not stating an actual disagreement, thwarts the DR process. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And... on the talk page, still not actually stating a disagreement. diff Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:Cheers is a nice word mate.Anyway again;I did not agree to you adding your input on the scope.Here is the bottom line on the issue and my objection:

WikiProjects define their scopes.What you are doing is creating too much information.For the project to be easily navigated and successful things have to be made simple.The disagreement is that you are not allowed/supposed to add or re-add things to WikiProjects since you do not participate.

Also your edit does not improve the use of the Projects main page

You need to understand:It is time to move on.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Still not threading comments competently.

What you write above, is not relevant. You are again making the "members-only" argument, which is not valid. You also appear to be discussing the content issue here, but this board is about your edit warring behavior.

You agreed twice. You need to state your own reason for your edit. You still have not done so but have continued to revert. There is no way to work dispute resolution with this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am not going to reply here further. I think it should be clear enough to patrolling admins, that WikiEditCrunch is edit warring here. They seem unaware of the fundamentals of how we work out disagreements, and not responding directly when this is explained to them. The continued claim of "members only" is troubling Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I am still trying to understand if you are trying to help or disrupte.The members argument is part of a policy and is valid.Also you made the edits and followed to revert as well so I suppose you are edit warring.If you do not want communicate then I am not the issue here and this discussion should be closed.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A last response. No. This is a notice board where admins will evaluate your behavior, and decide what if any action to take. I have not withdrawn this thread; you are edit warring, and you are thwarting the DR process by not giving valid reasons for reverting (again, nothing in WP is "members only" - that is absolutely not policy) that we can negotiate over.

I am not writing here further, as there is no more evidence I need to provide. I gave some, and you have done the rest by what you have written here.

For patrolling admins, WikiEditCrunch appears to be referring to an outcome similar to the ANI they filed on me, which boomeranged and they withdrew. That ANI is here. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not going to take action myself as I commented in the ANI thread mentioned above, but this looks absolutely clear-cut. WikiEditCrunch is not a new user and (given the number of people who've tried to explain things) can't reasonably claim ignorance of policy; every indication given by WEC's comments here, at ANI and on talkpages (particularly WT:WikiProject Investment) is that this is someone who's misunderstood WP:IAR to mean "I can do whatever I like without consequence". ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I used the WP:IAR once.Also in this case I am following the policies, which Jytdog is not doing.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding material to a wikiproject is surely participation. I commented on WikiEditCrunch's talk page about his archiving material only a few days old at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Investment unnecessarily. His statement that "The threads were too long and it would be hard to navigate the page otherwise" wasn't satisfactory, as it's been restored and the page is now longer but still easy to naviagate. Note that in the end he agreed witih me. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring on a project page. The user continued to revert the disputed sentence from WP:WikiProject Investment that excluded individual investment opportunities after appearing to agree that specific investment opportunities should be excluded from the scope. Issues have also been raised about WikiEditCrunch being unwilling to follow normal talk page conventions and engaging in premature archiving of still-relevant threads from talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I used the WP:IAR once.That does not mean I understand the policy as "I can do whatever I like without consequence".

Also in this case I am following the policies, which Jytdog is not doing. The policy in part states:"A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project." What is lacking her in my opinion is patience, calmness and maybe moving on perhaps. I literaly just started getting this project active again and Jytdog is being extremly aggressive, demanding, unpatient and unhelpful.

If I am right he was once even blocked for disruptive editing?So he has a history with this problem perhaps.

Additionally he reverted my edits as well so he is also edit warring. It took my quite some time to revive the WikiProject Investment.Jytdog has not been helping me. I do not see why Jytdog is unable to move on.

In the AN/I I mentioned multiple occurences of being hounded.This behavour is continuing. Jytdog quite early on in the discusion said that he would also to nominate the project for deletion if I would not stating "that is what happens here"

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Legacypac (Result: declined)

Page

User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. . https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts&diff=next&oldid=797552363
2. 20:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797552363 by Legacypac (talk) you don't own the page; I di"
3. 20:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "obviously a user is allowed to delete a subpage of his user-page"
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'speedy G8?'"
   2. 19:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "←Redirected page to User:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage"
   3. 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* All drafts */"
2. 19:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* All drafts */"
3. 20:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* All drafts */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Taku is disrupting wikipedia all over the place. Pushing his own userpage that has been used to collect his notes off on another user and then edit warring to delete the redirect is beyond inappropriate. As expained to him, the redirect is necessary because the page is linked from many active discussions. I also understand we need to redirect for attribution. Only a block will stop this madness. He will never stop. And see Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a simple solution. A history merge with the other page can work. It would be like a page move. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason a user is not allowed to request a subpage of the user page? If it is the history that needs to be preserved, I can permit @Legacypac: to store the history in their user-page. -- Taku (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts&limit=500 Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Request reversion to redirect. Many pages point at the Taku page and histories point at it. Reverting/deleting breaks these links. Just annother day in the Taku disruption factory. Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That's hardly a lot of links. They could be fixed rather quickly instead of focusing on all of this fighting. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I think I fixed all the relevant links. So the problem solved? -- Taku (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No one should be modifying my posts. Period. Back to reverting this vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It's hardly the modification; I even left an old link so the change is visible. How else do you fix the links? -- Taku (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Your actions here show you are not working towards a solution and are being disruptive. Please see WP:TPO:

Disambiguating or fixing links, if the linked-to page has moved, a talk page section has been archived, the link is simply broken by a typographical error, etc. Do not change links in others' posts to go to entirely different pages.

If you have moved the page then the links need to be updated. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku moved the page and keeps trying to remove the redirect. Changing the links fundamentally changes the point of my posts which in some cases say he should keep his notes in his own userspace. His change of my posts turns them into an absurd suggestion he keep his notes in someone else's userspace. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the more ridiculous arguments I have seen on this wiki, ever. If you want them out of userspace, then keep them out and change the links. If you don't want them out, then stop your edit warring with one another, close the AN thread, and move on. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Declined — it's not a violation of the WP:3RR to revert things within your own user space, so long as the content within it isn't overtly violating anything from Misplaced Pages:User pages. Nothing should be linking to user space from article space, and while it's probably not the "nicest" thing to do, it's entirely acceptable for someone to request deletion of content in their userspace, even if others have linked to it. If you feel contribution history would be lost by a deletion or feel it needs to be collaborated upon by multiple editors without fear of deletion, I'd suggest moving the page to the Drafts namespace or adopting it into your own userspace; both are also valid for requesting undeletion. Similarly would go the solution to the suggestion that the drafts are stale; they'd be better served in the Draft namespace. I don't feel the spirit of user pages implies the ability to force someone to redirect a their userspace pages elsewhere out of convenience. --slakr 01:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

An Admin unwilling to deal with the problem Taku insists his userspace is not a good place to store his notes and he insults, degrades, attacks and denegrates anyone that touches the notes he put in draft space. A lost opportunity to deal with this circus. Legacypac (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Nihlus Kryik reported by User:Legacypac (Result: declined)

Page

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Fibration of simplicial sets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nihlus Kryik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Legacypac (talk): WP:TPO stop being disruptive. (TW)"
2. 21:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Legacypac (talk): WP:TPO Disambiguating or fixing links. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User reverted my warning on talk. Insists on modifying my posts in a way that fundimentally changes the meaning of the post. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. This user has been nothing but disruptive, unwilling to communicate, and quickly seeks to get anyone blocked who disagrees with him. Please block him. Also, I suggest you read WP:TPO before you open ridiculous threads in WP:ANEW again. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

i've communicated plenty. This user has not participated in any discussion about Taku's efforts until right here. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

How would that be relevant? You edit warred because you said a page couldn't be deleted because it had a lot of links to it (which is wrong on two levels), then I suggested you change the links if it is that big of a deal. Taku did that, then you edit warred again. So obviously you have no interest in discussing. So you should be blocked for being disruptive. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

unfortinately that is in inaccurate summary, starting with the part I'm trying to preserve is page with a necessary redirect from a page move. You, not me, suggested changing all the links. You, not me, have violated WP:TPO by changing my signed posts. Now go away please because you are making the Taku situation worse. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Now you make personal attacks by calling AGF edits vandalism. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac:@Nihlus Kryik: Okay, can you guys please take a breather and calm down here? This isn't helping, having you two arguing like this. Legacypac, you should just leave these reports alone, and let them be handled in time, because the way you are behaving isn't going to help you here. And Nihlus Kryik, I wouldn't continue replying to his responses, because you'll be just inflaming the matter if you do. You guys need to calm down, or an admin may not look favorably over this display of behaviour. GUtt01 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And you don't need to respond to every edit war report that comes through here as it's not needed. Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Note to Closing Admin: check recemt user history for more Reverts across multiple pages after filing this report and warning user. Better if my signed posts were left alone. Legacypac (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Declined @Nihlus Kryik: Please see WP:TPO; this sort of completely-avoidable disagreement is why it says "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." (emphasis added). @TakuyaMurata: I'd strongly recommend when doing things like this in the future to instead simply add an additional comment below it or at least annotate the change in some form (so that it doesn't look like like someone said something they didn't; again, see WP:TPO). Apart from all of this, I don't see a clear violation of the three-revert rule, though better behavior could have been had all around. --slakr 01:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ilirpedia reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

Greek government-debt crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "m (→‎Social effects: - World Health Organization is NOT a nationalistic ogranization. DR.K has nationalistic pov)"
2. 00:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Social effects */ - no contributions added by DR.K. and POV used by DR.K"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to 22:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 21:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Social effects */ - the crises had an impact on the social effects in greece. Also causing rising rates of depression, infant death, and HIV cases. No need to take to talkpage. Multiple sources provided. Please obey the wikipedia rules. Thanks."
   2. 22:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Social effects */ - No changes, but "Whispering" is OK to have in the article the impact on Horse Racing, and Soccer Players, but gives me BS and a hard time on effect on greek people's lives. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!!!"
4. 21:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "updated social effects and added source on the rising HIV rates in greece linked to the greek govt debt crises. thanks"
5. 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "few was not defined by World Health Organization. plus "few" greek lifes do matter and all lives matter. the social effects on slef inflicted HIV among Greeks were enough to be reported by WHO. Please stop messing up the links if you have nothing to add"
6. 20:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "part of social effects. and the source is World Health Organization. If you think WHO is irrelevant, than you shouldn't be editing here. thanks"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Nationalist-based SPA disruption. Rapid-fire edit-warring against multiple editors adding irrelevant material to article, Will not stop despite warnings. Edit-warring while this report is ongoing. Dr. K. 00:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No rapid editing, but my contributions were undone without any type of logical justification by the gang of editors of the page in question. Ilirpedia (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of bad motive by Ilirpedia, but they have technically violated 3RR. I'm working with them to try to get them to self-revert their most recent edit and then discuss on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not really sensing bad motive here either, just a new editor that needs some guidance. Whispering 01:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how familiar you are with this area of the wiki, but this is a topic infested with nationalist SPAs and socks pushing all kinds of POV. Sure indicators are usernames indicating an association with Illyria, a favourite focus of nationalist POV-pushing. Another sure indicator is loud edit summaries with exclamation marks trying to shame their opponent. Another indicator is attempting an edit which is clearly disruptive, yet somehow they can't see why other editors disagree with them. Yet another sure indicator of nationalist POV-pushing is an apparent inability to understand 3RR and a refusal to self-revert, even when they are given clear guidance and warnings about it. Still another, is calling editors who oppose them, a "gang" multiple times, including in the comment just above, and during their unblock request, this time in all capitals. Yet another indicator is rapid-fire edit-warring, indicating that they have a battleground mentality. This SPA fulfills all these criteria in spades. Dr. K. 02:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:C.Fred , User talk:Whispering and trigger happy User:Drmies- To make the record straight. DR.K accused me of having a nationalistic pov, because of my user name. I want to clarify to your excellence that my user name is based on a common name for people living in a certain area of Eastern Europe. Based on DR.K's logic/IQ level, having the name Whiteman, or Blackman should be automatically assumed that such a person is a Racist. And therefore, if your last name is Whiteman or Blackman, you should be silenced on Misplaced Pages no matter if it involves facts from the World Health Organization (part of United Nations). I might a be a new user in Misplaced Pages (two days old, inclusive of 24 hr block by trigger happy User:Drmies), but that does not mean that I can be a victim of nationalistic pov's by DR.K and his baseless assumptions that are looking for the next gullible admin ((User:Drmies do you know any?)).

I respectfully, ask you User:Drmies, to block DR.K for 24 hrs, for manipulating the facts as I described above and using his own pov where he successfully argued with you to block me based on my user name. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilirpedia (talk • contribs) 03:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

User:RFN98 reported by User:Echoedmyron (Result: Warned)

Page: Tampa Bay Rays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RFN98 (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: Warned by another user.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion created on article talk page.

Comments:

Up to this point, no edit summaries beyond "correction" by user, and warnings left on talk page have gone unanswered. Also appears to be a SPA based on contributions. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It has since been brought to my attention that the phrasing of the subject matter has been up for debate, and another editor has since come up with a compromised phrasing that suggests the editor in question was on the right track, albeit breaking 3RR in the process and doing it poorly. Just noting this. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:RFN98 is warned for 3RR violation. According to the above comments by the filer, it sounds like a compromise is within reach. As of this moment, the article lead says that the team is based in "..St. Petersburg, Florida, part of the Tampa Bay Area." I hope that will satisfy all the participants. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:1:C577:C224:7032:F1D3:1F38:E91A reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Gender dysphoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1:C577:C224:7032:F1D3:1F38:E91A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797787450 by Funcrunch (talk)"
2. 05:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797786649 by Funcrunch (talk)"
3. 05:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "No original content is contained - "typical determination" can be derived from prevalence statistics below. Reposting edit..."
4. Consecutive edits made from 04:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC) to 05:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 04:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "The citation involved in this introduction is a reference to suggestive, rather than defined evidence. Suggestive evidence belongs in a secondary paragraph where it can be used to define a point, rather than an introduction or definition."
   2. 05:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Removed suggestive/inconclusive research from prevalence paragraph (1st paragraph). Replaced summarized text with direct text from the research cited (end of first paragraph)"
   3. 05:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC) ""
   4. 05:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC) ""
   5. 05:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Simplified prevalence paragraph"
   6. 05:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */ Removed redundancy ("discontent", "emotional distress")"
   7. 05:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */ Removed definition of GD from "causes" section - redundant"
5. 04:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Editing introduction for clarity and brevity"
6. 04:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Editing introduction for clarity and brevity"
7. Consecutive edits made from 04:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC) to 04:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 04:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Does not belong in introduction - should be used as secondary support for a point"
   2. 04:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC) "Removed an incorrect statement from introduction - "transgender" is a term referring to people who have made distinctive changes in their gender expression, which does not include people at an early stage of gender dysphoria"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warning and resolution forthcoming Added. User seems to have their own definition of gender dysphoria that is at odds with the article's. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note Funcrunch's report here which I bulldozed while reverting the IP's blanking of this report. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Your report is better/more complete than mine was anyway. :-) Funcrunch (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: IP removed this EW report diff Jim1138 (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Filer warned for going over 3RR too. Ritchie333 06:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Religious Burp (Result: Page protected)

Page: The Loudest Sound Ever Heard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Loudest_Sound_Ever_Heard&oldid=788182029

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Walter Görlitz has a long history of edit-warring & sock puppeting. In March 2017, he promised to change his ways but he has not.

In the current case of The Loudest Sound Ever Heard, I have added a simple sourced quote from the band giving their perspective of the album. I am not connected to the band, I just want to flesh out the article as it is bare bones at the moment. Many Misplaced Pages articles about music projects feature quotes from the band. Walter doesn't like the quote, so he has taken it upon himself to persistently remove it.

In addition to a number of blocks Walter has received previously, he was edit-warring with me at length on The Prayer Chain page, and clearly was sock-puppeting to avoid breaking the three revert rule, though the case was unreported at the time. Again, he reverted additions to the article, for no reason except that he thought the band didn't warrant having more information written about them. Misplaced Pages is a source of information, it's why people read the articles.

This is a small example of Walter's behaviour in unnecessarily removing content. I believe it is so he can be controlling, rather than enhancing articles. He has done this to me often, which I consider bullying. As he has a habit of doing this, I believe it is negatively impacting Misplaced Pages. It is antagonistic behaviour for the sake of being antagonistic, as evidenced that he reguarly gets blocked.

Attempts to reason or compromise with Walter are in vain. He is driven by his own self-importance and antagonistic attitude. I am driven by Misplaced Pages's core purpose - to be a source of reliable & interesting information.

I propose that Walter and his IP address be banned until he can learn not to bully other users. His IP address should be banned to avoid sock-puppeting behaviour.

I also propose that he be permanently blocked from editting The Prayer Chain and The Loudest Sound Ever Heard

Religious Burp (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: Walter has again reverted changes to The Prayer Chain since I had noted his edit-warring. I am very familiar with the work of the band, Walter is not. His changes make the article less informative, and his removal of headings less easy to read. Clearly, it is another attempt to edit for the sake of edit-warring. This page really needs to be protected permanently from Walter. I would also like my page to be protected from Walter's bullying comments. Religious Burp (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• UPDATE I edited the article after Religious Burp mentioned it here. My edit was to remove short sections, copy edit and tag the article's dubious statements. I later realized that the editor reverted multiple editor's work over to his preferred version, while adding more extended quotes. This includes changes by @Arjayay: and @Metalworker14: as well as minor corrections made by a bot, an anon and @Haakonsson:, @Synthwave.94:, @Johnpacklambert: and @John of Reading:. I'll take it to the Wikiproject: Musicians to see if a neutral editor can look at it. I get the feeling Religious Burp is WP:NOTHEREI have seen battleground behaviour, forum shopping (notably this ANI and returning here rather than talking), little or no interest in working collaboratively and the personal attacks are becoming worrisome. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have not made personal attacks. Walter believes that if he doesn't get his way, this is a personal attack. Attempts to reasonably discuss articles with him are fruitless because he insists on his personal preferences, in this case removing content about a band because he doesn't like the band itself. Walter's long history of being blocked for edit-warring is evident, and this is another case in a string of incidents. I reverted a lot of long-standing grammar & spelling errors in the article that Walter reverted back a number of times, as well as adding sourced content to the article. We have to ask ourselves, is Misplaced Pages about being a source of reliable & interesting content, or a place where bullys assert themselves? I won't be pulled into attacking people & their contributions like Walter does. Adding relevant sourced content is not battleground behaviour, persisting in removing it is. I am politely trying to do that. Religious Burp (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected Full-protected for 3 days by Anarchyte. Ritchie333 12:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C5:CF01:501:253D:E9D3:E034:210B reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: No violation)

Page: London Waterloo station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:2A00:23C5:CF01:501:253D:E9D3:E034:210B (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:

Unregistered user, persistently adding unsourced content. Ritchie333 17:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• No violation – Only three reverts. What is marked as diff #4 in your list is not a revert, but is the addition of a source (finally). EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Bittertruth reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Indef)

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

Note: Bittertruth has been editing with their IP address as well - 63.250.224.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brahmin&diff=prev&oldid=797877993

2. - Quack
4. - Quack

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk page. There really doesn't need to be discussion over blanking the lede because he doesn't like it or replacing it with copy-and-pasted material from a website (material was donated its WP:RS status is questionable).

Comments:

User just doesn't get it. As it is, I think it'd fall under the "straightforward cases" clause for me to block him for a few days, but were I uninvolved I'd probably indef because the user has demonstrated that they're more concerned with their agenda than cooperation or mainstream academic sources (though as I have reverted I could see someone using to argue that I'm an abusive admin or something). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that an indef block should be considered. This is POV-pushing and abuse of multiple accounts. The IP is also getting into trouble on caste-related articles such as Kshatriya. No reliable sources for anything. Attempts at discussion are going nowhere. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ian Thomson and the gang present the Eurocentric version as the Gospel and all Indians should agree to that. If any one disagrees about his caste's representation by these experts, it is considered ignorant user behavior. I made my point very clear about my caste-Brahmin of your misrepresentation. Wikepedia has no value anyway as a bunch of people run it not knowing the diversity of India. The reasoning has to based on the European way, and references have to be British, German and American Indolgists' writings or Communist Intellectual writings. Keep your rules and your consensus wikepedia misrepresentations by sarah, david, abraham etc. Block away indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittertruth (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate facts. You are the vandal who has no respect for Brahmins and misrepresents their heritage. Are there any Brahmins on your editorial board of this great Misplaced Pages? My edits were reverted more than three times, one after the other by Sarah, twice and then Ian. Is this vandalism or not? Or is it censorship to remove my edits more than three times? Where is the content that I have added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittertruth (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You ask Are there any Brahmins on your editorial board of this great Misplaced Pages? -- That mistakenly assumes that we judge people by their ancestry instead of judging their contributions by their own merit. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support block. Disruptive edit warring of the WP:NOTHERE variety. The editor Bittertruth keeps removing sourced content and replacing it with strange 19th-century census data. The user is likely using IPs, their behavior is affecting multiple articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Per my summary above, and per the unhelpful responses given here by the editor. Often we try to explain our system so that people don't get blocked due to not knowing the ropes, but in this case it would be an impossible task. There is too wide a gap between this editor's thinking and the goals of Misplaced Pages. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Editor2020/User:Ian.thomson/User:Jytdog reported by User:Camillegweston144 (Result: )

Page: God (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Abrahamic religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Trinity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editor2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The reasoning for each reversion or edit (completely removing text) is the use of the Bible as a reliable source.

The question is: Can the Bible be used as a reliable source of information and testimony on Misplaced Pages? Can an admin please render a decision that will not be left to subjective opinions?

• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Abrahamic religions&diff=797710913&oldid=796887813
• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Christianity&diff=796809071&oldid=796733804
• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Trinity&diff=794793214&oldid=794556541

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Abrahamic religions&diff=797875916&oldid=797847116
• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Abrahamic religions&diff=797875916&oldid=797851433
• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Christianity&diff=796809071&oldid=796733804
• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Trinity&diff=797833716&oldid=794793214
• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Omnipotence&diff=793337963&oldid=791414835

Attempts at resolution and warnings:

• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:God&diff=797869961&oldid=797862789
• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User talk:Camillegweston144&diff=prev&oldid=797886320
• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User talk:Editor2020&diff=797100368&oldid=797099850
• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Omnipotence&diff=791414835&oldid=791414660
• Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User talk:Editor2020&diff=797206799&oldid=797072341

Comments: Considering the number and record speeds at which these editors have been reverting or editing my contributions over the past few days, I believe that it is time for an administrator to consider the edits in these articles. GodTalk:God Abrahamic religions Trinity Misplaced Pages:Lamest edits wars ] To be honest, I'm not really sure how to handle this because it is the same behavior happening across multiple accounts. How do I properly warn in this case? I have warned one of them and tried to discuss with another. After pointing out a bias in reverting my edits for using the Bible precisely as it is used by other editors, and successfully citing pertinent examples; now User:Theroadislong is attempting to edit those examples, too. So, other users are now dealing with this. I am concerned. It will be difficult to cover this up a personal bias in reverting my edits by removing Biblical references throughout Misplaced Pages. There are far too many. They are in every theology article about Christian theology and are these Biblical citations are being used the same way. I understand that because I am new I am learning, however, it appears that the actions of these editors are designed to essentially prohibit use of Biblical citations throughout the context of Christian theology as it is presently being used in similar circumstances. Please, advise?

 Camille G. Weston (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to handle this because it is the same behavior happening across multiple accounts - If all the traffic is coming in your direction, you're probably in the wrong lane. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I mean, you're reporting three editors who collectively have about 28 years experience on this site... Because we keep telling you that per policies we've pointed out, linked, and summarized for you, Misplaced Pages has standards of sourcing that you are not following. You might want to check Proverbs 12:15. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have brought a couple of cases here of people who believe the Bible is True and come to Misplaced Pages trying to force content into the encyclopedia based on this belief.

The OP has taken care of this on their own behalf. This person will not adapt to Misplaced Pages, where we use secondary sources.

They cannot see - nor hear - that when they write stuff like this However, a certain commonality can be referenced in the Book of Genesis among adherents to Abrahamic religions. Genesis 15:1–6 stipulates that while Abraham was still Abram and childless, the word of the Lord came to him in a vision and promised Abram multiplicity in his future descendants. they are interpreting what that bible verse says, and that in Misplaced Pages this is not OK per WP:OR.

This has been explained to them a bunch of times. No eyes to see nor ears to hear, as they say. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is too much hostility here to garner clarity or understanding. Have you actually read the Bible verses being sourced? They stipulate exactly what I stated. :) Camille G. Weston (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think everyone has been pretty clear with you here, on your talk page and on Talk:God. The bible on WP is used as primary source. As others have stated, using policy violations to justify your own policy violations isn't how things work here. PureRED | talk to me | 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not "hostility". As you noted, you are new to Misplaced Pages and like every new user, you are making mistakes, and your edits are getting rejected.

There is a learning curve here. Please open your eyes and ears so you can see and hear - then you can learn. You actually promise to learn and follow the policies and guidelines (letter and spirit) every time you edit. This is part of the Terms of Use for this website. Editing is a privilege offered to all, but when people refuse to learn, their editing privileges are restricted, usually temporarily and for a short period of time, to say "hey wake up!!", and then for longer periods, and eventually permanently in one way or another if the person really refuses to learn. The road you are choosing, is the road you are choosing. What will you do? Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Camillegweston144: You said They stipulate exactly what I stated. -- Says you. That's your interpretation. A simple work written in our own time and culture by a single author can result in a variety of interpretations, so a multi-layered work with multiple authors across diverse periods and cultures can result in countless interpretations. We only discuss interpretations that are discussed in mainstream academic secondary and tertiary sources because we don't have enough room to include what every single person thinks when they read a verse in light of their own experiences (instead of the likely experiences of the historical authors). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Really Camillegweston - please look at this -- However, a certain commonality can be referenced in the Book of Genesis among adherents to Abrahamic religions. That sentence is not in the Bible. You wrote that, based on things you think and believe about the world. That is not OK here. You need to base what you writ on what reliable, scholarly sources say (as Ian notes above), and you need to cite them.

More importantly, when you write in Misplaced Pages, what you wrote needs to come from scholarly sources. We don't write what we believe and throw a source behind it. Quite the opposite. This is a scholarly project, not a confessional one. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User: jd22292 reported by User:124.159.170.92 (Result: )

Page: Des Lynam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: jd22292 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. "Please take it to the Talk page; you've been reverted multiple times now."
2. "You are removing sourced content without explaining your actions."
3. "Stop edit warring with two IP addresses and take it to the Talk page."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no reason given by reverting user, thus not clear what they would expect from a talk page discussion. See below.

Comments:
I made a straightforward edit, explaining the motivation in the edit summary. This was reverted without any explanation a little while later. When I noticed that, I restored the edit. At this point, the user I am reporting got involved, making the first revert listed above. Their edit summary offers no reason for their actions, and instead indicates that they reverted only so that there had been more than one revert of my edit, so that they could tell me there had been more than one revert. Subsequent edit summaries offer no further insights into the reason for their actions. The second revert falsely claims that I did not explain my edit, and as "encyclopaedic" is a tiny subset of "sourced", the fact that anything is sourced is meaningless. And also untrue in this case; the material in the link given does not verify the claim made. I did not start a discussion on the talk page; if someone undoes an edit repeatedly without explaining why, there is no basis for any productive discussion. I asked the user to stop their disruptive behaviour. They reverted a third time while I was leaving the message.

The user has not broken the 3RR but is clearly editing disruptively and so I am reporting it here.124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

additional comment: I see that the user requested full page protection before offering any clear reason for their reverting. That seems like an incredibly bad faith action. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: See my attempt to discuss here. The both of us were told to discuss at the talk page by administrator Ferret, to which I have attempted to do. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment Noticed Jd22292's RFPP request for this, which I declined as reverts appeared to have stopped and discussion was occurring on Jd22292's user talk. Warned both parties involved and asked them to use the talk page. No edits to the article since, though Jd22292 has started a section at the article's talk. Note the IP also edits as 128.28.203.197. Neither editor appears to have broken 3RR directly, they are both at 3 reverts. -- ferret (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: (edit conflict) 124.159.170.92 and 128.28.203.197 are the same individual and edit warring on Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as well. Both IPs should be blocked. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think I should be blocked? 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring is a behavior and not a number. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

So because it happened that twice in a short space of time, editors reverted my work without explaining why, I should be blocked? I did have the impression that this is much more about discrimination against IP edits than anything else; you're rather confirming that. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:SOCK. Editing with multiple IPs is generally frowned upon. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No, you toed up to the 3RR line on multiple pages. No conspiracy. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: The IP and I have come to a conclusion on the article's Talk page that the content in question is to be removed as planned. Any uninvolved editor can make this reversion on the article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Just when I began to respect Jd22292 for retracting a false claim of vandalism, they come out with an absurd accusation of sockpuppetry. "The use of multiple Misplaced Pages user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry", starts the article they linked to. I do not even have one Misplaced Pages user account, let alone several. Given that I was in one place, then moved to another place, my IP address obviously changed. Who frowns on that? These personal attacks against me are really quite disgusting. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Please cut the drama. No one is personally attacking you. Nevertheless, I appreciate you going to the talk page and discussing it, so I don't think you should be blocked unless you edit war again. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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