Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Apokryltaros (talk | contribs) at 21:02, 10 December 2017 (→User:Falconfly reported by User:IJReid (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:02, 10 December 2017 by Apokryltaros (talk | contribs) (→User:Falconfly reported by User:IJReid (Result: ))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:YenWitch reported by User:Vathlu (Result: Both blocked)

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:

This user has a very biased point of view and keeps removing whatever he simply doesn't like on both Persian and English Misplaced Pages, all my previous attempts to resolve the problem seems to be useless, so I simply ask to ban this user specially since he has been banned once before, for 24 hours. vathlu (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – 48 hours. Each person has a prior block in November. In general this article suffers from inadequate referencing. But if you want to add a new item you should be sure it is verifiable. I don't know how to justify inclusion of Esteghlal F.C. in this Star (football badge) article. This needs people to wait for the outcome of a proper discussion. All I can tell is that the logo on the team page includes two stars. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:slatersteven (Result: blocked 1 week)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

with added PA.
, with added PA.

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

Given the number of times this user has reported others here this week he is well aware of the 3rr rule. But another informed him he had broken 3rr on the article talk page AS user had asked him to self revert as he had broken 3rr ].

To be fair Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Also made a few "unhelpful" comments. That does not excuse edit warring when a simple (and polite) explanation might have solved the issue from DS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If he's going to call me a vandal then he's going to get reverted. I do not appreciate being constantly attacked on that talk page, any reason in particular you aint reported Pincrete? And why bother filing this at all?

I'm not editing the page and ain't for over twelve hours, any block now is just punitive Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not reported you for PA violations, I just mentioned them (as I did Pincrete's). And no calling you a vandal is not a reason to breach 3RR (and the fact you do not seem to get that indicates this may be an ongoing issue with attitude). It would have been a reason to have explained calmly and polity why he was wrong in his assertion you misquoted a source (which it can be argued it did, his edit with more accuracy reflected what the source in fact said, and I find it odd you edit warred over one word that is in the source, but you wished to exclude.).

This ] also implies you do not take the edit warring policy as seriously as you might.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been recently informed by email that Darkness Shines is under a sanction requiring him to refrain from personal attacks and incivility (per this diff ). His talk page conduct should also be examined. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That's expired, 12 months is the maximum for arbitration blocks. Who e-mailed you Darkness Shines (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I also was informed of this by e-mail, and do not see the relevance to his edit warring here. I am also concerned this may be seen as canvasing. If there are issues with PA's they should be reported at the notice board of incidents, but as we have this running doing so is forum shopping. I therefor ask that no more discussion is had here about this matter.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh, my bad. I always assume the best of strangers. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And who emailed you then? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to start an ANI or other report I will provide the information, but this is about your edit warring. Not anyone elses actions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't start an ANI without knowing who is emailing you, the edit warring is over, I'd had a few drinks and lost my temper job done. So please tell me is mailing people Darkness Shines (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you lose your temper per when they were correct, and the source makes it clear it was a fringe events? Maybe you should not edit when you have "had a few drinks".Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I lost it over all the pointy tags being added, who mailed you Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It was not a pointy tag, and you did not only remove the tag (and frankly your statement about "pointy tags" tells me you may well do it again). I think we can now wait to see what the outcome of this is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Who e-mailed you Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

When this is resolved we can discuss any other issues you may be involved with. I want there to be no possibly of a suspicion of forum shopping (and given this would involve any sanctions you may have been accused of breaching that ism a possibility)Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This is resolved, I'm not edit warring, hence no on going disruption. And regardless of any impending block, I want to know who is canvassing and looking to get me blocked over a two year old sanction, so who mailed you Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked 1 week, not so much for the edit warring as for the incivility in the edit summaries and the badgering here. In his unblock conditions in May 2017, there was an agreement to "remain civil when communicating with other users", and unlike the other clause, which may have expired by now, there was no limit here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved, therefore I will try not add to the agony. If my input is required please ping. I'm sorry if my edits were 'unhelpful', but I don't take very kindly to being called a 'twat' or an 'ejit' (synonyms of 'cunt' and 'idiot' in UK and Irish vernacular). I stand by my claim that to knowingly restore and defend factually inaccurate info about BLPs is grossly unacceptable, even if it isn't technically 'vandalism' and I was also referring to other instances in the related talk. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean to grave dance, and I hope I am not interpreted as doing so. I just know this person could absolutely be a good and valued editor here. The trend, however, is not good. I certainly hope they can see the wisdom of presenting their opinions in a forceful but collegial manner. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User:JMichael22 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Withdrawn)

User being reported: JMichael22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: – edition before edit warring, displaying Ledyard as the top-level location of Foxwoods Resort Casino

Diffs of the user's reverts:

– reverted to Mashantucket, within Ledyard
– same
– same
– same

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:JMichael22 has an issue with the location of a venue, an element forming part of MOS:BOXING, which has been in place for about two years. Despite being reverted by two editors, he continues to misunderstand WP:CCC—according to him, others are in the wrong for disputing his edits, and he feels that his version of the article should stay before any discussion/resolution has taken place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Boxing, which is presumptuous. He should've sought consensus first, on a change which could affect hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. He has indeed done so now, just as I was typing this, but let it be known that the edit warring came first, and his version of the article is the one currently up.

Unfortunately, over the past few years I've found it very difficult to discuss anything with him, as he tends to adopt a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WINNER mentality, rather than trying to understand others' viewpoints (per "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to 'win' a content dispute.") Apparently I "haven't provided anything but a statement that has been defeated", so he's already declared my stance invalid—in his view, he's "won" the argument. Granted, this is a content issue, but he made it an WP:EW one before that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to make clear some reverts were done after I provided sources to Mac Dreamstate regarding the topic of the disagreement. I provided the proper sources to my claims regarding the location of the Foxwoods Resort Casino and would also like to make clear he made 0 attempts at providing a source for his disputing claims that he made towards the location of the Foxwoods Resort Casino. As well he just continued to revert without any evidence to support the information he was placing on the Roy Jones Jr. Page JMichael22 (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"e made 0 attempts at providing a source" – This is a flat-out lie. On your talk page I linked to the official Foxwoods site, which gives Ledyard as an address alongside Mashantucket (line six, "Ledyard CT"). Rather than discuss that, you reverted for a fourth time. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mac Dreamstate How Many reverts did you perform? I provided sources as you continued to revert my edit I provided multiple multiple multiple sources while you did not and okay after I provided a few you finally provided one. Please don't make it seem like this was just my doing I made a simple edit you reverted and I addressed you on your talk page before reverting back to my previous edit and before you reported the situation I placed more sources on the Wiki Boxing talk page. JMichael22 (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So it's your four reverts to my three—your version remaining without a Project-wide consensus. You're getting awfully nitpicky about who reverted whom first, and that's including another editor whom you also reverted despite their invitation to start a talk page discussion, which you ignored. It's all good and well piping up with the "See, see, look, I did what you asked!" excuse, but the edit warring before that is what we're here for. And again, how can I discuss anything with someone who declares my viewpoint as "a statement that has been defeated", when I hadn't even had a chance to provide my sources yet? You squandered your chances of a proper discussion with that one. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mac Dreamstate the defeated statement I was referring to was the "Mashantucket is in the town of Ledyard; same as Brooklyn is in NYC, etc." I see Brooklyn still on pages not NYC and I provided the multiple sources I did my research and all I've done was want a page to have the proper information. And where did I state I was a winner? Never claimed I won anything I did what we're supposed to do I provided the evidence to support my edits you reverted without doing so. You performed three reverts without Project-wide consensus as well I'd like to add it wasn't just myself and I did end up taking it to the talk page along with my sources you chose to revert without sources and without Project-wide consensus if this is called anything it's a double fault mine for my reverting and my taking to long to bring it to a consensus on the matter and yours for reverting without providing any evidence to support the reverts and not bringing it to a consensus JMichael22 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Request rescinded, as we have mutually decided to move discussion to WP:DRN. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: Marking this request as withdrawn. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:Areaseven (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

04:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)‎ "revert, everything in cast section is a repeat of what is in the body of the article, it is duplicated to find quickly"
17:20, 4 December 2017‎ (UTC) "Eggsy's girlfriend see talk page"
14:27, 5 December 2017‎ (UTC) "restore for RFC, see talk page"
05:38, 9 December 2017‎ (UTC) "restore Eggsy's girlfriend current RFC, please wait for RFC to be officially closed and consensus determined"
06:02, 9 December 2017‎ (UTC) "please let the active rfc complete ... thank you"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

07:48, 9 December 2017‎ (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User in question insists that a single character needs to be listed as the main protagonist's girlfriend, despite the fact that: 1) No other character in the article is given a description; and 2) The film article has a separate characters list with concise descriptions. Even his explanation in the article's talk page holds no water, as he tries to argue about one character being credited as "Chief of Staff" (which is officially in the end credits).

In addition, the user has a long history of being blocked for numerous reasons, including edit warring. - Areaseven (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

User:77.179.78.253 etc., reported by User:SMcCandlish (Result: No action)

Rather than open up a redundant ANEW form, I'll just point to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Moscow metro - WP:RMT logic, where the issue has been documented; I've asked for a short-term range block on the basis of tendentious editwarring, attempts to derail an ongoing RfC, RM disruption, and at least 4 WP:ASPERSIONS incidents, all in rapidfire succession and after repeated warnings. User is IP-address hopping every few minutes (not necessarily with evasive intent), but within a limited number of IP address ranges. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ< 07:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Editor has done at least 5 reverts at same page, 4 to the same material, after 3RR warnings and after a block was recommended at ANI. This is just pure "you can't stop me" defiance. Editor is IP hopping so fast, it's not practical not notify any further, but anon opened the ANI personally and just commented in it, so is aware. This ANEW note will also be mentioned in the same ANI thread. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ< 09:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: No action. The thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Moscow metro - WP:RMT logic is now closed and there doesn't seem to be anything reasonable for AN3 to do. The content issue is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Russian railway line article titles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Hmm, so anyone who wants to breach 3RR – after warnings and when being reverted by multiple other editors for being disruptive – is free to do so as long as they're logged out and use multiple IP addresses while making no attempt to disguise the fact that it's all the same person? I don't think this is the message to send. PS: The ANI thread was closed by one of the parties to the dispute not by a neutral observer. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ< 05:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  PPS: The anon is now explicitly masquerading as multiple editors, so there is also a WP:SPI open, here. It's strange to me that it's taking three noticeboards to deal with a disruptive anon whose antics should have been addressed yesterday after the first line was crossed. Does this person have to violate every policy we have, in series like a checklist, before anything's done about it? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ< 06:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  Update: Anon just made a legal threat, in claiming to have been libeled . It's absurd since the party has neither been libeled nor is even identifiable, but it's illustrative of the WP:CIR, WP:DE, WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE problem here, especially given that the entire point of the post is WP:SANCTIONGAMING to evade proof of casting aspersions at other editors by casting more aspersions and claiming to be the victim simultaneously, which isn't even rational. This needs to stop. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ< 06:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Heydan Seegil reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Blocked)

Page: Guitar harmonics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Heydan Seegil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

19:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Advanced techniques */"
18:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Siegel Harmonics */"
17:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Advanced techniques */"
22:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Advanced techniques */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Original research and verifiability */ cmt"
17:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Original research and verifiability */ cmt"
18:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Original research and verifiability */"
18:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Original research and verifiability */ more"
19:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Original research and verifiability */ time for anew unfortunately"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

22:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Siegel Harmonic */ new section"
18:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Siegel Harmonic */"

Comments:

This is an editor with a conflict of interest who isn't dropping the WP:STICK and has put his fingers in his ears. He isn't listening to my concerns nor that of Just plain Bill, and he has broken the three-revert rule. !dave 19:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added diffs of attempts at resolution on the article talk page. As of the time of this edit, he has not responded there, despite repeated requests on his user talk page. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours and warned against use of Misplaced Pages to promote a personal project/agenda. Acroterion (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ccawblake reported by User:FlightTime (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

23:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814620941 by FlightTime (talk)"
22:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC) ""
22:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC) ""
22:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on John Travolta. (Using Twinkle"
23:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "/* John Travolta */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

17:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Notable work

Comments:

User:Karl.i.biased reported by User:C.Fred (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
Karl.i.biased, a new user, has been engaging in an edit war with ToonLucas22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at this article over whether to mention Urban Dictionary in the article. Karl has added it repeatedly; TL has removed it. Although discussion has taken place at their respective user talk pages, the edit warring on the article continued. After Karl reverted a third time, I issued a standard-template 3RR warning. (TL is a veteran user, so on his third revert, I left a non-templated message.)

After Karl reverted a fourth time, I invited him to self-revert to avoid the bright-line violation. His response, in which he says, among other things, "The other user was wrong" is what led me to file this report.

I'm filing this report because I feel too involved to take direct action on this user, due to edits earlier today at Kelly Marie Tran. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I am way too lazy to explain my position here for the third time. If any of the admins check this - they should probably look at the talk page of the article in question and at the my talk page too. But in short, I admit breaking the 3-reverts rule, but that's because the user TL's reversions are errouneous. He argued that mentions of urban dictionary should be removed because they are not sourced by secondary sources, but they were. P.S. User C.Fred also makes the same mistake as user TL did. I did not add the mention of urban dictionary. MY only additions were to the article's Categories and See also pages. The mention of urban dictionary was added by the article's original creator more than 6 months ago. I also didn't engage in edit warring in any other pages. I think my contributions (with the possible exemption of wikileaks edit) were good, and you should check my contributions.

P.S. As for Kelly Marie Tran I stopped my reverts after the second one after I realized my mistake after you explained your position in the edit summary Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

P.P.S. I also start to think that the other user might be a troll. In his explanation for his reversions he based them on the fact that I added the mention and the link to the urban dictionary. Which I didn't. As : I said I basically didn't write this article, my only contributions were on categories and see also parts of the article. So I explained to him on the article's talk page that I didn't add neither the info nor the links to either urban dictionary or the german newspaper. And in replying to that post of mine that user writes this: >Also, the only reason Misplaced Pages mentions it being on UD is because you added it yourself.

I mean, is he trolling? Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I debated a longer block due to the trolling accusation above, but I'm sticking to 24 hours. No, you can't edit-war because you think you're right, and calling editors who disagree with you trolls is unacceptable. User-generated content like UD is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Karl.i.biased: The essence of the edit warring policy and the three-revert rule is that it does not matter whether you are right. Oftentimes, avoiding an edit war means leaving the article in a state you think is wrong until it can be corrected through discussion-based dispute resolution. The reason why this policy exists is because the definition of a content dispute is precisely that different editors disagree on what is "right" and "wrong". It also does not matter whether you originally added the content or not; as long as you engage in reverts, you are edit warring. Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:HighlyReferenced reported by User:Beauty School Dropout (Result: Blocked)

This is the user HighlyReferenced (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). I reverted one of their edits and then stepped away because it was clear there was an active edit war going on between them and another user, ThatThat92 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. And I am going to post this message and then re-edit immediately after I figure out the procedure for alerting HighlyReferenced that I am talking about them in an admin forum. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

An alert notice has been placed on the user's talk page. Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies to all if I'm responding to this incorrectly, but I was actually undoing repeated vandalism. As a new user not familiar with everything about Misplaced Pages, I thought this person was the same guest who had engaged in repeated vandalism. The user then sent me a rude message beginning with "Are you effing serious?". I sent a reply in response to that, and this user appears to be deliberately misusing the Administrator's noticeboard because the user didn't like my reply. As it happens, the original user who vandalised the page appears to have stopped after I figured out how to send them a message on their talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighlyReferenced (talk • contribs) 05:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually you were the one who reverted what appeared to be a legitimate edit by ThatThat92 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). Your edit on the topic in question contains uncited and possibly questionable information regarding Transmisogyny being a fake word. Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In actual fact I reverted vandalism. My edit contained THREE citations, references to reliable sources. It is not appropriate to invent a word and then undo someone's edit showing that it is invented. If it were appropriate, then it would be absolutely fine, rather than ridiculous, for me to make a Misplaced Pages article about "cobblerphobia" and claim it refers to fear of Cobbler, or to make articles about any number of made up words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighlyReferenced (talk • contribs) 05:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the legitimacy of the subject having its own Misplaced Pages page, the place to take up that discussion is on the Talk:Transmisogyny page of Transmisogyny, not on the actual subject's Misplaced Pages page. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And I apologize for referring to the user in question as a "clown." Thank you Admin for redacting that statement. I should have kept the word in my head and off the Misplaced Pages page. Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: Yes, in addition please follow the instructions on the top of this page when filing an report next time. Thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I will. I didn't realize there was an actual template to use until right now. Thank you again! And I absolutely promise to be more grown-up in my own responses to other people in the future. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:174.213.0.141 reported by User:Cnzx (Result: )

Page: English v. Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.213.0.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

05:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814668084 by Cnzx (talk) The emergency TRO was denied. There was nothing in my previous edit that was innaccurate. Stop vandalizing this page."
04:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814665637 by Cnzx (talk) I will change my previous edit to reflect the fact that the case is active again after the recent filing for the preliminary injunction. Do not revert."
04:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814629975 by Cnzx (talk) I've provided reputable sources for all of my edits. Stop vandalizing this page because the facts don't suit your agenda."
07:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814449231 by Cnzx (talk) persistent vandalism. Facts don't care about your feelings."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

22:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has violated 3RR with the above linked edits.

Insists upon adding blatantly incorrect information, even after asked to stop or explain his behavior . Always responds with some variant of "I'm right you're wrong" without elaboration and a sometimes including a personal attack: "Facts don't care about your feelings", "Stop vandalizing this page because the facts don't suit your agenda", "my edits are factual".

Presumably for the purpose of evading some scrutiny, the user uses strawmen as justification in edit summaries, for instance: "The emergency TRO was denied. There was nothing in my previous edit that was innaccurate"; when in reality the page that he himself reverted included "On November 28, Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the plaintiff's request for an emergency temporary restraining order."

It should be noted that there is an ongoing investigation concerning sockpuppetry for this user (with the suspected sockpuppeteer being 174.212.2.200). However, even if we assume that there has been no sockpuppetry (a scenario that is unlikely), counting this IP's edits alone still break 3RR, which is sufficient for a block. Dispute moved here, since editor openly acknowledges that they control both IPs

The user has also been warned on other occasions as well, including the other account:

—cnzx (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The all important question is, why do you keep reverting factual edits? The case was dead until the request for an injunction was filed. This is a fact. You claimed "oral arguments haven't even been heard yet" proving that you didn't understand that the decision not to grant the emergency TRO was final and not appealable. You were told that that decision was final but a request for an injunction could be filed, and that injunction could be appealed if denied. That request for an injunction was filed, and the page was updated accordingly. For some reason you do not want the new information about the case to be present on the page. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.213.0.141 (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time you've articulated anything that substantive about this issue; in the past you've chosen to ignore my questions, even when prompted, and just continue edit warring. Let me repeat what I've already said on your talk page and in edit summaries, this time using different words and quotes, in the hopes that it will make sense:

The case was dead until the request for an injunction was filed. This is not how cases work. All federal cases end with either a dismissal or a judgement. Neither happened here, so the case was never "dead" and therefore it's nonsensical to claim it was "reopened". The docket is ongoing (I've pointed this out to you before).
the decision not to grant the emergency TRO was final and not appealable Yeah, that's what an emergency TRO is by definition, see WP:BLUE.
You were told that that decision was final but a request for an injunction could be filed, and that injunction could be appealed if denied Yes, this is true in all federal civil lawsuits (rule 65 FRCP, and the guidance of most individual courts). There is absolutely no reason why it should be explicitly stated in this article, or it would be needed on almost every other civil suit in US History. Are we going to add a "btw, this case's injunction could've been appealed, but only if it wasn't an emergency TRO" to the lead of Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, and Baker v. Carr?
That request for an injunction was filed, and the page was updated accordingly This is legitimate. I reverted your changes here because of the way you stated it in past/present context, and because it seemed you were trying to sneak a bunch of other incorrect information (above) under the guise of an "update" to this fact.

Regardless, you've broken 3RR. I want to point out I've tried to reach out to you previously but it you just ignored it or responded with ad hominems, and continued editwarring incorrect information back onto the article. If you're still interested in being constructive, then let's go to Talk:English v. Trump or one of our talk pages, where we can hash everything out. —cnzx (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister reported by User:Northamerica1000 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

diff (Edit summary: "Invalid given publications") – The article still did not have a claim of significance, so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
diff (Edit summary: "Anyone except the author can contest the speedy and I have. Do not restore") – The article still lacked a valid claim of significance, so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
diff (Edit summary: "Enough now: " creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may") – I did not create this page, and the article still had no valid claim of significance
diff (Edit summary: "Anyone including me can contest this, do not restore.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: – diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – The user has stated more than once in the past that they do not want to communicate with me (example diff), so it's futile to attempt to do so. I have tried many times, leaving messages on talk pages to discuss matters when disagreements occur, but a response is never provided. Messages regarding the matter above were provided by me in edit summaries.

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

diff (Edit summary: "Invalid given age of subject") – The article still did not have a claim of significance, and the age of a subject does not exempt speedy deletion nominations so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
diff (Edit summary: "Do not restore once an uninvolved user has contested it, basic WP:CSD") – The article still lacked a valid claim of significance, and this is not a WP:CSD policy, so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
diff (Edit summary: " creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it." – Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may") – I did not create this page, and the article still had no valid claim of significance
diff (Edit summary: "Enough, this is disruptive vandalism. Anyone can contest the page and I did now. Do not restore.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: – diff

Comments:
The user has violated WP:3RR and is casting aspersions against me in edit summaries, and all the while did nothing to actually add a valid claim of significance to the article to disqualify the speedy deletion nomination. North America 17:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment--Na1000, you seem to have been horribly wrong.And, the sole way out looks like a possible boomerang.Damn anybody save the creator can remove CSD tags.Winged Blades 17:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Winged Blades 17:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware about policy regarding removal of CSD tags, and that anyone except the creator can remove them. This report is about edit warring performed by the reported user. It was proper to restore the WP:A7 sd tags, because both the articles still lacked a valid claim of significance. CSD tags are not like the one-time-use Prod templates, and can be restored, particularly when an article still qualifies for speedy deletion despite the tag being removed. For example, if an article had copyvio and was tagged speedy for this, and then the tag was removed without any changes being made, it would be appropriate to restore the tag. It's the same case here: both articles entirely lacked even the simplest of statements asserting importance of the subjects. If such assertions were added, I would have gladly withdrew the speedy nominations, but this did not occur. This is certainly not "horribly wrong". Furthermore, I have not engaged in violating WP:3RR, but the user who continued to revert did. You seem very eager to blame me for some reason, even adding bold to your comment above stating that I am "wrong", but I have violated no policies, and you have provided no analysis of the actual report above. North America 17:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It was always my understanding that if you added a CSD tag and someone else removed it; that's that- you certainly don't edit war over it so ST's view is understandable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not a policy at WP:CSD. This only applies toward WP:PRODs. See my rationale above regarding template restoration when the article still fully qualifies for deletion. This is not edit warring. Violating WP:3RR and knee-jerk reversions is edit warring (e.g. making up their own CSD criteria that does not exist at WP:CSD ; asserting multiple times, which occurred in edit summaries for both articles that I was the creator of the articles, when I was not). The user did not even bother to actually research who the creator of the respective articles was, instead just writing some arbitrary information and pressing the revert button. North America 18:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

CSDs are only meant for those cases which are uncontroversial to everybody but the article creator.That's the founding principles except in a few cases like G12. And my eagerness was a reflection of a tremendous surprise to see an editor who is pretty visible in the deletion arena, edit warring over a subjective CSD tag!And by the way, af no point of time, he was asserting that you were the creator.I mean given that he wad the tag-remover, why shall he ever do so?!He straight-quoted the policy because you choose to revert a CSD removal by a non-creator (which is an abnormal occurence) and probably thought that either you had missed the part where anybody but the creator can revert a tagging or that you have thought him to be the creator.I would have done the same things had I been in his place.Whilst I heavily dislike SisTwister's inabilty/apathy to communicate via t/p and have criticized him on numerous occasions, this is not such a case by a mile. Winged Blades 18:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I think both users are ripe for a 24 hour block. SwisterTwister broke WP:3RR and Northamerica1000 was edit warring with the other user. I'll however leave that decision to a more experienced admin.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

My edits were based upon accuracy, not edit warring whatsoever. I was not edit warring at all, nor was this my intent, and I did not violate WP:3RR. Again, the template was restored because it was just and accurate to do so. The removal of the template with made-up WP:CSD rationales and stating that the creator cannot remove the template, when I was not the creator, constitutes vandalism in my opinion. Also, I provided very clear rationales for the restoration of the csd template in each and every edit summary. Furthermore, normally I would be more than happy to discuss matters, but the user has stated more than once in the past that they do not want to communicate with me (example diff). North America 18:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Both users need to be temporarily blocked. This seems to be a pattern for both of them, which (unless I'm missing something) is extremely alarming given their user privileges (one is an admin and another is a rollbacker). —cnzx (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have disengaged from editing the articles before I filed this report, was not engaging in edit warring, and am not engaging in edit warring. North America 18:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Cyberpower, I think admonishments would prove sufficient unless some long term behaviour could be ~~discovered~~ esp. given that both users are fairly in good standing in the community.And I would disagree with any sort of block/admonishment on STwister on the individual merit of this report.Additionally, see Boing's generalised response over User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Sanity check prior to taking any administrative actions.Also, I will re-assert that NA100's actions in the articles and at this thread have been highly sub-optimal and below community expectations.But, as I roll through t/ps et al and find editing intersections, I believe this report to be the manifestation of a long drawn edit-warring cum battleground attitude (and breakdown of minimal communication) between the duo across multiple articles.Winged Blades 18:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Restoring CSDs is not a valid exemption to 3RR. You may claim you believe this is vandalism, but it's definitely not obvious vandalism (described as edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.) -- There'sNoTime 18:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This is part of a pattern of the 2 editors in question nominating articles the other has created or cares about for deletion, and it has become disruptive to the deletion process in my opinion. I suggest one of two options: either a 2-way IBAN or a TBAN unique to both of them. If we go the TBAN route TBAN NA1K from nominating academics for deletion and ban ST from nominating articles NA1K has created or restored for deletion. This feud has gone on long enough and needs to end. The disparity I suggest in the TBAN is because the CSDing of academics in general seems to be a way that NA1K is interacting with ST in this, while ST does seem to have a general interest in dealing with corporations beyond the dispute they are having with NA1K. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with being topic banned for filing this report. I have edited articles about a diverse variety of topics for years, including academia topics. I nominated the two articles listed above for speedy deletion because they lacked a valid claim of significance, as per WP:A7. That's it. There is no "feud", and the user reported here did not create the articles. Fact is, the user only began editing these articles after I edited them. North America 19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As someone who likes both of you, it looks like a feud to me. ST nominates articles you create for deletion, and you nominate articles he likes or cares about for deletion. I'm not sure who does what first, but I suspect that this particular fight is related to the most recent round at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Taziki's Mediterranean Café. This also happened in August when after ST nominated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ingogo (company) for deletion, you tried to CSD a clear PROF pass at John Boland (chemist) and Giuseppe Mazzotta, and also created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dante Society of America and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marion L. Starkey for deletion: both academic/literature related topics, the only fields that ST is known to be a hardcore inclusionist in. I was involved in all of these at the time because these are also areas of interest to me, which is why I'm familiar with it. At the time of the last interaction, DGG (incorrectly) thought the two of you were already under an IBAN. I really like both of you and think you are both good contributors, but it is pretty clear that the two of you just don't get along. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I like you too. As a short note, I don't edit articles based upon what others like or care about. I edit articles that I like and care about. North America 20:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: I understand how restoration of the A7 template could be seen as warring, but this was not the intention at all. The articles literally still lacked even the most bare of assertions of significance, with nothing added at all to them to qualify removal of the template (see the diffs above). Also note that I did not violate WP:3RR, whereas the reported user did. I will keep all of the commentary here from users in mind into the future. Essentially, this equates to simply taking an article to WP:AFD if a user removes a speedy deletion template when the article still qualifies for speedy deletion. In this manner, a wider community discussion can occur to establish consensus regarding such matters. Relative to this ideation, and as a side note, however, in matters regarding copyright infringement, it would be a farce to allow significant copyvio to remain in place out of a fear of being accused of edit warring for restoring a speedy deletion template relative to said copyvio. Also note that I chose to tag the articles for A7 speedy deletion, for another administrator to review, rather than unilaterally deleting the articles myself. I state this to denote that I was acting cautiously regarding the potential deletion of the articles, rather than hastily. Also, tagging for another admin to review, rather than unilaterally deleting, is considered by some to be a best practice. However, in cases of severe copyvio when there is no non-infringing content to revert to, and in attack pages with the same situation, it is typically a good move to immediately delete. North America 19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:JohnnyBlood2 reported by User:32.218.40.247 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:New Glarus, Wisconsin#Knee-jerk editing

Comments:

Editor has been edit warring about this content for over 4 years (see article talk page), as both an IP and a registered user. Above edits are only the most recent ones. 32.218.40.247 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Lythronaxargestes reported by User:Falconfly (Result: )

Page: Template:Https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Champsosaurus BW flipped.jpg
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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:

The editor who made this report has started edit-warring after refusing to co-operate with other editors on this page: As part of this edit war, he has reverted other editors a grand total of ten times at this page: He has been made aware repeatedly that he is pushing a WP:FRINGE hypothesis that is based on a biased interpretation of the scholarly literature. This is also not the first time this behavior has occurred. Clearly he is WP:NOTHERE to contribute. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This right after I've explained, again and again, while you outright revort edits utterly unrelated to the topic, like the Hyphalosaurus picture.

For which you started a talk page discussion but did not wait for input from other editors. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Crawiki reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Also,

Comments:

I have not placed a 3-RR warning on the user's Talk page (but will place a notification of filing this complaint immediately after posting here).

I am not looking for a block, nor am I seeking any other type of sanction against Crawiki. I am looking only for an administrator to drop by the article's Talk page and let Crawiki know that repeatedly removing Talk page comments is inappropriate. Also, that if Crawiki truly believes that the discussion had dipped into personal attacks, then there are appropriate remedies other than deleting the discussion themselves.

Because this is not a content dispute, I recognize that this might not be the correct forum for filing this complaint. If so, please let me know and I'll be happy to re-file elsewhere.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk page notice of this complaint given here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

IJReid

User:IJReid reported by User:Falconfly (Result: )

Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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:
Perhaps I should state something here. Falconfly has reverted edits by three different editors at least 7 times in a row. I've only reverted him back twice each, on three separate articles, and I've left his subjective edits on 3 other articles remain until the issues of 'his' violating rules are dealt with. IJReid 19:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my edits without reason, did not provide reasons for said edits and outright refused to take part in the conversation.

Not throwing myself into your shitstorm does not mean I never read any of the conversation at WP:PALEOART (link for administrators sake, bottom section of the page) IJReid 19:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In other words, you have no argument.

User:Falconfly reported by User:IJReid (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
Simoedosaurus

Mystriosuchus

Phytosaur

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just count the number of reverts per article I listed ...

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WP:PALEOART: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review#Erroneous_tail_flukes_on_aquatic_"crocodilioids"_-_salvageable?

Comments:

I'm bringing @Lythronaxargestes, FunkMonk, Lusotitan, Slate Weasel, Rextron, and Falconfly: who are all directly involved. All the listed users besides Falconfly (who is being reported here) reverted edits at least once, and in the case of the former three up to the maximum recommended by WP:3RR.
Note for administrators: the use of Rollback by myself and Lythronaxargestes should be warranted as these were all used past the threshold of Falconfly violating 3RR, and as such can be considered reverting of vandalism. Please deal with this user promptly. IJReid 20:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice how the other users escalated the conflict when reasoned otherwise, refused to argue in regards to the sources I posted, and outright reverted unrelated edits like the Hyphalosaurus picture out of spite. Falconfly.

The revertion war happened after the discussion on WP:PALEOART formed the consensus that the art was not accurate and should be removed from the articles. IJReid 20:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The only "consensus" acquired has been ignoring my responses and resorting to semantics and tautology. Also, that doesn't justify the unrelated edits. Falconfly

There are a few problems here, one of which is of course breaking the three revert rule. Falconly has been asked to put his image uploads up for accuracy review many times, without ever heeding this advice. The review page was started and maintained due to concerns about "original research" brought up in the past about such restorations of extinct aimals. Falconfly keeps pushing home-cooked theories about the life-appearance of various extinct animals in images, which conflicts with WP:original images. Falconfly mentions "spite", but no one has a problem with him and his images, as long as he puts them up for review and does not include his own personal theories in the images. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"Home-cooked theories" supported by articles you have not addressed or removed outright without explanation. Also, doesn't justify the unrelated edits like the Hyphalosaurus incident.Falconfly

First, you have never demonstrated what you claim was stated outright in the papers you cite, and second, even if your images were 100% correct from the beginning, they should not be added before passing WP:PALEOART review. FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have quote the articles (multiple times, no less), and I'll do so again here if I must. Your only responses so far have been A) semantics, B) tautology, C) lack of involvement but siding with the people swearing and edit warring.Falconfly

As I've told you off-site, the images should not currently be included under policy of WP:NOCON. Additionally, I may chip in that I agree that editors on both sides escalated this issue with unnecessary aggressiveness and poor record-keeping (to an outside viewer, it would appear no discussion took place, as the discussion on WP:PALEOART was not acknowledged in any edit summaries prior to IJReid bringing me into the issue through off-site contact). Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in above sections, this is not Falconfly's first rodeo with edit-warring. Starting from year he took up edit-warring on adding inaccurate restorations of mammals. He was warned, but evidently is back to the same shtick now:

Ichthyoconodon

Argentoconodon

(No 3RR violation; however, the editor added a self-authored preprint as a reference, thus indicating a lack of WP:NPOV)

Triconolestes

(No 3RR violation, but clear edit-warring behavior)

All of which also concluding in the same pattern of tautology and evasion from you, interestingly enough.Falconfly

So I am User:Apokryltaros? Most certainly not... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And the only reason why I repeatedly kept reverting FalconFly because I was trying to communicate to him that posting a reconstruction of an animal known literally only from two teeth as being a creature more advanced than and with bells and whistles not seen in its more completely known relatives, all on the basis of a paper he is currently working on, and not yet published, is textbook definition WP:OR.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories: