Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 04:09, 13 November 2016 (→User:CanadaRed reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected): Closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Florinbaiduc reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:Blocked)

Page: Coandă-1910 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Florinbaiduc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new editor, possibly another sock (but I don't think so), returns to an old, old battleground. Read the extensive talk: archives for all the past re-runs of this.

Removing "ducted fan" from the lead.

Replacing it with "motorjet"

and another, since this was posted

Coanda's 1910 aircraft is an obscure and misunderstood aircraft. It made no impact at the time and was ignored and forgotten. In 1956 Coanda, by now well-known for later work, made claims about this aircraft as it being the first aircraft with a jet engine, specifically a motorjet (he never claimed it was a gas turbine or turbojet). If these claims were true, this would be an important aircraft with a different article.

These claims have been thoroughly debunked, starting with Charles Gibbs-Smith, whose 1960 letter to Flight describes it thus, "The whole claim is naughty nonsense". Yet there is still a justified nationalistic pride in Coanda, and an unjustified one in this "jet aircraft" claim.

Florinbaiduc (talk · contribs) appears in this article. I assume from their name, and past edits, that they are of Romanian ancestry. They first seem to take issue with "ducted fan" as a term, claiming that the centrifugal compressor generally believed to have been used is different from this, rather than a subset of (as is already thoroughly sourced). Now they are swapping it for "motorjet", which is Coanda's debunked 1956 claim.

We have been there before with this article. I do not wish to go back there. Especially not when Florin's responses are mostly abuse of other editors and their educational level Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation by User:John. See also Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda from 2011, though the Committee didn't authorize discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Florinbaiduc is blocked for 24 hours but if he starts back up with edit warring the length of block will increase according to blocking policy. This guy appears to be not here to help the encyclopedia but instead for the purpose of advancing a (debunked) position of national pride. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Crnibombarder reported by User:Galatz (Result: Indeffed)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

User has been blocked twice already for making the same edits without consensus. As soon as his block expires he comes back and just starts making them again. - Galatz 17:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

User:63.143.192.228 reported by User:Feinoha (Result: Semi)

Page

Presidential transition of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

User:Ditinili reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: )

• Page in dispute: János Bihari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• User being reported: Ditinili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original title was: User Ditinili 3RR gaming, edit warring, provocation - János Bihari article

I am not the supporter of generating an incident, but this by far! User Ditinili almost three months is continously encountering, provocating uninvited by chasing in a schizoid way also personal contributions all the time and in articles, talk pages, edtis regarding Hungary/Hungarian related matters. After a long observation, it is clear he has not a primary aim for nice collaboration, he generated more edit wars and conflicts also with other users and he continously does it in a very foxy and permanent way, despite of his aim to hinder his goals, everything is apparent time-by-time by his activity. Mainly people would consider he has a problematic comprehension - anyway it has been demonstrated surely more times - but with a totally illogic behavior and pushing he also wilfully does not want to understand some things and by performing more provocations and reverts, pretending the situation else as it is.

In the correspondent article, he made three reverts , , - the third outside the 24 hours, pre-planned as a gaming, thus it may fulfill the violation of 3RR - regarding he did not initiated a discussion on the talk page before the second revert i.e., so the bad aims are totally clear, moreover in the edit logs he is proving the continous activity that is mentioned above, about professional deterioration and confusion.

I warned him, also wrote to the talk page now, roughly:

- My edit was a correction of a mistake, since the county of birth was mixed with a city (Pozsony County was the comitatus of the Kingom of Hungary <-> "now Bratislava" = a present-day city)

- He tried to mix this with another issue, where he requested help for interpretation of something that is anyway should be clear with a drop of good faith (naming conventions for placenames regarding a consensus - treatment of non-existent administrative units), this is not ready yet, anyway it does not matter here

- Despite the explanations and the indications and more disussions earlier, he is performing reverts and provocation although he knows very well what is the situation and using for reverts the same pretext that is invalid here. This has to end once, an action should be taken, if no convincement has an effect of peaceful collaboration.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC))

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=J%C3%A1nos_Bihari&diff=748921144&oldid=748891098
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=J%C3%A1nos_Bihari&diff=748964209&oldid=748958567
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=J%C3%A1nos_Bihari&diff=749129388&oldid=748969707

User:73.114.33.135 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mike Pence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "/* LGBT rights policy */"
2. 00:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "/* LGBT rights policy */"
3. 00:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "/* LGBT rights policy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Mike Pence. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Disruptive editing, POV, controversial; has violated the discretionary sanctions for the page (limited to one revert). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. 1RR violation and tendentious editing ("Policy on Deviant Sexual Preferences" referring to LGBT topics). EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:CanadaRed reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)

Page: Peter A. Allard School of Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CanadaRed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Related article on the school's building went through an AfD back in July, during which this article was cleaned up as well; it had been a prime example of WP:BOOSTER. Was reviewed by several people at that time. CanadaRed is an inexperienced editor and per their contribs they are a SPA for Vancouver where this school is located. They have incorrectly characterized why content was removed and have simply restored en masse and are edit warring to keep it that way, and on Talk are demanding that I re-justify the cleanup. The justifications are in the edit notes, and as I wrote there, I would be happy to discuss any individual edit. Sorry to bring this here, but this is a case of unreasoning advocacy by an inexperienced SPA user. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I may not be as experienced as you, but I have made my share of contributions to the Peter Allard Law page. Also, I'm willing to make compromises and try to resolve the issue. User Jytdog is unwilling to cooperate and constantly makes wholesale and unjustified deletions of content. The only other person to make comments on the talk page disagreed with him. I would like a third party or moderator to weigh in on the issue. I am willing to make compromises and fix things that need to be fixed, but disagree with wholesale deletions or reversions of sections. I would report user Jytdog if I knew how. Any help in resolving this matter would be greatly appreciated.CanadaRed (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit history is 100% advocacy. Your behavior at this article is that of an advocate, not a Wikipedian. None of that is OK. The appropriate outcome here is a block for you, so that you will stop abusing WP to promote things in Vancouver and start actually discussing things instead of forcing your advocacy into WP. Your calling my edits "wholesale removal" misrepresents the history visible in the article - i went through things line by line, ref by ref. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

My account is not a single purpose account. I've mostly made edits to Canadian topics because it is what I'm familiar with. Please refrain from making attacks on my account. What should be discussed is the value of the sections that you deleted, and whether they are appropriate or not. CanadaRed (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Block both. I'm reluctant to call for this in CanadaRed's case as they do seem to have been making an effort to improve the article. However this is a bunch of edit warring and we do have a bright line against such.

In Jytdog's case though, this is an experienced editor who knows absolutely better than this (and oh, does he like to hold that "experience" over any other editors). The WP:IDHT behaviour when CanadaRed started some discussion on the talk: page is classic Jytdog behaviour: an editor far more interested in pushing their own viewpoint right over anyone else and completely ignoring any attempt to work to actually improve something. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

and the peanut gallery arrives. Andy calling edit warring restoration of promotional content an "improvement" is par for the course in their history of chiming in with misrepresentations like this . I have warned them that the next time they do it will seek and likely get a 1-way interaction ban. If you look at the restored edits that are badly sourced/unsourced and promotional. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog clearly disagrees that 4RR applies to him too. He is wrong in this. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This: User talk:CanadaRed#Advocacy is also concerning, but unsurprising. An interest in one particular field is not the same thing as a bias. It is disappointingly unsurprisingly to see Jytdog, yet again using every tactic available to attack an editor with whom they have the slightest disagreement (ANI passim). Will you be using SPI next? That's one of your favourites. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Frankly behavior like this, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley&oldid=749205903, is grounds it self for a long ban. This has crossed into harassment, Jytdog's "warning" is nothing more than the harassment of a critic. This kind of behavior isn't welcome here. 2607:FEA8:2CA0:251:C463:1B4B:69A6:1354 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Why, hello again Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Filipz123. Short time, no see. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

God this place is ugly sometimes. We start with edit warring in of promotional content by a SPA advocate, then the stalker peanut gallery arrives, and now a peanut gallery of the peanut gallery. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• again, what happened here is that the article got worked over 4 months ago and settled then. CanadianRed shows up now, and undoes all that work and demands to start over as though all that work never happened, and then edit wars to retain the undoing. This is not OK behavior. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding, what others agreed to do months ago was merge the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law article with Peter A. Allard School of Law (based on the law school's name change). The deletion of sections seems to have been unilaterally done by Jytdog, and it seems that another user, Doncram, disagreed with the deletion.(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Peter_A._Allard_School_of_Law&diff=725295916&oldid=725269742). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaRed (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC) The above is mine. Forgot to sign. CanadaRed (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What I'm seeing with CanadaRed is part of the reason why it's a catch-22 to try to deal with editors intent on edit warring in content. Either you try to work with them (especially as a new editor) and they keep trying to push the content in while hoping your reverting finally gets them to stop and go to the talk page. Escalate it here and you're apt to deal with more drama. That seems to be especially the case for editors like Jytdog who end up working with a lot of troublesome editors (and gaining a bunch of editors following them around causing more drama). It seems pretty silly to still be seeing the drama following Jytdog that's become more of a hounding issue, but this board isn't really suited for dealing with that.

That being said, Jytdog also should know better to not go to 4RR (better to rely on other editors not involved to see a notice like this and clean up in obvious cases like this). I'm pretty confounded as to what they were thinking with their fourth revert as I could somewhat tolerate someone going up to 3RR in the face of CanadaRed's behavior. CanadaRed however seems to be the main problem here basically ignoring that they needed to stop reverting and gain WP:CONSENSUS after they were reverted. Protecting the page at the last clean version and forcing CanadaRed to gain consensus for their edits seems to be the obvious course of action for breaking the logjam. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree to a form of dispute resolution, whether it's through having other editors weigh in and come to a consensus, or some other method. As mentioned earlier, I'm not the only user that disagreed with Jytdog's deletions of whole sections of the page. I have tried to take out language that might have come across as promotional in order to compromise with Jytdog. Again, I am willing to work with him to fix the page. There needs to be an element of compromise and good faith edits here. Furthermore, attacks such as: "you're inexperienced so you're automatically wrong" are hardly fair. I've made contributions here for a number of years, and although I may not be as much of a regular or daily editor as some other users, I've always tried to do my part to make wikipedia better in good faith. I'm just asking for third party, unbiased users to to weigh in with their opinions. CanadaRed (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, just reverted all the changes that I had made to the article. Including the changing of the wording that I made to make it less promotional and the adding of sources etc. Not sure if he is working in conjunction with Jytdog, or in support of him. If he is a disinterested third party, then why not weigh in on the articles talk page as opposed to jumping to a wholesale revert as Jytdog had done. This is quite unfair. CanadaRed (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, CanadaRed. Your best bet now is to discuss any changes you want to make. I know its frustrating to add a lot of content and then have it reverted but this is the best option open when a bold edit was made as this was. Just take your time as you add and allow for discussion. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

Page protected – 5 days. Please use the talk page to agree on where to go from here. The stuff Jytdog was removing does look promotional by our usual definition. But Jytdog need not assume the sole burden of removing promotional content, and when he breaks 3RR that is sooner or later going to be enforced. User:CanadaRed is risking a block for disruptive editing if he continues to restore material that has been removed after lengthy talk page discussion. Since this article has caused so much trouble in the past people need to step carefully. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:CanadaRed (Result: Duplicate)

Page: Peter A. Allard School of Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Comments:
Instead of trying to constructively discuss and make appropriate revisions to the page, this user made a wholesale reversion. He or she is unwilling to compromise, unwilling to discuss the issue, and went straight to making attacks: claiming that my account is a single purpose account and that I'm attempting to post promotional material. All of this is patently incorrect. The material that the user deleted was contributed by many different users (not just me) over a long period of time. Another user on the talk page disagreed with the user's deletions. No other user agreed with the deletions. Instead of discussing the changes that were made, or making individual edits to fix whatever he believed the problem is, the user jumped straight to reverting the page. These deletions were not made in good faith as no attempt was made to discuss the sections or what he disagreed with. He went straight to reverting material and making accusations. He made 4 reverts. Instead of trying to resolve the problem, or putting the disagreement to dispute resolution in good faith, he went straight to reporting it here. For the record, I am willing to compromise, and work with the user in order to make page meet the wikipedia standards. I believe much of the information can and should stay. The page is by no means perfect, but with the appropriate modifications in can be greatly improved. The appropriate action would be to make compromises and try to resolve the issue in a mutually agreeable way as opposed to wholesale deletions, reverts, and attacks on other users. CanadaRed (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

oy. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, note that I am not familiar with the process of reporting, so if I've made any mistake please feel free to make corrections. I have myself been reported by this user (see above).CanadaRed (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Close as duplicate of above. Any novel issue raised in this listing would be better handled in one place. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok how can I close it. But I would like to post my above comment at least. CanadaRed (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, just leave it. An admin will probably tag it as merged, or move the comment. My point is that no action is needed on this one. Your comment should still stay visible and be read. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thank you for the clarification. CanadaRed (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Closing as a duplicate report of the same dispute as above. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Shqipbot reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: Indef)

Page

Deniz Aytekin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "Hi"
2. 03:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "Hi"
3. 03:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "Jo"
4. 03:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "Haha"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Deniz Aytekin. (using Twinkle)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely Blocked as a vandalism-only account for edits like this and for the username. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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