Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive264

User:186.69.107.211 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - June 26 - first case I found of adding ISIL + two in Ukraine + Libya junk
 * 2)  July 16 - added Ukraine pair again
 * 3)  Nov 16 reverting User:Gregkaye and readding ISIL
 * 4)  Nov 25 reverted User:Legacypac to reinsert ISIL
 * 5)  Nov 25 Inserts a long list of non-states including ISIL again, reverting User:Kahastok
 * 6) ADDED after the initial report  reverted my reversion again after this was filed and (as can be seen at the link) I noted the 1RR restriction in my edit summary.

Low editor traffic article because new States rarely form. This IP has engaged in a long term project to add Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (as well as the separatist portions of Ukraine and other non-states) into Wikipedia as new countries. This is against consensus and can not be supported by RS. On November 25 they reverted two different editors to reinsert ISIL, therefore breaching the 1RR Active Community Sanctions. This article is not tagged with the sanctions because it should not contain any ISIL content.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Right after the IP reverted my deletion of the ISIL I went to their talk page and requested they revert themselves at 19:34, 25 November 2014. After Kahastok reverted the IPs revert they added the material again, braking 1RR.

The IP made 4 edits to the Syrian Civil War talk page between Oct 18-21 discussing the map and ISIL. They therefore should have seen the large warning about the Sanctions at the top of the page there.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  this was handled through detailed edit summaries by the editors removing the improper additions plus my note to their talk page, which had no response except reinsertig the material. The editor appears to be acting in good faith, is based in Ecuador so may be ESL, and may not understand the need for RS. They are a low activity editor as well. I suggest a warning under the sanctions and encouraging them to stop making changes on a sub article like this that conflicts with the List_of_sovereign_states and ISIL articles.

Comments:

After seeing several instances of this kind and seeing the repeat behaviour of the IP User I find it difficult to assume good faith but would be happy if contrary evidence can be provided. User:186.69.107.211, please be in dialogue. It would be helpful if you give an indication that you understand the problem and add such content as a reassurance that you won't repeat these behaviours. I think that this would be needed to prevent the extensive ban that I believe that the extreme nature of your behaviour currently warrants. Please understand that Wikipedia is a community of collaborative editors. I would advise you to review content onwards from Five pillars and respond. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  08:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * With the latest revert by the IP I am moving toward Gregkaye's view. Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems that with the recent changes or movements that have shown many conflicts about the new countries or "de facto" countries that were born as a result ot that conflicts, many people are in constant debate wether this countries (like ISIS, Crime, Donetsk, Lugansk, etc.) should be accepted or not as states to include in the wikipedia article "list of sovereign states in 2010s" but as I see that you really included them in the wikipedia article but in a neutral way (as the user Kahastok said in the article history) until further notice wether we find out they become sovereign states or "de facto" sovereign states I see it is a good way for everyone who is still challenging each other about this "sovereign states" debate, with this message I entrust in you wikipedia administrators the content of this page and I won't edit the page anymore. User:186.69.107.211 00:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP user is warned for violating the WP:GS/SCW 1RR rule. If they keep their promise and stop the reverts there will be no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Famartin reported by User:LiveRail (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  These last four are four reverts within one hour let alone twenty four hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: His talk page betrays that he has been warned before, so he is aware of the rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Incandescent light bulb. Others are objecting to uncited material in article. No other editor involved has exceed 3RR.

Comments:

– Live Rail     &lt; Talk &gt;   14:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lake4455 reported by User:Kirothereaper (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:   User has been through this before and doing the same thing again.

Comments:

The user is following around and reverting all my recent edits; the article above is only one example, but also does nothing but straight reverts on multiple articles including    showing nothing but bad faith and thinks he owns the articles. He has already been blocked for edit warring before, and it seems like the majority of his edits are nothing but edit warring ever since he created his account. Kirothereaper (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ukrainecriziz reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's edits:
 * 1) Revision as of 11:29, 26 November 2014 adding "During the August counteroffensive against the Ukrainian milatary. Sepratist militia managed to push the Ukrainians out of the city and life slowly started to return to normal."
 * 2) Revision as of 12:05, 26 November 2014 adding "During the August counteroffensive against the Ukrainian milatary. Sepratist militia pushed the Ukrainian milatary out of the city to smile and life slowly returned to normal in the city."
 * 3) Revision as of 05:49, 27 November 2014 adding " During late August sepratist militia forced government troops out of the city. And life slowly returned to normal. ""  "
 * 4) Latest revision as of 20:45, 27 November 2014 adding "   In late August the sepratistss forced the ukrainian milatary out of the city pushing them north. Life slowly returned to normal in the city

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:49, 27 November 2014

Diff of notice of discretionary Arbcom sanctions: 08:29, 27 November 2014

Attempt to discuss the dispute on article talk page: Talk:Luhansk

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . I chose not to sanction Ukrainecriziz pursuant to the discretionary sanctions as only the last revert came after the alert. Nonetheless, one week without a breach of WP:3RR is a significant sanction and deserved based on the biased nature of the content being added to the article. I alerted to the Eastern European sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:EEng reported by User:Bloom6132 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:05, November 25, 2014
 * 2) 04:38, November 26, 2014
 * 3) 05:31, November 26, 2014
 * 4) 05:49, November 26, 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:43, November 26, 2014

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

Comments:

Four reverts within 24 hours, the last one made after I had warned him to stop edit warring. , who was reverted the first two times, offered to discuss this on WT:DYK with EEng, but to no avail. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * regarding your latest revert here, I must point out that 3RR exemption does not apply in this case. Quoting FPaS at "The exemption only applies to edits that were made during the block, i.e. through a sock. Edits made before the block don't count, just like edits made before a ban don't count." You are just continuing the pointless edit warring. - NQ  (talk)  03:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I did not know about the specifics of the exception until now.  Would you like me to undo my revert? —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually reading the exception might have helped. No need for you to do anything, since the discussion at Talk:DYK shows that sanity is prevailing and you will be reverted in due course. EEng (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you didn't read (or can't read; not sure which one), it's pretty obvious I read the exception given that I cited it in the ES. I was referring to how I didn't read FPaS' elaboration of the rule from 2 years ago.  If you're expecting me to search through archives for comments made years before in order to correct a blatant 3RR violation, you'd be a moron. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The exception you cited, in making the reversion for which NQ quite rightly scolded you, allows "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users". I was neither a banned user, nor a sockpuuppet of a banned or blocked user, and no archived explication should be needed to understand that the exception didn't apply.
 * For many months you've been expressing anger toward random people at Talk:Did You Know, beginning (to my recollection) after a shift in rules designed to raise the minimum quality of contributions there. This seems to have inconvenienced you, and since then you've felt free to call people morons, accuse them of intentionally fudging project statistics, muse that they "can't read" or "can't do math" even as you misinterpret moderately complex logical constructs (such as above) and much more. Personally I'm not distressed by such nonsense, but I know others are, and for their sake everyone would like you to cut it out.
 * The pattern seems to be that if you're allowed to get the last word in, you go away and stop bothering people, at least for a while. So please be my guest. You have my permission to vent by calling me any names you like, if that helps.
 * EEng (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Funny thing, karma EEng (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:2.177.207.221 reported by User:SantiLak (Result: Blocked; semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Myself and other users have tried to discuss this issue with this user time and time again but they just revert edits and post walls of text in the talk page. We have told them that they need to acquire consensus but they have only ignored us. I have personally been called a "stalker and habitual vandalized of article who claimed he worked for the public entity the article is about" as you can see here and all of which is not true. I have not reverted any their revisions because I am trying to resolve this through discussion and I am bringing this here despite them copying and pasting a warning onto my talk page accusing me of such as you can see here.

- SantiLak  (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply:  If he is trying to discuss the article, he should discuss the article and refrain from making anti-semitic and homophobic slurs.  The article is about a public entity - he has edited his talk page where an administrator told him to stop vandalizing the article by deleting entire sections without discussion.  2.177.207.221 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never made any homophobic or anti-semitic slurs. This is just another example of the behavior of this user with these ridiculous things they say about other users. I also have no ideas what he is talking about when it comes to any admin. - SantiLak  (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . I blocked the IP for 72 hours for violating 3RR, making personal attacks, and making false claims about other editors. I also semi-protected the article for one month as the same individual has edited before using a different IP address in the same range. I would have only imposed semi-protection if the IP wasn't causing such disruption in other ways.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Uishaki reported by User:Infantom (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Uishaki violated a topic ban. He's the one that added (unsourced) content and was reverted, so he's the one that need to reach consensus. Please notice his long history of warring, violations and blocks on these topics, including a topic ban. Infantom (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . is forum-shopping. See this discussion between the two users at WP:ANI from a couple of days ago (the edit warring at the category also took place a couple of days ago and is itself ). I have no comment on the topic ban allegation. Infantom also neglected to notify the user of this discussion as required; I have done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, the other discussion was 2 days ago and didn't get a response, so i thought it would be better to report it myself. the edit warring is stale because i stopped it for now(until the issue will be settled by report), not because there is an agreement. As for notify the user, you are right, i thought the user would get a notification by mentioning him. it's the first time i'm reporting. Infantom (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:2.104.112.41 reported by User:Lneal001 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Median_household_income&action=history

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user, who is not registered, has never accepted my invitation (shown in revision history) to talk about why he is reverting without explanation. 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The revision page contains numerous examples of me talking to the user and invited him to engage in the Talk page, to no avail.

Comments: The user is verbally abusive, see the revision he made on Nov 4: "Go fuck yourself." Also, there is no reason for him to get rid of the citation I added, which for some reason he keeps getting rid of. Also, the consensus is to use PPPs when comparing incomes, which he also keeps impeding. In the Talk page we confirmed that PPPs are the consensus.Lneal001 (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dcbanners reported by User:TheMeaningOfBlah (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Violating the voluntary restriction which prevented him from editing the main page / talk page for one month. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ., next time please include a diff to the report in which the user agreed to the restriction. I had to go hunting for it. Also, it would have been helpful if you had reported this when it happened, as opposed to a few days later. That said, I look at it like a temporary article ban, which isn't generally susceptible to stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll try to remember it next time. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Blarpkin reported by User:Seahorseruler (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 635814915 by 123.50.114.181 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 635807212 by Mrschimpf (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 635736922 by 87.254.229.53 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 635718920 by Mrschimpf (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) diff


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

No warning, but user is a DUCK of 162.254.144.149 who was blocked for similar behavior, see pending Sockpuppet investigations/162.254.144.149. Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have warned the user here, however I don't see them stopping considering they've ignored and removed every other warning and notice placed on their talk page (including the notification about this 3RR thread). Seahorseruler  (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User has reverted again after warning -- Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:SunshineAwake reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Safety */Added content"
 * 2)  "/* Safety */"
 * 3)  "/* Safety */"
 * 4)  "/* Safety */Added content"
 * 5)  "/* Safety */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Wi-Fi. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Also warned for copyright violation, username and promotion. NebY (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * by User:Barek. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:173.238.79.44 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP has repeatedly violated WP:OR and WP:VER, changing the verifiable meaning of two reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Tgeorgescu has actually violated WP:3RR, and has also refused to give any consideration to other opinions than his own. He has misrepresented the source in question by using a statement to suit his own opinion, rather than entering the wording also used in the source. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Personal attack at accusing me of atheist and anti-theist agenda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:PolenCelestial (Result: Topic ban from Dawoodi Bohra )
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's edits:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is continuing to edit war on the article about the sect he personally belongs to, removing or obscuring information about the sect's requirement that its members mutilate the genitals of their female children so that ignorance of this fact continues. The wording of the information included in the article adheres to international medical standards and the user is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI because he is personally involved with the subject matter and the intent of his edits is to protect the reputation of his sect.

PolenCelestial (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply:

- : This correction is regarding specific information, the term FGM being forced by PolenCelestial, which is clearly written as FGC in the source. - User:PolenCelestial is a SPA and joined Wiki for aiming partisan activity against particular community, seems to be a part of present controversy  going on over Dai. FGM is a social deficiency worldwide, and  Wiki cannot be used as platform for the reform targetting particular community. FGM cannot be described in isolation, it has to be described as general circumcision practice "khatna" (Circumcision which further refer to  FGM). When sources are restricting themselves to word Female circumssion, we giving stress to word FGM in wiki, seems giving over weightage.

My earlier revision was intended with that motto. As per User:Qwertyus also suggested  “e.g., use "female circumcision" in the text like the sources do” with due discussion, and Rukn950  also felt :  “I feel that this paragraph of FGM is leaning more towards one side than other. I think we should follow the practice of neutrality discussing and gaining consensus before doing any edit. One line mention is enough. with proper reference. I also feel that the references given are overkill. ( too many references, some are blogs and some internet petition which does not stand as reliable source.)”. Some source removal was done by me considering above ( I did arbitary removal, which I should have checked).

Hope admin consider the above facts, my intention was not to have edit war but to not to allow miscreant to use Wiki. SPA type editor doing mischief at Wiki may please be discouraged. It is my intention to keep Wiki norms above all.--Md iet (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Admins, I explained on the talk page that female genital mutilation is the only term considered accurate by the international medical profession. It is the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject and the term used throughout that article for this reason. I also defended my account against the WP:SPA accusation due to this not being the intent behind my account but rather I am a new editor, also I made a previous unrelated edit on the Spanish wiki and the ones I've made to Dawoodi Bohra don't violate WP:NPOV which is one of the requirements for dismissing SPA activity.
 * Furthermore, the user's claim that the sources cited don't use the term female genital mutilation is false, they do use it as do 27400 Google results which upon examination consist of a very large number of reputable news sources which can also be cited if this is the issue.
 * The user also claims that I'm targeting a particular community, when in fact I added the information to the Dawoodi Bohra article because it's the only FGM group I'm aware of that is distinguishable by religion rather than locality.
 * The entire article on FGM is written from the perspective of the information I'm trying to include in the Dawoodi Bohra article. There aren't generally considered to be multiple sides to the issue, analogous to how the article on murder isn't considered an NPOV violation due to objections by members of sacrificial cults. PolenCelestial (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The dawoodi bohra article is not the place for discussion regarding FGM issue. PolenCelestial is straying from the main topic. too much weightage is given to this issue. this article has gone through edit war several times before .Earlier we had requested that before any changes made to this article consensus should be gained by fellow editors. PolenCelestial simply ignored this request and acts as the owner of this article. We are here to contribute positively to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and not the platform for imposing partisan views.Rukn950 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Md iet is topic banned under WP:ARBIP from anything to do with the Dawoodi Bohra, on all pages of Wikipedia. He seems unable to edit neutrally on this subject. This action is taken under the discretionary sanctions authorized by Arbcom. I'm also leaving WP:ARBIP alerts for User:Rukn950, User:Burhanhusain, User:Ramiericson and User:Dawoodibohra5253. Three pages are being semiprotected: List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra, Mohammed Burhanuddin and 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: Topic ban)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "repetition deleted."
 * 1)  "repetition deleted."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

this user mdiet is warring with other users also like qwertyus, he has previously being banned too. Even other users like User:PolenCelestial have reported above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra)&oldid=635372326

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra)&oldid=635494544

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra)&oldid=635735930 Summichum (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All the above revision are done with intention to streamline the topic section wise avoiding repetition of the matter, and none of the information is removed. Everything is placed as it is word by word, with all the references intact, only deleting repeated sentences/ matter. May pl. have check on the individual revert mentioned. User:Summichum has used various means to disrupt Wiki activities for his partisan activity, joining Wiki to fuel the controversy, got banned several times  and also succeeded in trapping me also once.--Md iet (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * this mdiet user is a partisan user who is trying to promote Mufaddal as the daee when it is clear that there is a big succession controversy where the deputy of the daee himself was a victim. Moreover when Mufaddal can use the stroke ridden body of his father to stage a farce ceremony which all witnesses accept that nothing concievable was uttered nor could have uttered due to stroke as reported by medical reports from the doctors. Hence I request (talk) to behave in a "wikipedian" manner and dont support the claimant who is following footsteps of the Muawiya\Yazid of the time who is using similar tactics of force to occupy the throne of daee and spreading malicious propaganda. Although I don't support any claimants but it is important to state both sides of the stroy in a non neutral way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 08:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra as explained in the report above. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Esoglou reported by User:2602:306:bd61:e0f0:644a:5508:1251:8d09 (Result: no violation)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Following a long conversation in which another user complained about my edits of several pages, then complained to User:Esoglou about them, I went back and posted 4 reliable sources for each edit. But without discussing it, and while conversations with the other editor and others were ongoing, User:Esoglou decided to disqualify 1 of my sources and used that as an excuse to revert all edits. User:Esoglou also did not replace most of them with any other source. User:Esoglou had also recently edited those pages. The list of pages and edits reverted is too long to list here. But the pattern is obvious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Esoglou.

I realize I've formatted this complaint incorrectly. Apologies. Hopefully that won't matter. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2602, I've edited your report to remove the malformed portions. Generally, it's considered edit warring if a user makes multiple reverts on a single page in a short duration, what I see in Esoglou's contribs is the normal cycle of bold, revert, discuss. Given that, the fact that discussion is still ongoing on the WikiProject Catholicism talkpage, and that Esoglou incorporated some of your changes in a self-revert, I'm closing this report without action. . — east718  &#124;  talk  &#124; 16:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:I.Bhardwaj reported by User:TopGun (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ... another user has left him a soft warning in an attempt to discuss.

Comments: I was not a party to this content dispute before today, but my sole reason for revert is that I see no consensus for his edits and he wants to force them in inspite of being warned. Also seems to be clear cut POV pushing apart from the fact that he had so many reverts spread over a long period in a slow editwar that it was tiring even just to list them. I dropped him a warning after reverting, but saw that he was warned long ago and my warning was not necessary.. he's shown no intention of stopping this editwar. From his initial edits he clearly doesn't look like a new user either but I really can't guess the master so I'll have to wait on that one. Two articles (including this one) were locked before as well due to his editwar. -- lTopGunl (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . I've alerted the user to WP:ARBIP.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:200.89.185.181 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This wasn't added by a "sock". And you should explain on the talk page why you are removing content supported by reliable sources."
 * 2)  "Please stop removing sourced content"


 * Comments:

Violation of 1RR per ARBPIA. It's also evident that the recent IP activity here involves sock-puppetry on the part of Wiglugnut93. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (semi) for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:RadioaktivnaKokica12 reported by User:Mr. Guye (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Please use English when contributing to the English Wikipedia. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Lusija Ećevarija. (TW)"
 * 3)   "General note: Creating inappropriate pages on  Lusija Ećevarija. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Repeated recreation of article. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the reported user as a sock puppet. Also blocked the master. Article has been salted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Amamamamama reported by User:Shawn in Montreal (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

Comments:

Revert warring still in progress. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This editor has just been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. I've reverted the last edit by him, back to the previous version, and have put a watch on the page. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the user for 72 hours (not 24) for a clear breach of 3RR. I also believe the editor has an agenda at Wikipedia that is inappropriate and that this edit is part of that agenda. That said, although I put WP:BLP violations as part of the basis for the block, I am a bit troubled that the subject's being "openly gay" is not better sourced in the article in the body to even justify putting it in the lead. The same thing is true about the category related to the subject being gay.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Peleio Aquiles reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Semi-protected; alerted)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Extreme edit warrior has managed to violate the 3RR on a 1RR article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As anyone can see in the entry's history, the above user was a full party in the edit war. However, he doesn't expect you to notice it because he was doing so from an anonymous IP. This is his filthy tactic to draw me in such a war so as to have an excuse to denounce me - edit a highly controversial article from an anonymous account so as to provoke reversions, and then re-appear with his registered account when enough reversions have been provoked. EDIT --- Also, I don't see anything in the entry identifying it as having the 1RR. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you actually believe your own rationalizations, then file an SPI. While sockpuppetry is obviously at play here, that does not justify your conduct. The IPs most likely belong to Wlglunight93.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No reason to do so - we don't need two venues to discuss the same issue. Whoever judges my conduct will have to take yours into account, too, Mr. Anonymous Sockpuppet. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also have reason to suspect talk:TheTimesAreAChanging is canvassing his friends to edit the entry from an anonymous IP. After he opened this request, an anomyous IP account, different from the original one, has reverted my edit using the same justification as the other one. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peleio Aquiles (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pleas be aware that claiming someone is s sockpuppet without lodging an SPI is unlikely to be looked upon in a positive light. This is the board for reporting edit warring and 3RR issues. If you have a belief soeone is a sockpuppet then you should go and report it. Otherwise you should stirke your claim until you have the evidence to prove it. Amortias (T)(C) 19:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Since reverting IPs does not usually count towards 1RR violations, and Wlglunight93 is currently blocked, Peleio Aquiles should not be sanctioned for his actions, but he should be warned about his aggressive editing tendencies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And you should be warned for harassing users having full knowledge that you lack a cause. I have re-inserted your crappy content, for the one reason I don't want negative attention and that I'm not fully acquainted with edit policy. But tomorrow there will be more. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (semi) for two weeks. I've also alerted Peleio to the discetionary sanctions at WP:ARBPIA.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:69.120.215.4 reported by User:Versace1608 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:


 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) link
 * 2) link
 * 3) link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

I am reporting the above users for edit warring. I believe the IPs and user account above are being operated by the same person. I am pretty sure a check user test will confirm the above users as socks. In this edit, I explained to the first IP why his/her edits are wrong. In this edit summary, the IP user agrees with me but insists that Ghana must come before Nigeria because of "alphabetical syntax". I don't know which Wikipedia policy he/she is quoting. As I have stated in my reply to the user, Afrobeat is more relevant in Nigeria than Ghana. It was founded by Fela Kuti in Nigeria. In addition, the number of Afrobeat artists in Nigeria far outweighs those in Ghana. The IPs have also added unsourced material to the article. The article needs an overhaul because large chunks of its information are not back by reliable sources. In the past, multiple IPs removed mentions of Ghana from the article. Now, these IPs are trying to place Ghana in front of Nigeria citing "alphabetical" syntax.
 * (semi) for one week. The two IPs are fairly obviously the same individual. It's not obvious to me that they are related to the named account.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] N/A

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Another now serious issue:
 * It seems to me this editor is attempting an WP:OUTING He posted personal details  about me including what he says is my city's name, something not found on my user page or publicly disclosed on WP. He claims to have spent hours digging through my edits and appears to be doing research into my real life including Googling me), He suggests I represent an US Political Action Committee in multiple locations, and digging deep into my edit history for personal details, including posting another identity I may use online.

I've taken various steps to descalate, especially encouraging discussion of the article, not other editors, but the bad behavior has gotten worse.


 * A quick review of his contribution history edit summaries indicate a person filled with rage. Since he may live in the same general area as I do (he names his own city in a thread I saw), and could easily or has discovered my real world identity, this behavior by a rage filled individual causes considerable concern to my personal safety.


 * There are many very hostile comments here and here and here he tells Inthefastlane to "Go shove it and stop posting your bitching on my page". This behavior is exhibited on talk pages and in edit summaries.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and  and  and also

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

Comments: This round of edit warring is over a minor issue, but he did trip 3RR in 24 hours giving a clear cut opportunity to take steps to change his warring ways. I would not care much except he refuses to recognize what edit warring is, or what constitutes a revert. Worse this edit warring is part of a pattern of inappropriate uncivil behavior across edit summaries, article and personal talk pages and on the notice boards. To his credit, my cursory glance at the edit summaries on geography related topics suggest an otherwise good editor. It is when he edits terrorism related content that the problems get going.

May I suggest A) a temporary ban from editing terrorism articles and B) an WP:IBAN due to the OUTING behavior. This is for my own safety and peace of mind, and because he has said more inappropriate things about me to last a lifetime already and I fear potential real world repercussions at this point.


 * Reply What a load of crock, this is just another "harassment procedure" like the previous one; has advised me as has  to back off, and Resolute explained to me the technical 3RR....while pointing out and cautioning LP and the other edit-warrior who is afflicting the article in question with ongoing disruptive behaviour that they, between them, were in the 4RR range themselves.  A topic ban on terrorism articles is what I've been recommending for Legacypac.  He's also lying that I OUTed him; it says straight on his user page that he's a "real estate developer in British Columbia" and somewhere else had mentioned Vancouver...he may nor may not be in Vancouver, he could be in Kelowna or 100 Mile House for all I know; the nonsense above re "I fear potential real world repercussions at this point." is rank AGF and also imputes I will do something violent against him, which is offensive and paranoiacally so in the extreme (I'm on another continent right now, and have been for a while now, which makes that even more ridiculous a thing to say).  I've been WP:BAITed before as Veriditas cautioned me was what was going on; this is just more of the ongoing attempt to harass me for disputing his ongoing disruptiveness, which I am not alone in observing (cf DocumentError's ANI against him).  He has edit-warred on the Ottawa article talkpage, refactoring/deleting comments by others as well myself; and while bitching about my criticisms of his conduct, which  pointed out were NOT personal attacks (comments which he refactored with his deletion of an entire section - his first abuse of NPA/RPA was reverted by GB Fan and then, after disputing GB Fan a few times, deleted the entire section without proper cause, though in his own mind it's justified; self-justification being what it is.
 * He complained about his own name in a section heading, then added mine to it in the same breath (I took out both later; his own addition to the sect header in question was a rank NPA), and while he rants about "personal attacks" he has no problem at all with the other edit-warrior's direct slags of me on the same section on my talkpage he links above. This is a pot-kettle-black ANI and one in a long series of procedural hassles/kerfuffles very visible in his usercontributions. Rather than be a responsible wikipedian as he wraps himself in the flag of repeatedly, he is being the opposite in spades, here launching a second ANI against me while the other one is still open, as is the one against him by DocumentError.


 * A prime example of his ongoing habit of abusing and conflating sources is here - none of what he's added is in the cited article, no mention of ISIS, no mention of the Governor-General, and nothing like the analysis/account he gives at all. I reverted it immediately as the same government position (that the shooting was a "terrorist attack") was already in the article and because of the fake/conflated content he claims to have cited. Another good example is this on the 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu article, with the POV/OR edit comment "it was a terrorist attack by a terrorist trying to leave to join the terrorists in Syria." (even the RCMP say he was headed to Libya, his mother says he wanted to go to Saudi Arabia, not Syria); I reverted it with the very true edit comment "none of the links cited by Legacypac said "it was a terrorist attack", eg NP says "the government linked to terrorist ideology". Conflation and distortion of sources is SYNTH; the 3rd link is a blog so questionable)".


 * He has complained that my pointing out such egregious and dishonest behaviour is a "personal attack" but WP:DUCK is what it is, and calling a spade a spade is NOT a personal attack when it's dishonest edits and abuse of sources is involved. As for wanting a topic ban against me for all terrorism articles, I'm sure he's aware of this edit of mine today, removing SYNTH/OR/POV as provided by a SPA and putting the balance he so very much doesn't like on the Ottawa article there, rather than the overwritten semiarticle the SPA had created, out of thin air, with a clear agenda behind it and a false logic on distorted citations.  He's not the only "terror editor" to behave like he does, cf. the origin of that SPA-entry or the ongoing edit war on the Ottaw article, which he has taken part in and has abetted, and now presumes to come here to seek not just a block on me, but a topic ban to get me out of "their" way entirely.


 * As for the IBAN for alleging I have OUTed him, I was viciously and slanderously OUTed by User:Sunciviclee re the infamous Vancouver Sun article linked on Talk:Adrian Dix and nothing was done to ban the editor/reporter who still "stands by his article" despite its incredible lies and distortions, and he never reported that responsible wikipedians, including some who don't like me much, restored what I had done. My actual personal name was OUTed, and nothing was done.  Alluding to what city he's probably from is not OUTing, when he indicates as much on his talkpage (1/2 or more of British Columbians live in Greater Vancouver, which is about 27 municipalities in total).  Really he's just looking for as much ammo as he can conflate/confabulate to get me out of the way of the "terror hobby" that his usercontributions give a very clear indication of.  Presumptive launching of rankly hypocritical ANIs is a habit of his, and in one of the others he whined that there were two open ANIs already, well now he's made it three.  That's abuse of process, pure and simple, as well as yet more hypocrisy.Skookum1 (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Skookum1, I've blocked the other editor you refer to above. Just wanted a clarification to understand your writing style. What did you mean when you wrote, "Yes sir, no sir, FU sir" and "Harassment by troll"? Also, after Resolute's warning to you, where have you mentioned that you're backing off from the article or from reverting? One amongst many comments that I see of yours talks about you deciding to revert as many times as the other editor places the contentious information? And why were you blocked the last time? I'm asking you to clarify the last block's information because I'm not quite clear of what personal attack did you do the last time that led to a block on you. I'll await your reply before taking further action on this report.   Wifione  Message 13:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article protection would've been the better route, in this situation. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This diff may provide some guidance. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply I'm sorry for my late reply, between time differentials with where I am (c.12 time zones away) and power outages and other circumstances, as well as needing to take a break from the stress caused by these discussions. Item by item:
 * 1) I sincerely apologize for the 3RR/4RR, I honestly, in all good faith, did not realize that substitutions/re-insertions of rewordings constituted reverts. Another factor in that is that today/yesterday are different where I am than they are in North America...and I generally don't pay attention to UTC timestamps.  I will be much more mindful of that in future on any article where similar disputes arise.  As noted by Resolute on my talkpage, it takes two to tango, and I will refrain from the dance in future...and pay attention to the clock/date when combative revisions do occur; I will come to this board or another instead in future for resolution of whatever is at play.
 * 2) I apologize to Legacypac and Inthefastlane and will tone done my use of adjectives and emotional-response expletives (or acronyms thereof) in any future (unlikely) discussions with them, or when similarly confronted by aggressive/insulting or NPA/AGF posts/comments on my talkpage or in other article talkpages or edit comments. I'm old enough to know better but come from an upbringing where speaking your mind is expected, in whatever terms. I expect and hope that Inthefastlane can do the same, whether to do with making disparaging/insulting comments and maintain wiki-decorum in future.
 * 3) the most recent block linked above was the result of a complicated series of interactions lasting several months; the "ignorant" comment was a quotation of a statement made by the person responded to there who had said that ignorance of the subject matter was a credential for neutrality about certain matters beyond that particular CfD....it's a long story, too long an explanation for here, which I have explained in detail to Wifione via email.
 * 4) I sincerely apologize to Legacypac for whatever I said to lead him to believe I intended to OUT him; that was never my intent and given my own experiences with having been OUTed I fully understand his fears of same.
 * I have decided to if not exactly de-watchlist the Ottawa shootings article and the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu one, then to refrain from working or commenting on them except for possible technical/maintenance edits or in reply to information/cite queries on the talkpages. Life is too short, and I'm an old man now (59) and how much time I may have left is not worth wasting on argument or WP:BATTLEGROUND articles and POV disputes; the amount of time incurred in the last weeks has been wearying and damaging to my health, and there are many other areas of Wikipedia, particularly geography and BC/Pacific Northwest history/biography and cleaning up the quality of English in many non-anglosphere articles e.g. in Asia and Latin America and variously in Europe, where my wiki-time could be better spent, and which are less likely to be stressful to my health in the way this matter has been.Skookum1 (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a satisfactory resolution for me. I just want to enjoy working on Wikipedia. :) Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * : That's an extremely mature and credible reply from you. Your explanation on email is also quite satisfactory. I'm closing this report with the trust that you'll follow up on what you've written. : a strong suggestion out here. You might have already read WP:Verfiability and WP:OR. Please read them again, especially WP:Exceptional. Please ensure that from now on, whatever material you add to any article, especially that which is likely to be challenged, is supported verbatim by reliable sources. Like I said, this is a very strong suggestion to ensure you tread a path that keeps you in calm waters. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 07:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:90.217.221.63 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: User warned; let's wait and see.)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Introducing factual errors on Škoda Octavia. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

AIV flat-out failing to deal with this user, who has now very clearly violated 3RR. Editor will not discuss their edits (or even use edit summaries), they are removing reliably sourced information, changing things against standard practice, and also making a total mess in the process. In short, the editor has violated 3RR, WP:V and also WP:CIR. Sick and tired of cleaning up after them. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 17:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This was likely left alone at AIV since the contributions are not obviously vandalism. I looked at a few, and they appear to be attempts to improve the articles. The user probably has no idea what Wikipedia policies are, and the canned warnings that were placed on their page probably haven't done much to help them figure out what the problem is. They might improve if someone tells them what exactly they're doing wrong and how they can fix the problem. demize (t · c) 17:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the surface, no, not if you're not looking properly (and you should be looking properly at AIV anyway). However, this is a user who is clearly not paying any attention whatsoever, has violated 3RR, and if you look closely at the edits, they are indeed factually inaccurate and vandalism. The frequent attempts to classify the Octavia as just a large family car, and even inserting "not" before the small family car, go against sources; the latter bit is clearly a bit of vandalism as the user knows they are not getting their own way. Indeed, it's now stuck in the article, as I cannot revert again due to that putting me into four reverts; how is that helpful at all? They frequently change dates to incorrect values, and just create a complete hash of absolutely everything; deleting referenced content, half deleting references, adding in links that don't work, etc, etc. WP:CIR, and they should not be editing templates when they haven't got the slightest clue how to do so. This has been going on for 24 hours, and multiple editors have reverted their mess; enough is enough. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to close this: C.Fred is already on the case (thanks!), and further reverts/unconstructive edits will most likely be met with a block. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bougatsa42 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 635831027 by Dr.K. (talk)There's plenty of evidence to show that Dr Constantine is irrational"
 * 2) Revision as of 22:14, 28 November 2014 Bougatsa42 (Undid revision 635787845 by Dolescum (talk)Still no evidence - contributor simply edit-warring.)
 * 3) Revision as of 14:38, 28 November 2014 Bougatsa42 (Undid revision 635747950 by Dolescum (talk) Glenny is NOT acceptable as a reference, as NOT expert on Ares Verlouchiotis, or even Greece)
 * 4) Revision as of 07:09, 28 November 2014 Bougatsa42 (Undid revision 635745292 by Dolescum (talk)Writer that does not reference material is not a proper source)
 * 5) Revision as of 04:03, 28 November 2014 Bougatsa42(Ares was baptised as Christian Orthodox. Reliable sources have him ensuring he celebrated his name day, and wearing a cross. There is ZERO evidence that he renounced his faith.)
 * 6) Revision as of 11:52, 6 May 2014 Bougatsa42 (Undid revision 607303004 by Dolescum (talk)Misha does not provide a source for this ridiculous claim)
 * 7) Revision as of 07:29, 4 May 2014 Bougatsa42 (Undid revision 606958584 by Leoncon1986 (talk)Always celebrated his name day and Christmas in church, wore a cross, respected the clergywhat else do you want?)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Talkpage is full of warnings such as this 3RR warning and others
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Longterm edit-warring on Aris Velouchiotis. He started again as soon as I gave him a last chance when he went over 3RR on 28 November. Keeps deleting sourced information about Aris Velouchiotis's religion and adding his own unsourced OR. Uses personal attacks in summaries. Mostly edit-warring against. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 36 hours. A next block might be indefinite, unless the editor starts talking on the talk page, giving justification for their edits. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 reported by User:2.177.211.97 (Result: 2 weeks--for the IP)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Bar_of_California&diff=636192373&oldid=635744334

Diffs of the user's reverts: 12 Reverts and Revisions in less than 24 hours, taking out large sections of citations and quotations without discussion.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Bar_of_California

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted to resolve on Article Talk Page & Warned of Edit Warring,

Comments:

User repeatedly vandalized the article. The edit history, also shows that reverted the article 12 times without any discussion whatsoever within 24 hours. He was warned previously by an Admin, but just took the warning off his Talk page and continued the pattern.

2.177.211.97 (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked via the boomerang; see the contributions of, previously blocked by . Drmies (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Cold Season (Result: No block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Cydevil38 is a long-term disruptive user whose main activity is POV-pushing and edit-warring. In addition to the current complaint filed by Cold Season, Cydevil38 has been brought to ANI or other forums at least five times by four different users, an astonishing record for someone with only about 1000 mainspace edits:


 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive46, reported by Komdori, May 2007
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252, reported by Assault11, May 2007
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) (creating a POV fork), reported by Jiejunkong, August 2007
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722, reported by Benlisquare, October 2011, with evidence of disturbing off-wiki racist comments
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779, reported by Benlisquare, December 2012


 * In addition, there are many other incidents that have not been previously reported, including:
 * Long term edit-warring against multiple users on Template:History of Korea, pushing the fringe ultra-nationalist theory that Dangun is historical and Gojoseon was founded in 2333 BC.
 * Removal of sourced content on Mid-Autumn Festival, , , the last revert by an obvious IP sock
 * Canvassing.
 * I believe Cydevil38 deserves a topic-ban in Korea-related articles. -Zanhe (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't the forum to request a topic ban unless it is authorized by ArbCom or by community sanctions and, even then, this board is generally only for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, . I was going to file an ANI complaint for Cydevil38's long-term disruptive behaviour, but Cold Season acted first, so I just appended my evidence here. So let's just deal with the latest edit warring incident for now. -Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I checked this all out - obvious edit warring, inserting the same thing over and over. Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am busy at the moment so I will make this short. Cold season has completely rewritten Gojoseon, and gives undue weight to a contentious element, Gija. He did so unilaterally and without discussion. He uses a single source, which he misinterprets. Another editor who's been espousing the Gija theory, Zanhe, is aiding Cold Season in implementing this rewrite without discussions. I will take this to the RFC in due time, while tagging Cold Season's rewrite as violating NPOV and giving undue weight to a fringe theory in due time. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Without discussion? Then what is this? Three people have agreed with Cold Reason's edits, which are based on an unassailable scholarly source, and you're the only one acting unilaterally in repeatedly reverting him, calling it "North Korean fringe theory", "misinterpretation", etc., with zero evidence. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide me with an explicit diff showing that I completely rewrote the article? Even if I did, there's no policy against it. This is weak. Just like all your other unsubstantiated assertions. I have no interest to discuss article content here at AN3. --Cold Season (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If you file a complaint and it is duplicated on AN/I, I cannot block the editor now. The editor needs to have the opportunity to respond to your accusations at AN/I, and since there is a proposal to topic ban them. It's not fair to make the editor defend the same complaint in two different places at the same time. Jehochman Talk 15:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but this complaint was archived before any decision was made and before another user opened an ANI discussion, so it is not a duplication neither am I trying to make the editor defend in two different places at the same time. But noted. --Cold Season (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 05:49, 12 November 2014
 * 18:54, 1 December 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:08, 1 December 2014
 * 2) 17:45, 1 December 2014
 * 3) 18:01, 1 December 2014
 * 4) 19:25, 1 December 2014‎
 * 5) 19:45, 1 December 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:12, 1 December 2014‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Head of state

Comments:

Open and shut case. However, it looks like there were three combatants in this edit war, all with histories. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (Thanks for proving something made a difference for me, six years ago. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Yes. Now you revert 3 times instead of 4. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You still revert 5 times instead of stopping at 3. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't wanna see Skyring blocked. I just wish for him to respect WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS at the article-in-question & for that matter, any other article. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on his block log and my own past experience with him, blocked, not blocked, nothing seems to make much of a difference. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is locked for the time being. Why not use the time to cool down, discuss the issue, allow others to comment and build a consensus view? Perhaps the article could be given a 1RR limit to prevent anyone gaming the system up to the "bright line"? --Pete (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see Pete as defaulter on the merits, please stop this. Qexigator (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Skyring should've began a discussion on November 11, after I reverted his edit. Why din't he do so? All I want to know is this - Why didn't he respect BRD? GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion initiated here: Let's talk. The Australian situation is different to the Canadian. and conducted here for the next two days. Looks like a discussion to me. --Pete (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a content question, Skyring. It's a conduct question. Again, Why did you refuse to respect BRD? GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * (full) for a week by .--Bbb23 (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikiblanks reported by User:Tiller54 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: from Stesmo: from Biblioworm: from Frosty: and from Frosty again:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (which was promptly reverted  by Wikiblanks).

Comments:

User is attempting to remove sourced content, claiming that it is "lies" and "libel". When provided with sources which clearly back up what the article says, he ignores them, claims that I am lying, claims they don't exist and deletes my talk page comment. Tiller54 (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tiller54 is repeatedly posting libel comments with no factual basis just because he found some unsubstantiated garbage on the internet. According to wiki terms a user cannot post- Negative libelous content about a living person, who is not even the subject of the article.SEE BRIAN BABIN TALK PAGE FOR ONGOING DISCUSSION. Tiller54 was advised by several wiki admins to discontinue posting libel about McDonald and Babin in the story but he continues to do so as an opposition operative against Babin.Wikiblanks (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles published by The Hill, PlanetOut, The Dallas Morning News, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Houston Chronicle, Metro Weekly and The Washington Post do not constitute "unsubstantiated garbage". You should have taken your own advice and made sensible contributions to the talk page instead of edit warring and deleting my talk page posts. Tiller54 (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * for sock puppetry by .--Bbb23 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lagoonaville reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There is a dispute going on Undid revision 636296462 by GorgeCustersSabre (talk)"
 * 2)  "Please dicuss on the talk page Undid revision 636294781 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
 * 3)  "I am keeping tags because there is a current discussion Undid revision 636294604 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
 * 4)  "I will report you both if you dont stop Undid revision 636294294 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Stop Undid revision 636283055 by GorgeCustersSabre (talk)"
 * 6)  "dont remove this tag pleaseUndid revision 636282189 by GorgeCustersSabre (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Article is Disputed template on Barelvi */"


 * Comments:

User is spamming a POV tag inappropriately into an article because they didn't get their own way. The neutrality of the article has never been disputed by them, so the tag isn't valid. Editor is at 5 reverts, has already violated 3RR and been warned in the past for it (and indeed reported here), and is just being totally uncooperative at this point. Enough is enough. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 10:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Should also note that the user continues to post on my talk page, even after being explicitly told not to (and even thanking me for that message). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The users on the page apparently dont want people to know there is a dispute going on. This user Luke has no input on the dispute and waits on other editors. I have gone to the talk page but they are stalling discussions which is why i put a tag. They seem to be active in reverts but not in discussions. Lagoonaville (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As said before, I simply act to keep the consensus; I leave the actual discussion to the editors who know what they are talking about. If I didn't want people to know a dispute was going on, then I wouldn't post a very public AN3 request. You are not disputing the neutrality of the article, so the POV tag is inappropriate. You are disputing about three words. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not neutral to keep those terms out of the article after i have provided reliable sources. I dont appreciate you telling me what my thoughts are on this. Lagoonaville (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not true, User:Lagoonaville. You have been disruptive and confrontational and you have also ignored the attempts of four editors to maintain something of an editor consensus on the Barelvi page. You have also violated the 3RR rule -- straight after I warned you about it. I tried to reach out to you, but you just wanted to argue. Anyone can see this on my take page, on your talk page and on the Barelvi talk page. I've been patient, but now I've had enough. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Revert number six. This needs actioning, and actioning quickly. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As clearly seen by these responses the editors in question are not interested in discussing the matter. They are only here to attack me or my edits I have taken this to ANI already on the gang mentality of their edits on that article If administrators dont do something they will continue to censor edits. Lagoonaville (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong on all counts. On the few things you actually discussed, the people who were discussing tended to agree with you. You didn't take us to ANI, you took me to ANI, so don't lie. This is absolutely not "censorship", and again, you must have a fairly poor grasp of English to think that it is. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the whole discussion over at ANI. I mentioned that you all are backing eachother up like its highschool. I dont know if you know each other offline or something but you shouldnt use wikipedia in this manner. Lagoonaville (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know these users off-wiki, what I do know is that they are good faith editors who have worked hard to keep this article neutral and sensible against a giant sockfarm. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Lukenos You have been biased and only want to see me blocked since the day i edited that article. The administrator wanted you to discuss the matter and you refused until I took my complaint to ANI. These 3 editors in question have an ownership style foothold on this article. I am sure somebody on the outside can see whats going on. Lagoonaville (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Warwar86 reported by User:TopGun (Result: blocked 36 hours, now indefinite)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [nil by any party / though reverted by multiple editors, I tried to get him to reason or atleast give an edit summary ]

Comments: Not replying on his talkpage, not cooperating in anyway to any editor. I'm reporting as an uninvolved editor. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 36 hours. The next block will probably be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , The user is evading block. WP:DUCK ... SPI already has a backlog and this will long be over before he gets his turn there. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for a week now, account indefinitely - doesn't look as though this editor will play nicely. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Vaad Talmidei Hatmimim Haolami (Result: Semiprotected)
Hi. There has been a lot of intentional vandalism going on at Vaad Talmidei Hatmimim Haolami. One or more users have been engaged in an edit war. There have also been clear violations of WP:3RR and other forms of vandalism and edit warring by users User talk:Carnegieking, User talk:66.87.117.213 and User talk:47.18.220.194. These users have all been warned to stop their bad behavior. Please investigate. Veronika53 (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Veronika, this isn't really an edit warring issue, it's a vandalism issue. I've semi-protected the page, whch should keep the vandals using IP's and throwaway accounts at bay for a while.  In the future, obvious vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User:69.156.104.117 reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restoring corrections made per Talk page section Abuse of Sources"
 * 2)  "Continuing to correct article per Talk page Section Abuse of Sources.  Reversions will be reported as vandalism."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 636376041 by Iryna Harpy (talk) Reason: vandalism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. (TW)"
 * 2)   Addendum to Volunteer Marek's edit warring warning.

Within a short period of time, after this comment, the user began a new section entitled "Abuse of sources" on the talk page. Two responses were posted while the IP simply resumed refactoring the content of the article and edit warring without engaging in BRD.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

SPA not only edit warring, but refactoring content per POV & GEVAL. Clearly NOTHERE. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (semi) for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Guru234 reported by User:Cutest Penguin (Result:1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Campus */"
 * 2)  "/* Campus */"
 * 3)  "/* Mode of admission */"
 * 4)  "/* History */"
 * 5)  "/* History */"
 * 6)  "/* Mode of admission */"
 * 7)  "/* Undergraduate */"
 * 1)  "/* History */"
 * 2)  "/* History */"
 * 3)  "/* Mode of admission */"
 * 4)  "/* Undergraduate */"
 * 1)  "/* History */"
 * 2)  "/* Mode of admission */"
 * 3)  "/* Undergraduate */"
 * 1)  "/* History */"
 * 2)  "/* Mode of admission */"
 * 3)  "/* Undergraduate */"
 * 1)  "/* Mode of admission */"
 * 2)  "/* Undergraduate */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Even after several warning the user continues his disrupted editing and not even responding to the talk page questions. And it seems that the user have created another account named, after seeing his/her talk page warnings.— C<b style="color:#F0A000">ute</b><b style="color:#00A300">st</b><b style="color:#0A47FF">Penguin</b><sup style="font-size:50%">Hangout 14:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * for copyright violations, sock/alt-account blocked indef per WP:DUCK. Nick (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Topic ban)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Not applicable - further promise to edit war, broke promise not to edit page, futher disruption on talk page

Diffs of the user's reverts: This user has started at least 5 threads over the same issue and refuses to accept any evidence against their POV while failing to submit any evidence supporting their POV.
 * 1)  discussion after edits reverted
 * 2)  and again
 * 3)  and again see collapsed thread
 * 4)  and again here which lead to
 * 5)  a 48 hour block but as soon as the block lifted he was back at it which lead to another edit warring report
 * 6)  Not blocked for now. Signedzzz, if you seriously stand by your statement "Honestly, I think I'm done with the article.", I shan't waste any further time on this report in good faith. But if you wish to edit the article further, do mention, and I'll consider investing more time in reviewing this report. Do tell me what you wish. Wifione Message 16:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC) but now we have
 * 7)  removing the same words yet again and when reverted,
 * 8)  starting another talk thread
 * 9)  this talk thread with the same unsubstantiated point
 * 10)  where he promises to edit war over this wording indefinitely.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notification of ISIL sanctions by User:PBS. and another time? And the previous block and by another user  This is the third trip to edit warring notice board, see above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above - far too much talk

Comments: the wording he is warring over is the result of several consensus discussions and summarizes several large sections of the article. Total disregard for sources, and the POV makes no sense because both ISIL and its enemies agree that they have the same goal, just as the article states.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)


 * A while back, before I was notified of general sanctions, I deleted some material. I was asked to revert myself, but no one could explain why I should. So when the material was restored, I reverted. This I took to be 1 Revert - butapparently the original deletion counted as 1R already, so I was blocked (in my absence, with no chance to explain myself). Then when I was reported here again by Legacypac, I was not guilty of breaking 1RR, so that was a waste of time. I was so disgusted, however, that I did in fact say ""Honestly, I think I'm done with the article." This is not, of course, equivalent to a "promise" or a self-imposed topic-ban. I was under no pressure whatsoever to do anything of the sort - I was simply fed up.


 * Today, I removed the words "and aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control, beginning with Iraq and the Levant region, which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey." It is unsourced, as I had explained a week or so earlier. Legacypac reverted me, claiming it was "heavily" sourced, in his edit summary, and that removing it was a "non-good faith edit". My edit summary had been "'Aim' is (still) unsourced" - a very clear reason - therefore, how can it have been a "non-good faith edit"?


 * The talk section I then opened speaks for itself - "still no sources for this "heavily sourced" statement, after I attempted to discuss the problem, so it will have to go." Legacypac replies by


 * pretending I had "promised not to edit the article"
 * claiming "since zzz just deleted 3 references while claiming the information is unsourced, it is hard to take him seriously." - when I had not in fact deleted any references whatsoever.
 * supplying a source, the Economist. I read it, and pointed out that it does not support the statement "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control". Not even vaguely.
 * Legacypac replies by saying "Apparently the second sentence of the Economist article '... it declared a caliphate, claiming to speak for the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.' means nothing." So, he has justified a part of the article which I did not delete and had no intention of deleting - specifically, the phrase "As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide" - which is the first half of the sentence I deleted, so he is aware that I left it. I have never suggested removing it, in fact. He is either unbelievably incompetent, or completely dishonest (or both).
 * In his first reply he finished by saying "Your choice Signedzzz - you want to continue to delete the same content over and over or you going to stop?" - in other words, announcing that he intended to continue reverting me, regardless of being unable to provide a source for his opinion.


 * The last time he reported me here, I was expecting a WP:BOOMERANG - but, unfortunately, I said that I doubted I would edit the article again, so the admin left it. This time, I quite simply want to remove an unsourced statement of opinion from the lead section of one the the most-viewed articles in the encyclopedia, permanently linked to from the Main Page. I did not remove any references: that is simply a lie. The statement is still completely unreferenced, despite my patient and reasonable objections on the talk page. And the reference supplied on the talk page is irrelevant. zzz (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It says at the top of the talk page "Article policies
 * No original research
 * Neutral point of view
 * Verifiability"


 * If this seriously doesn't actually apply, to the lead section of an article linked from the Main Page, then I freely admit that I have made an enormous mistake. zzz (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment zzz is correct that this round he did not delete the sources. Sorry I got confused. He just did not read them properly, or the sources in the sections of the article this summarizes, or the many sources previously supplied to him, or the article on calephate and here is another about to go in to the article this source that says ""Caliph," or khalifa, means "successor" in Arabic, and by taking the title, al-Baghdadi has declared himself the chief imam and political and military leader of all Muslims." Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply Ok, so you are, in fact, staggeringly incompetent. I repeat: I left the phrase "As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide". Again, you are justifying keeping this phrase, which no one has suggested deleting. However, no one has yet supplied a source that states that ISIS "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control" - which is why I deleted it. zzz (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I will say, though, you have finally, at long last, provided one source that vaguely suggests how you formed your unverified opinion. I assume that's the best source you have, in which case I was absolutely right to delete. zzz (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It used to say "aims to bring most Muslim regions..." until I started objecting, a week or two ago. Removing the word "most" makes it look more encyclopedic, but is actually more deceptive - not an improvement. zzz (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, here is where I raised my concerns about the article, and particularly the childish antics of its editors, with Wifione after the last time Legacypac reported me. zzz (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * One final thought: if it is going to continue to be impossible for editors to improve the page, eg by deleting sub-standard unsourced material from the lead section, then I would urge admins to remove the article from its permanent link on the Main Page (right next to the high quality Ebola article). zzz (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: It appears that User:Signedzzz is engaged in long-term edit warring about the statement in the lead about ISIS's aim. He was previously blocked 48 hours in November as a community sanction block, for 1RR violation, and the pattern still continues. There is no 1RR this time. He is just coming back to make the same revert again over a period of weeks. In my opinion the situation calls for a longer block of Signedzzz or a ban from the page under WP:GS/SCW. I didn't see anyone on the talk page supporting the view of Signedzzz. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is one of the reverts zzz made on November 16 just before he was blocked. This is the revert zzz made on December 2. They effectively remove identical material. I would endorse an article ban of 3-6 months, not just based on the disruptive edits, but also on the continuing denial that he's doing anything wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made various other improvements, this is now the main one remaining at this point. Here is an example of an editor agreeing with me about this edit over a week ago. I don't understand why a statement that is not supported by references should be protected. I also don't understand how it is "edit warring" if I've only removed it 2 or 3 times, with explanation (which is repeatedly ignpored in favour of personal attacks). In fact, the only editor who wants to keep this particular unreferenced claim has been Legacypac.zzz (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not correct. - The link he provides immediately above contains no one supporting his edit, only supporting policy and asking for proof of his point (supporting the idea that zzz can't understand plain english). If you read through the many linked discussions zzz started you will find various editors objecting to the same deletions and as far as I have seen, not one person agreeing with his POV. Gregkeye [ and [[User|P123ct1]] have not chimed in here yet but expressed their support for admin action on talk pages. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict - posting in sequence)
 * In the link, Gregkaye said "zzz Its a good point that we either need a citation for this or to make a correction." Exactly what I have been saying. Is that not plain English? "No one supporting my edit"??? In fact, no one has supported keeping this except Legacypac, all the while disingenuously pretending it is supported by sources, but never providing any.zzz (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it is unsourced; Legacypac restored it while pretending that it is "heavily sourced" - but failing/ refusing to provide any source. An editor, Gregkaye, agreed with me; no one agreed with Legacypac reverting me. I left it, but eventually, today, I removed it again; Legacypac again reverted with a disingenuous claim that it is "heavily sourced" and that removing it is "non-good faith". Did I revert? No, I again opened a talk page discussion. How am I edit warring? Please explain, I'm not denying I'm doing anything wrong, I just don't have any idea what I'm doing wrong. Legacypac claims it is sourced, but it apparently is not. No one supports his POV, and Gregkaye supported mine. zzz (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And, please, explain how it is "disruptive" to remove an unsourced claim? "Unsourced material may be removed", is that not the case? zzz (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Look a few lines down at the paragraph where Gregkeye states why he disagrees with you and lists a few reasons. Again with the selective reading. Wasting everyones time, refuses to read sources or other editor's comments - or just can't understand plain english.

I'll also note there is no reason to put sources every half sentence and the repeatedly deleted material in the lead summarizes this section and this section of the article where additional sources can be found. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye agreed with me, as linked above. Further down he says "a leader in ISIS’ rival al-Nusra Front said,... “By declaring the caliphate, they are forcing all groups in the Islamic world to be with ISIS in everything,.."".

So, it would be ok to say that a leader in al-Nusra Front said “By declaring the caliphate, they are forcing all groups in the Islamic world to be with ISIS in everything,..". It is not ok to state as fact that ISIS "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control" based on this opinion of one of their enemies, (who in any case states something distinctly different). This is the most blatant bit of OR/synthesis I have seen in an article.

And you keep saying that sources support the statement in "other sections" of the article, and yet when challenged you cannot provide a single one. zzz (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did you change it from "most Muslim areas of the world" to "Muslim areas of the world" after my objection a week ago? Are these 2 statements both factual? Or which one is correct? Does it not matter? And where is the RS that says either one? zzz (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi chaps, I am the aforementioned Gregkaye. (appols to gregkeye for not being the same person ).  For what it is worth, I view signedzzz as a capable but argumentative editor.  My first encounter with him/her came when I requested a revert on his/her user talk page and, without a ping reply, found that the thread had been moved to the article talk page here.  There had been evidence of what I considered to be third party sock-puppet intervention on zzz's talk page but, when I mentioned this so as to give other editors a heads up on the kind of activities that occurred around ISIL related topics this was interpreted as an attack and at this point I largely bowed out of the proceedings.  Another old thread worth consideration is entitled Removing unencyclopaedic material from lead: detailed rationale as started by Legacypac.  It was welcome that a less regular editor on ISIL  took an active role at the time in tackling issues raised by Signedzzz.  Legacypac consulted/checked with me before starting these proceedings with discussion here.  Signedzzz can make beneficial contributions as per notification of potentially fluff image as at "Pair of armed anti-American insurgents from northern Iraq".  The cynical side of me wonders whether increased effort was put into making this type of contribution particularly at this time.  It shows an editor with ability to think out of the box.  However the main issues here relate to editor behaviours not abilities.  Edit warring with later appeals to talk page apparent.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  07:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your cynicism is up to you, but I suggested removing the picture before this complaint was filed. And there has been no evidence of socking on my talk page (and nothing to do with ISIS either). zzz (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * zzz making a reference here to you as a "capable ... editor" was also up to me. I have rarely if ever seen someone in proceedings give praise or acknowledgement to an accused party. What I said above was "There had been evidence of what I considered to be third party sock-puppet intervention on zzz's talk page".  This relates to two unique IP contributions here.  The editor was praising you on a large scale deletion from the Boko Haram article, a group that are listed as an ally of the Daesh group.  Of course this has something to do with ISIS.  Its much the same topic but in a different location which will explain my suggestion below. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  20:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Making one edit and then discussing when reverted is called BRD, not edit warring.

I am still waiting for a source that supports the "aims". Here's one source (via VICE media) that actually quotes an ISIS spokesman announcing their "aims", saying "“We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House”. Note that America is not a "Muslim area of the world". This is an ISIS spokesman describing their aims, but your (unsourced) opinion overrides it??? zzz (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So I'm "argumentative" - who isn't? Should I back down and say "ok, you don't need a source, just say whatever you like, and carry on pretending you have a source"? How is that helping to build an encyclopedia? I genuinely don't understand, please clarify this. zzz (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac says "it's heavily sourced". I say "provide a source". He cannot do so. I say "so the statement needs to go". He says "Oh, but there are other sources elsewhere, and you can't understand plain English anyway". That is the entire argument so far. Please tell me what I am doing wrong here, and also, what Legacypac is doing right. zzz (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not meant to be combative. Since being criticised before for being confrontational, I believe I have been polite and clear on the talk page, but now I'm being criticised again. The edit was the most important edit to make as I saw it. Although I had proposed it before, my concern had been ignored - it is still an unsourced claim, and "unsourced claims may be removed." Especially when, in this case, the claim actually conflicts with genuine sources. Admittedly I got quite annoyed when I was immediately accused by Legacypac of not reading the article, deleting sources, & editing in bad faith. In future I will remember to just calmly say "but I didn't delete any sources, etc, so please don't say I did". zzz (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: 1)Gregkaye's post above says "Another old thread worth consideration is entitled Removing unencyclopaedic material from lead: detailed rationale as started by Legacypac." The thread was started by me in fact, and my bullet-points were then interspersed with Legacypac's automatic objections. Legacypac would never start a talk page discussion, he simply reverts any changes to the article with a dismissive and abusive edit summary.
 * 2)"aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control, beginning with Iraq and the Levant region, which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey" is not only unsourced, and original research, but it also casually describes Israel as a Muslim-inhabited region. If sources don't matter in this article, (and they clearly don't), I don't suppose that does either, but I thought I should mention it anyway. zzz (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Finally: This is the third time Legacypac has reported me to this noticeboard. The first time, I had arguably made 2 reverts. The other 2 times I definitely haven't. So why report me here, to the wrong noticeboard? Rather than WP:ANI, the correct place, which I was considering just before he reported me this time? It wouldn't be to avoid wider scrutiny, would it? Because the wider community would never support an editor who wanted to keep unsourced original research? zzz (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? ISIL article says "...Levant region, which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey" (ISIL article) = "The Levant today consists of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and part of southern Turkey (the former Aleppo Vilayet)" (Levant article). As every good jihadist knows, the Zionist dogs are interlopers on Muslim land but we use OR to "casually describes Israel as a Muslim-inhabited region" = zzz's maybe never heard of the little religious/ethnic disagreement over Jerusalem but 1000000000 sources will never convince him once he decides something. This nonsense needs to be stopped. Would an admin please close this now? Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A three-month topic ban of User:Signedzzz from the topic of the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed, would be reasonable. If the editor is hoping to avert the ban he might make some kind of reasonable offer to moderate his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would hope that a ban, at whatever length, could cover all Islam/Islamic extremist related topics. I personally think that the Syrian Civil War sphere is quite misconstrued.  For some people real sphere relates to the political side.  In this case the sphere relates to extremist interest in general.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  19:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Any topic ban cannot be outside the scope of WP:GS/SCW.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case I'd suggest a block for any particular length of time might accompany a topic ban. This is in relation to edits on the Boko Haram article, a group whose name means "British colonial (western style) education is a sin": I find this last reply amazing. There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram. A simple search on "boko haram" education curriculum gave About 227,000 results with notable pages to start being of news reports of the group attacking and closing down schools with reports clearly stating a connection to the groups anti Western education philosophy.
 * Revision as of 10:35, 3 December 2014 Gregkaye - I added Category:Islamic extremist groups restricting education
 * Revision as of 14:27, 3 December 2014 Signedzzz - (Undid revision 636443095 by Gregkaye (talk)unsourced/inaccurate)
 * Revision as of 18:34, 3 December 2014 Gregkaye - (Undid revision 636462103 by Signedzzz (talk) undid disruption, please read text: Western education has always been dismissed as ilimin boko; a school that teaches Western education is makaranta..)
 * Latest revision as of 21:04, 3 December 2014 Signedzzz - (Undid revision 636491546 by Gregkaye (talk)they don't "restrict education")

On a related topic, can any of the editors here let me know of how to find related administrators who have involvements with other articles related to Islamic extremism. I personally think it would be worth extending sanctions to cover all Islamic extremist groups. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  21:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC) [content above was presented out of sequence]

It's clearly not worth the effort, so I will leave the article alone, from now on. I really have no interest in it - it's just an article in dire need of improvement. But it's not my problem, and it's been very pointless and unpleasant trying to do anything about it. zzz (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We heard that story at the last 3RR round, but here we are, so hard to believe. If it is true, a WP:GS/SCW ban will not hurt zzz's enjoyment of WP and he will not mind it at all. Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Signedzzz is banned from the topic of the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards under the WP:GS/SCW community sanctions, for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, there's a message to Legacypac at the end of the report at the top of this page: "@Legacypac:: a strong suggestion ... Please ensure that from now on, whatever material you add to any article, especially that which is likely to be challenged, is supported verbatim by reliable sources." However, this is nothing more than a suggestion, obviously. zzz (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Antonioptg reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First edit war, pre-3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Continued edit war, second breach of 3RR AFTER 3RR warning:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

That's 8 or 9 reverts in 48 hours, or 2+ breaches of 3RR. I didn't report the user earlier because I was giving them the benefit of the doubt - they have been warned and blocked for edit warring before  but I thought a warning was in order first anyway:. It had absolutely no effect.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (their whole talk page is pretty much all warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a pretty new WP:SPA. Actually another new SPA in a very very very long list of new SPAs who've shown up to edit Ukraine-Russia related topics to fit their POVs. Aside from complete failure to heed edit-war warnings, does not appear to be a new user.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to notice that another user is currently blocked for edit warring with Antonioptg on this page, even though he made "only" 4 reverts.My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * . A couple of comments. Technically, in the latest round, the user did not violate 3RR as reverts #4 and #5 came just outside the 24-hour window, although that should probably be construed as gaming. The block is therefore based on edit warring, which is blatant. As for the other blocked user, although I hesitate to speak for another admin, I think that block relates to a slow edit war between the blocked user and yet another user.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:81.102.223.191 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP attempting to reinstate mentions of honour subsequently annulled. No explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo reported by User:RGloucester (Result: 3 months)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 636423703 by My very best wishes (talk) Vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 636421562 by My very best wishes (talk) There is no denying that the referendums were recognized"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 636404105 by Danlaycock (talk) Except the referendum is for independence.."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 636404105 by Danlaycock (talk) Except the referendum is for independence.."


 * Comments:

This user was placed under WP:1RR. This is a clear violation of that. RGloucester — ☎ 13:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How is it against WP:1RR? The three edits you listed were different. I didn't think I wasn't allowed to revert on the same article more than once.  [  Soffredo  ]   Yeoman lv2 small.png 13:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You've made the same exact comment before, and we explained quite clearly what a revert is. If you still don't know, that's your fault. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * . As before. Kuru   (talk)  14:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RGloucester  Kuru  Also this against consensus adding of piping to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Pintade reported by User:Mendaliv (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Now what is your excuse? The compas page is based on sound references and material. Best Regards"
 * 2)  "The compas article is supported with solid references and sound materials."
 * 3)  "With calm and confidence we're repairing the vandalism caused by inept haters"
 * 4)  "This opportunistic, confusing and unnecessary reference has been deleted. This article is a classic example of promotion of compas as zouk in Cape Vert. while cassav features 90% compas there is no mention of the compas."
 * 5)  "Patiently but surely rebuilding the compas page; it will contain only pertinent materials"
 * 6)  "Why you have deleted the Mini-jazz, essential for the article? were feeling bored? have nothing to do? mini jazz is contained in all compas publishing."
 * 1)  "Why you have deleted the Mini-jazz, essential for the article? were feeling bored? have nothing to do? mini jazz is contained in all compas publishing."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Compas. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Compas. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Ongoing edit war, though it hasn't passed 3RR as far as I can tell. There are lots of small edits that may constitute partial reverts, and certainly a lot of bad faith on the part of this editor. My involvement stems from a current WP:ANI thread. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment:
 * Hello all, I am just dropping by to give my two cents. With the amount of vandalism that has gone on with these similar pages are insurmountable. Its been a work in progress and Pintade is very passionate and knowledgeable (which is what we need!) on these subjects and I vouch for his knowledgeably. I've been monitoring these pages and every now-and-then, and it is an IP address user that has complete disregard for the sources we have provided and the Wikipedia procedure and etiquette and as a result an edit-war is started. As a registered user against the unfriendly masses of IP address users who seem to take an offense by the information we have put out there, Pintade should not be to blame. It has been constant. If is wasn't for this user, the subject would be in complete disarray. Now, I do not know if Mendaliv has been watching as closely as I have (a little under a year now), but I can tell you this block is completely unwarranted. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment:
 * Hello, User:Pintade may be passionate but the editor has no real interest in dealing with reliable sources and really has WP:OWN issues. Pintade admits he is creating a book on Carribean music himself which explains the passion, the possible knowledge and the refusal to provide anything more than personal gut feelings. I have no idea if Pintade or the IP address is more knowledgeable but neither is in the clear here. See the discussion at ANI as well. My first edit at Compas was a gigantic gutting of the article including the numerous reference tags that stated "Pintade, Wikipedia editor" as a source. Pintade was informed back in January 2013 here not to use "unwritten facts and personal testimonies." There is similar edit warring at Cadence rampa (with similar personal attacks following me similarly removing unsourced statements), at Zouk-love (unexplained removal of sources), and before that at Zouk. No suggestion on how to continue but I would ask that more people perhaps instruct Pintade on WP:AGF but I fear it's just a WP:COMPETENCY issue or a WP:COI that won't stop. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Response:
 * What say you Ricky81682? Instead of blanking sections (as the other IP address user who even removed your merge tag for Zouk, and spammed talk pages with endless jargon), you could have inserted citation tags (or a reliable source?) first. See WP:USI. I do not agree with Pintade using himself as a source, but it seems like he is managing many of this music-related articles himself. There is a lot of material on the subject where I had verified his edits myself, which is why I wasn't challenging. To sit down and help site them all matching them up like pieces of a jig saw puzzle it isn't easy. A lot of those verifications were mine. For somebody to come long and blank sections without even inserting a single maintenance tag first, is not the right thing to do, I'm sorry. Again, these pages are a work in progress. Also, if you do not belong to a certain project, please refrain from resetting the level of importance to what you think is fitting. I believe that Pintade should be warned for his conduct as there is not place for that here, but to block this user for basically restoring these articles would be a major disservice. To all parties involved, thank you for your time. Savvyjack23 (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We do sometimes close 3RR reports with only a warning. But in those cases there is reason for optimism that the behavior won't repeat. In this case, Pintade is quite sure he is right and it seems he is just going to continue. Do you have any suggestions for getting User:Pintade to follow Wikipedia policy? The alternative is to just give him the article to do with as he pleases. At the 3RR board we don't usually do that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I advocate a block? Between the ANI discussion and the 3RR discussion and the recent editing, there hasn't been an ounce of remorse, just enabling. Also, WP:USI says "Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." The article had references cited to "Pintade, Wikipedia editor." I bolded removed it. Should I put in a maintenance tag, wait for the editor to use themselves as a source and then fight them over that? The editors aren't even putting in actual sources, just random strings that they google to support their claims. I'm constantly trying to fix the ones I can figure out (which had the wrong author, wrong page linked, no book name, etc.) and I don't like dealing with people who 'know' what's right and then put in whatever shuts others up for the moment. That creates more work, not less. As I said above, Pintade is passionate but has zero actual interest in discussing reliable sources. I removed funkyorgan.com because FunkyOrgan.com, "a blog about organ based soul, jazz, funk, blues, gospel and pop music" with no named editors, is not a reliable source. Fine, Pintade restored it with this attack summary because he disagrees. I'll remove it again and start a discussion on the talk page and we'll see if there's an actual interest in our policies here or we really have no choice but to let him roam free here because "he's right." And finally, as to changing you owning the WP:HAITI project, my apologies for changing it. I didn't think a single genre of music, within the topic of merengie music within the topic of the music of Haiti should be considered a high category within Haiti, France and the African diaspora but I won't touch your project anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected two weeks. Use the talk page to request changes in the article. Changes that lack reliable sources may not be done. User:Pintade's attacks on other editors are not amusing. He should be aware he can be blocked for personal attacks. When he accuses his content opponents of vandalism he is just revealing a lack of awareness of Wikipedia policy. After such a long time it becomes tiresome. If his disruptive behavior continues he may be blocked without further warning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/195.99.213.226 reported by User:BlitzGreg (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * diff 1
 * diff 2
 * diff 3
 * diff 4
 * diff 5
 * diff 6
 * diff 7

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Anonymous first party editors directly affiliated with the article began mass section blanking, I attempted to reach a consensus before making any of the requested changes but nobody apparently would like to actually discuss the disputed content before making changes. The articles in question also have a history of similar vandalism by sockpuppets. BlitzGreg (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering how much of the blanked content was sourced to forum posts, I think someone with a little more time than I have right now should review this instead of just blocking the IP. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected one month. See Sockpuppet investigations/Jaymd 123, especially the comment by User:RGribble0. The semi will have the effect of forcing some admittedly COI-affected editors to use the talk page for a while. The related page at GameMaker: Studio is also semiprotected and it appears to be getting along well. There is a related discussion at Talk:YoYo Games. User:MusikAnimal is another admin who has worked on this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I am very new to this side of wikipedia. I totally understand the semi protection and agree with this action as my actions where perhaps a bit rash due to only seeing negative content being updated. What I would like to ask is for the editors to be pushing up to date content as this does not seem to be happening. I understand that users are under no obligation to update/maintain the pages. I have stated that if allowed to become an editor, I will not remove any more content without discussion first but I would love to update content as it is severely needed. I am very willing to work with the other editors (only seems to be 1 active one). Again apologies if this is not the way things are done and I do not wish to e an annoyance. I am just wishing for the content to be up to date (for instance the version numbers on our software where almost 2 years out of date). RGribble0 (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you're affected by a COI, the best practice is for you to confine yourself to the talk page and describe the article changes you believe are necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Whilst being affected by COI is there anything I can do if I do not feel the talk page is sufficiently being acted upon? I understand 2 days right now is not a sufficient wait time but say if it hasn't been acted upon for weeks? Also, if my information where "neutral, reliably sourced" would I ever be able to add to the pages? I would also like to state that my actions whilst being COI where only there remove unreliable sources (some of which still remain in my opinion), it was my nativity to how wikipedia worked that caused the user to "reverse engineer" my IP address. Again apologies, just trying to learn how this works. RGribble0 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You can fill out a Request edit on the article talk page to get attention to a request, or ask at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User:107.152.9.184 reported by User:Wbm1058 (Result: Semi, blocks)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neighborhood&diff=prev&oldid=636770813
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neighborhood&diff=prev&oldid=636769987
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neighborhood&diff=prev&oldid=636766826
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neighborhood&diff=prev&oldid=636757168

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: special:diff/636768635

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: special:diff/636768635

Comments:


 * Result: Both articles semiprotected, two IPs blocked. He was also warring to remove this report from the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

User:50.140.205.138 reported by User:Dai Pritchard (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  03:23, 5 November 2014
 * 2)  08:34, 5 November 2014
 * 3)  07:54, 1 December 2014
 * 4)  20:01, 4 December 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:48, 6 November 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  22:53, 7 November 2014
 * 2)  09:03, 29 November 2014
 * 3)  10:25, 1 December 2014

Comments:

Anonymous editor, repeatedly adding an unsourced career claim to a BLP article that's already got plenty of unsourced claims. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected 3 months. Long-term spamming of unsourced material by a variety of IPs. This is a WP:BLP article and new material needs to be sourced. Without a source we have no idea whether the claims are true. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

User:64.231.88.34 reported by User:Widr (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undoing vandalism. Please see talk page. Reporting users in this article for vandalism."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 636773112 by Cassianto (talk)"
 * 3)  "Do not edit war, do not vandalize this page, see the talk page. Further violation will result in being reported. Last warning."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 636732661 by SchroCat (talk) Please refrain fron edit warring, see the talk page for discussion."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 636713925 by Betty Logan (talk) Do not revert this again. Please start a topic in the talk page if you feel the need to undo revisions again."

I strongly suspect that this (made at 04:10, 5 December 2014‎) was their first edit to change the long-standing text. It can be taken as a good faith attempt, but the warring to ensure it stayed crosses the line. - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism."

Refers to the talk page, but hasn't made any comments there.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

EDIT: There are comments there from two other editors (including me) but none from the IP:. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User: Sheri katheren meyer reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diffs of requests to provide a reliable source:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments: Not sure the editor is intentionally edit-warring per se, but they've re-inserted the same unsourced material despite repeated requests to provide a source. DonIago (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . The user's relatively short contribution history indicates disruption on more than this article, as well as sock puppetry (their IP has already been blocked for a month).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Geoffrey.landis reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A fairly straight forwards case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not a straightforward case at all. The final revert in this list was not actually a deliberate revert: User:QuackGuru edited the page (removing the "undue" and "Quality" tags from the lede) at the same time that I was editing it to copy material (that QuickGuru was deleting) out of the lede and into the body.  The net result was that I pasted material that was cut by QuackGuru.  I'm not sure why Wikipedia didn't flag this as an edit conflict; possibly because I was editing one section while QuackGuru was editing a different part, but in any case I didn't see QuackGuru's deletion until after my edits posted.
 * Who is User:QuackGuru anyway? I looked at his page, but all that's on it are notes saying that this page has been deleted eleven times.
 * In fact, I'd ended up pasting more material than I'd intended. I would have gone back and cleaned this up, but by the time I'd started proofreading, QuackGuru had already reverted all my changes.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure that revert is not needed for you to be over 3. It is interesting that you commented that the topic was controversial but rather than get consensus just started edit warring. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I believe it is you who was edit warring. I'd say User:QuackGuru as well, but I am somewhat doubtful that this person actually exists. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so you are claiming that QG is my sockpuppet? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:98.219.178.126 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: no action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Reception */"
 * 2)  "/* Description */"
 * 3)  "/* Reception */"
 * 4)  "/* Reception */"
 * 1)  "/* Reception */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Functional medicine. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Functional medicine. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of sourced content, altering attributed statements, EW */ new section"


 * Comments:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 06:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:SultaanPop (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 636881925 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 636881397 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 636877059 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 4)  "Undid revision by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 636875118 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 636873692 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 636873304 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 636872823 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 636872475 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 636864996 by SultaanPop (talk) no agreement for these changes"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 636858693 by SultaanPop (talk) no agreement for these changes"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Only warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Sections */"


 * Comments:

Edit waring. No worthy explanation even i asked him many times. SultaanPop (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reporting account is a blatant sockpuppet which I've . — east718  &#124;  talk  &#124; 13:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:SultaanPop (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 636872475 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 636864996 by SultaanPop (talk) no agreement for these changes"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 636858693 by SultaanPop (talk) no agreement for these changes"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 12:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-senetor Bladesmulti (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lists of edit wars between and Clear Voilation of 3RR by both. 9 revert by both.
 * SultaanPop has been blocked as a blatant sock. Bladesmulti won't be blocked since he was reverting a blocked user's sock.. ‎ —  east718  &#124;  talk  &#124; 13:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:842U reported by User:Qxukhgiels (Result: Declined; filer subsequently blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "posted on talk page. the article contanious copious fancruft, promotional photos from the manufacturer and highlights the minutae of a product differences that aren't notable."
 * 2)  "The cited reference does not support the sentence.  It does not speak to anything about the product name."
 * Note: some of these diffs contain constructive contributions; I've cited them because they contain disruptive changes I've spoke to the user about.Qxukhgiels (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Jetboil, again */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Jetboil, again */ again"
 * 1)   "/* Jetboil, again */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Jetboil, again */ again"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "again..."


 * Comments:

This editor apparently has a problem with the content of Jetboil, a WP:WPCPY article that I created back in August that is only notable for is products. I have written the article based on WP:WPCOMPG, and have cleaned up surely all of the ad-resembling statements. Starting back to early November, this editor has made some disruptive edits. Revisions as these, make the identification of the subject ambiguous (there is nothing wrong with saying that Jetboil "is a company." The reason the products are all listed is because they are the only assertion of notability; each product is significantly covered in reliable sources. This editor also in edits/ summaries as  states the the photos appear to be used promotionally, while I've explained to the user the purpose of all of them "to serve as the primary means of visual identification of the subject." I don't think that most people would be able to understand the principle of operation of these stoves without images. The majority of these disruptive edits do not contain edit summaries, and on this particular edit the disruptive edit summary simply reads "These are good faith edits made to improve the article," a possible snow job. This is an unnecessary removal of content. The editor has incorrectly accussed me of ownership, due to the fact that the article "has been largely created by a single author." Some of the changes have been constructive, which (not immediately apparent) I have left. I have discussed these issues with the editor on their talk page and the article's The editor continues to persist with these disruptions without explanations, and reinstate the  tag, which I have left on some occasions, but recently removed, as I do not see how the article represents a promotional tone; it complies with WP:YESPOV. This editor is now currently in danger of breaking WP:3RR, but I'll admit to have made some mistakes myself. I am actually not very experienced with company articles; I just wrote this article based on WP:WPCOMPG and similar articles, and I would greatly appreciate help from other experienced editors. Qxukhgiels (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, this edit was made by with identical changes as those of 842U five minutes before 842U's first edit to the article. I understand that this may be the result of an accidental logout, but I mentioned this on their talk page, and they have remained silent about it as they have with a lot of the issues I've addressed to them. The only reason I was suspicious is because this user is a former sockpuppeteer.Qxukhgiels (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * . You're both edit warring. It's a content dispute. You need to resolve it, or you may both be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; I totally didn't see you handle this, but I blocked the reporter (and creator of the page),, because while both are long-terming it, the former's been WP:OWNing the article, restoring content and sources disputed by more than one experienced editor, as well as removing page-concern tags (e.g., ) immediately after being added. -- slakr  \ talk / 06:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , not a problem, my take on the issue was actually the same as yours, but I sometimes bend over backwards to avoid even the glimmer of "taking sides". To the extent it matters, I endorse your action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Szymonn04 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)  "/* Season calendar */"


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Season calendar */"
 * 2)  "/* Season calendar */"
 * 3)  "/* Season calendar */"
 * 4)  "/* Season calendar */"
 * 5)  "/* Season calendar */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2015 Formula One season. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2015 Formula One season. (TW)"


 * Comments:

After the user entered unsourced information in the article 4 times, I put a kind explanation that they needed to combine their edit with a reliable source, yet the user made another unsourced edit. Tvx1 (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think this guy speaks English . Looks like a Polish user who was trying to do the right thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's indeed Polish. They must be able to understand a little English, since the user understood enough of EN.Wikipedia to find this article and to edit it. The user certainly didn't choose the right way to try to do the right thing. Tvx1 (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, he probably just followed the interwiki link from the Polish Wikipedia. He didn't even attempt an English edit summary, so I'd say there's a good chance he didn't understand a word of your advice/warnings. Plus I imagine (as I've said would happen) he has absolutely no idea why there's no flag there. He has edited the Polish version and there's a flag on it. Don't forget to AGF. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The edits are more about entering the venue than particularly about the flag. Tvx1 (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It amounts to the same thing, i.e. he thinks it's a done deal, per the Polish Wikipedia, I suspect. A message to him in Polish might help, if anyone here can do that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I already made a draft, but I'm not certain is entirely correct. Tvx1 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the user's global contributions, they've only made one edit to Polish Wikipedia. I'd suggest that we're dealing with a complete newbie who needs a Polish speaker to bring them up to speed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are over 1,300 people in Category:User pl-N, I'm sure that users more active than me will be able to find a familiar, active face there that can help out. — east718  &#124;  talk  &#124; 18:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have good working relationships with a number of highly active Polish speaking editors. If the user becomes active again and is need of assistance, feel free to leave a message on my talk page where I'll be more that happy to ping those who I'm certain would be willing to help out. I don't want to ping them from here as I know they have ample articles and projects of their own and it would be inconsiderate to force their hand by throwing them into this discussion. It's merely a language barrier issue which can be easily overcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. The editor may be blocked if they continue to revert without any discussion. Gnomish changes and corrections may be OK if you don't speak the language of the English Wikipedia, but edit warring is not. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Brews ohare reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANegative_feedback&diff=636789885&oldid=636785984]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANegative_feedback&diff=636799426&oldid=636789885] 20:23, December 5. Reverting hatting.
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANegative_feedback&diff=636808971&oldid=636808781] 21:48, December 5. Reverting hatting.
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANegative_feedback&diff=636849631&oldid=636833337] 05:22, December 6. A series of three edits, reverting hatting.
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANegative_feedback&diff=636850048&oldid=636849725] 05:28, December 6. Reverting hatting.
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Negative_feedback&oldid=636853204&diff=prev] 06:13, December 6. Reverting hatting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brews_ohare&diff=prev&oldid=636850525]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (The whole dispute is about tiresome talk page exhaustion, so I will not point to an attempt to discuss the dispute.)

Comments:

Brews ohare has exhausted the community's patience at the article's talk page, with unending arguments making a death grip / time sink / tar baby situation for everybody else. People finally got fed up with Brews ohare and started hatting his discussion threads. He has been reverting these, wishing to continue the (fruitless) discussion. I find it ironic that this demonstrates a failure to adjust to negative feedback. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * History with Brews shows that a temporary block (even a year) with be of no use in the long run. I actually think his protracted many months of "discussion", if you can call it that, at Talk:Negative feedback has been a good thing, as it has absorbed most of his energy and attention such that it hasn't required a huge effort to prevent the sort of damage and bloat he tends to do to articles when he's not being thwarted.  Thanks for helping to keep him in a box there.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Virgrod reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: recent_changes)

Comments:

(This article's talk is also affiliated with Joaquín Balaguer's article talk page as they relate to one another.) Virgrod, is continuously replacing my edits (and another user's) with his original work on the hertiage of Heureaux's father. I have found six sources which I provided on the talk page and not only is it being disregarded but it is being used bogusly to source his claims diminishing the accuracy completely that appears in the text. This user is making more assumptions rather than trying to base it on fact or what is said in the sources. User also has not contributed to any sources of his own, where it can verify one another. User states that this person's father was not Haitian from the very beginning when user completely reworded section without a discussion. Meanwhile, all of the sources I have found points to him as such. This User's need to add the history of Haiti from Saint-Domingue is irrelavant in this case as the user is looking for anything (French father, "described to be Haitian") to write him off and it doesn't matter what I do or say or how many sources I present that are highly in favor of, this person is clearly stuck in their own convictions. Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussions on Talk:Joaquín_Balaguer as well as Talk:Ulises_Heureaux make clear that it is Savvyjack23 who has adopted an intransigent and irrational position, and insists on repetitively removing accurate and RELEVANT information about the articles. S/he keeps on mentioning the "6 sources" as if that was the problem. The statement in the sources that he wants to include (that certain person is Haitian) is NOT under dispute. The real problem is that Savvyjack23 does not want any mention of any ADDITIONAL information that may be helpful to the reader, and insists on deleting said information. Please, look at the linked discussions Virgrod (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Quoting User:Osplace (who has been overseeing that the articles relating to the Dominican Republic project group be approached in an appropriate manner), on the Joaquín Balaguer talk page (which conflict stemmed from here) would confirm by saying the following about User talk:Virgrod's edits:


 * "For complete deletion: "However, concerning D’Assas' nationality, it is also relevant that his French father must have left Western Saint Domingue (present-day Haiti) before the 1804 Haiti Massacre, while that area was still a French colony. Hence, D'Assas either was born in present-day Dominican Republic, or arrived there with his French father before Haiti came into existence." No references. Completely WP:OR!"


 * "No, is not that way: "the referenced you need are located in 1804 Haiti Massacre and is simple logic..." No. Is there a reference needed to back up your claim there? Then add it to your claim here and is done. Is not about me. Wikipedia works that work. A casual reader that have not ever read about the 1804 Haiti Massacre needs to uderstand inmediately what are you talking about, how it happened, why is that information relevant there and how is supported. References are not logical. If a reference says or mean something without interpratation, is the source you need. Citing WP:OR: The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."


 * He had been told on his edits on his talk page included: User talk:Virgrod

Again, User talk:Virgrod disregards either one of us. User:‎Inhakito, was the original editor to write about this section, so as a result, he attempts to disregard his sourced edits as well. So this is also happening on the Joaquín Balaguer article as well unfortunately. (The two are blood related and former Presidents of the Dominican Republic, which are both vital articles for the project scope.) User talk:Virgrod, has been warned on several occasions. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Both warned. There are three reverts by both Virgrod and Savvyjack23 since 28 November, which doesn't break WP:3RR though it *is* edit warring. Virgrod's argument that Heureaux's father couldn't possibly be Haitian looks to be WP:SYNTH, since at least one book is cited saying he was Haitian. Nonetheless the next person who reverts (prior to consensus on the talk page) may be blocked. See WP:Dispute resolution for options you can follow. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Amaruca reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berber_people&diff=636572332&oldid=636133580
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berber_people&diff=636816949&oldid=636648136
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berber_people&diff=636833221&oldid=636830468
 * 4) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berber_people&diff=636848238&oldid=636834452

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Berber_people#Miscapitalization_of_animism

Comments:

1) The main article at animism does not capitalize the word itself. User:Kintetsubuffalo


 * The main article is fixed.Amaruca (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

2) The sources falsely claimed by this user in fact do not capitalize the word. User:Kintetsubuffalo


 * The sources are reputable and extremely clear on the issue of equality of religion and capitalization of Animism.Amaruca (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The source claimed (Sponsel, L. (2006). Animism. In H. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology. (pp. 81-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952453.n32) is not available freely-"Users without subscription are not able to see the full content on this title." which is an old trick to hide dishonesty. That article, the visible start at least, says itself "The ultimate source of the term animism is the Latin word, anima, meaning spirit, soul, or life force. In contemporary anthropology, animism is the generic term for numerous and diverse religions focused on the belief that nature includes spirits, sacred forces, and similar extraordinary phenomena. This is reflected in the classic minimal definition of religion, a belief in spiritual beings, that was originally formulated by the famous British anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor in his 1871 book Primitive Cultures . Tylor viewed animism as the basis of all religions and the earliest stage in the evolution of religion. Animism remains relevant to considerations regarding such elemental conceptual dualities as animal and human, nature and culture, natural and supernatural, inanimate and animate, body and mind, and life and death. In general, animists believe that supernatural forces inhabit animals, plants, rocks, and other objects in nature."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

3) The user accuses me of bigotry (as stated on the talkpage, I am not) and of vandalism (again, wrong). User:Kintetsubuffalo


 * Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.[1] Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.Amaruca (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And this applies to me how? I haven't said word one against animists (I am Shinto, which is a form of animism), I clearly said I have no problem with animism, I do have a problem with misusing the English language and using false arguments to support the misuse.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, you're trolling the talkpage by miscapping what I (and your quoted authors) left uncapped,--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not cite some sources other than the wiki page which is fixed now?--Amaruca (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Talk:Berber people


 * 1) Removal of other editor's comment.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

 Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo started out with this contentious stance: "I will continue to revert your miscap every time you make it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)"--Amaruca (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's try and work towards a mutual respect of indigenous peoples as per Professor Snodgrass' recommendation from the Journal article which I based my original changes. The spirit in which I edited this page was in all due respect and with clear cut academic authority.--Amaruca (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Amaruca has been warring about Animism vs. animism at both Berber people and on the talk page. (Changing the capitalization of a header created by another user). User:Kintetsubuffalo made a talk comment promising to edit war and he should avoid that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Transhumanist reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Move protected)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

I have never seen anything like this.
 * Transhumanist moved the page "Intellectual property" to "Intellectual property rights"
 * He then created a stub over the redirect at "Intellectual Property"
 * I reverted back to the plain redirect on the "Intellectual property" page
 * and I requested discussion on the "Intellectual property Rights" page
 * Transhumanist restored the stub he had created at "Intellectual property"
 * I again restored the redirect at "Intellectual property" with an edit note "you are doing a huge re-arrangement WITHOUT DISCUSSION. please stop and discuss. thank you"
 * I placed a 3RR template on his Talk page in this dif
 * I again attempted to engage on Talk on the Intellectual property rights page in this dif
 * Transhumanist again restored the stub
 * Transhumanist made two declarations on the Talk page of his new Intellectual property article Talk:Intellectual_property saying that his new article has to go through AfD
 * Transhumanist finally replied on the Intellectual property rights Talk page here - again very declarative. No discussion.

Comments:

I appreciate boldness, but this goes beyond Bold, to non-consensus-oriented arrogance. Please restore things to how they were and block Transhumanist for a few days to teach him to work toward consensus. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Jytdog is overreacting and extremely impatient. I've already told him I'll be happy to delete the changes myself if I can't make an article he's happy with. You can't get more cooperative than that.  Basically, there are 2 distinct topics, intellectual property and intellectual property rights. Both are notable subjects worthy of an article.  I'm working on the intellectual property article.  It should have some substantial content very soon.  I could build a decent article in a day or two, but we should be able to tell if there is enough good material in a few hours.  If he doesn't like it at that time, I'll be happy to arrange to have it speedied (per creator).  The Transhumanist 04:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be right that there are two separate topics and therefore the need for two separate articles, but your move was undiscussed, and therefore there was no consensus for you to make the move. As a disputed move, you should restore the status quo ante and work on your stub in your user space until it is ready for prime time, and then open a discussion and get consensus for there to be two articles on the topic(s). BMK (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a content issue, it is a behavior issue. It is complete violation of WP:MOVE and well as edit warring.  yes. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * BMK, thank you for the clarification and suggestion. There is consensus to leave the article in place on talk:Intellectual property rights, as someone else besides me has commented there. But, since Jytdog very much wants to talk it out first, we should at least see what he has to say. I've moved the page to draft space, and have placed a speedy tag there to make way for the move reversion. The Transhumanist 07:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Transhumanist has undone everything, but still does not seem to understand WP:MOVE. Hopefully there will be no more need for trips to drama boards.  Withdrawn. Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , what are you referring to? Please point out the specific action (diff link) that completely violated WP:MOVE. I wish to understand exactly what you are talking about. Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is closed. I'll discuss it on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Intellectual property has been move protected until such time as consensus is reached to move the page. Transhumanist self-reverted his move so no further action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Moonsell reported by (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) diff4
 * 5) diff5
 * 6) diff6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning diff

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link

Comments:

Moonsell is edit warring with 2 editors. Moonsell has serious ownership issues with this article going back a long time. This is problematic, since this user does not understand proper sourcing at all. In the first diff, you can see he replaced an academic book with these 2 websites: Link 1 and Link 2. Also this user continually proclaims his personal knowledge as correct. Thus there are WP:VNT issues as well. Lastly, he does not understand WP:BRD.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 04:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep. And the editor is inserting what appears to be personal OR and it is incomprehensible.  I recommend protecting this version of the article until the sourcing and WP:OR issues can be addressed.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please consider this in the light of the contribution histories of the people involved and in the light of the breakdown of collaboration over recent months on the talk page. Moonsell (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:COMPETENCE is required. These edits are unsourced or fringe sourced, constitute WP:OR and are, as noted above, read like gibberish. And he is at 6RR.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:‎Volunteer Marek reported by User:Antonioptg (Result: Declined; filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: multiple instances

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (This is the latest in a long series of revert and the reason given is laughable since the sources listed are three, two of which are Ukrainian)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 Comments: 

Edit warring

It seems to me that, according to Volunteer Marek, I'm not authorized to edit the article and that only users who share his point of view can edit the page. My last edit was deleted with the motivation that Russia Today is not a reliable source, but the sources are three: RT, Ukraine Today and Euromaidan Press.--Antonioptg (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG. Reporting user just came off a block for EW. Literally 5 minutes after the release of the block continues with no discussion. Stickee (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The problems with Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 seem to have slipped under the radar of decent Adminship on Wikipedia. It is a collection of anti-Russian, propaganda driven bullshit pushed hard by editors like Volunteer Marek. Views outside their preferred one are shouted down very aggressively. I have largely given up even trying to discuss there due to the bullying environment. Is there a brave, independent minded Admin or two willing to have a look at the whole scenario there please? Not just the behaviour, but the content too. It's one of Wikipedia's most non-NPOV articles. Most of the content could be removed without harm to it being a decent, encyclopaedic article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ., this is a retaliatory report. You are that any more reverts on the article may be met with a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "I have largely given up even trying to discuss there due to the bullying environment." - yet here you are, AGAIN, accusing others, without basis or evidence, of being "anti-Russian". Who's the bully? The person who insists that the article should be based on reliable sources, or the editor who goes around making odious and false accusations in an underhanded attempt at getting their way? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, when being addressed by you I almost always feel like I'm being shouted at. We both know that the definition of reliable sources is one of THE major issues at that article. I wish we had a way of getting some truly independent Admins to show some courage and intervene there. But it seems none have the guts. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here, let me translate that from HiLO48 doublespeak into plain English:
 * "I (...) feel like I'm being shouted at" ==> "I don't like it when others point out that I'm going around making false and slanderous accusations".
 * "the definition of reliable sources is one of THE major issue at that article" ==> "I just don't like what reliable sources say so I'm going to try to redefine what constitutes a reliable source"
 * "I wish we had a way of getting some truly independent Admins to show some courage and intervene there" ==> "I need to find some Admins who'll support me and block those silly users who insist on reliable sources so that I can finally push my POV in peace without having to worry about stupid shit like 'reliable source'"
 * "But it seems none have the guts" ==> "Unfortunately since my views are sort of fringe nobody agrees with me and it's hard to find such admins".
 * There. YW.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

, what can I do if my every edit is cancelled immediately with ridiculous reasons? Start a new edit wars? So, put a notice on the page that only users who share the US point of view can edit and also the readers will understand--Antonioptg (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately just after your warning they've began tagbombing: . Stickee (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh. Just one tag. Not even a firecracker. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a frivolous report because edits presented as a violation were made by VM during five days, from December 1 to December 6 (two last diffs). My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was blocked with the following motivation: "Technically, in the latest round, the user did not violate 3RR as reverts #4 and #5 came just outside the 24-hour window, although that should probably be construed as gaming. The block is therefore based on edit warring, which is blatant. Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)" which is exactly the same thing that Volunteer Marek, you and the others acolytes of Marek have done.--Antonioptg (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:HarrisonBotani (Result: sock blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 637027191 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 637026252 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 637025626 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 637022133 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

no matter the reason. An edit waring is an edit waring. HarrisonBotani (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-senetor Bladesmulti (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Obvious Wiki-senetor sock. Reporting reverter to edit-warning board is also a Wiki-senetor mo. Is WP:NOT3RR except. Avono (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Avono Of course and per NOT3RR you can also edit war over the violation of biography of living person and copyrights, these edits of HarrisonBotani/Wiki-senetor violates both. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Transparent sock blocked. Kuru   (talk)  15:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)