Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:21, 9 January 2015

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:Alon12 reported by User:Aergas (Result: Protected, at WP:DRN)

Page: Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alon12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I told him that if he continues i might request help of administrators, instantly after he dared me to do it

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I oppened a new section on his talk page, asking him to stop removing sourced material, but keeps saying the same things, and as I said above, he dared me to contact the administrators, I think that I won't get anywhere trying to talk to him.

Comments:
Right now I'm having trouble with an edit warrior that continues to remove sourced information, he removed citations to a book, claiming that it was about African Americans, despite that it isn't he then removed it saying that it wasn't a genetic study, but a book "therefore irrelevant"(a peer reviewed book for the matter, but he don't cares) , seeing this, then I added a citation to a genetic study but he continues removing it , saying that is an study about African Americans when the study itself states that: "By comparison, 48 percent who self-reported as Caucasian had more than 95 percent European American ancestry" . When I oppened a discussion in his talk page, instead of discussing he kept saying the same things and insisting that the article is about African Americans when only 37% of the participants in the study were and as I wrote above already, the study clearly talks about the findings in the caucasian participants of the study, after I directly let him know this on his talk page, he moved the goalpost and recurred to the burden of proof fallacy, saying that the cited material does not give enough details, when he has presented zero proof to his own claims: he keeps pushing his edits saying that "the current sources don't say it doesn't support my claims, therefore it does and it's up to you to disprove my baseless claims with sources" when in reality, Misplaced Pages don't admits unsourced assumptions by policy. In the meantime this editor dared me to contact the administrators , so here I am.

It should be noted, that I attempted to contact administrators first regarding this issue, and we go over it in my talk page. He has no answers for actual official genetic studies I post regarding this subject. All he has is shady blog posts in comparison. Aergas appears to be challenged in the english language, I suspect. By the way, he has been making his edit war on the page, for far longer than I have been a member here. Alon12 (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The official genetic studies you presented aren't related to the issue at all. And don't back you up at all, we are discussing this in your talk page right now, don't bring it here. That's the main problem with you, you are saying things that aren't true, and then link unrelated articles and try to pass them as useful for your posture. And why did you almost copy my userpage? Aergas (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not the time or the place, but you can look at my talk page. You have basic english language comprehension issues, you cannot even understand actual genetic studies. I had to show you how to interpret even abbreviations on a genetic paper, because you are seemingly incapable. Let's go back there now, shall we? Alon12 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: Article protected three days. Both editors broke WP:3RR. If this continues, blocks should be used next time. You can use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to get more opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Discussion underway at dispute resolution noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Volt60x reported by User:Vigyani (Result: IP block and protection)

Page

Talk:Valmiki (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Volt60x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 08:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 08:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 09:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC) "" (from IP account)
5. 09:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC) "" (from IP account)
6. this by another account User:Ashutoshsinghkaulvalmiki

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. here,

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Requesting move */ new section"
2. here and here

Comments:

After he is warned by Bladesmulti, user started using IP. Perhaps user is having difficulty in understanding whatever we are telling him, but they need to slow down. Vigyani_talk 09:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

He was also told to stop abusing multiple accounts and IP addresses, now he is trolling, because he just placed the banned template on the talk pages of Vigyani, and mine. He also re-posted the page move request that he had already repeated once. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: The page at Talk:Valmiki was semiprotected 12 hours by User:Ged UK. The IP editor 70.39.187.250 (talk · contribs) was blocked by User:Materialscientist for harassment. User:Ashutoshsinghkaulvalmiki looks like a sock. If the abuse continues at Talk:Valmiki most likely an SPI report should be created to keep track. Volt60x has also been active at Valmiki Caste. It's possible this dispute is an instance of caste warring. I've notified User:Volt60x of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Volt60x Bladesmulti (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Greenman reported by User:WinterstormRage (Result: Submitter warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Cryptocurrencies&diff=641231608&oldid=641183923

Here I was asking him to discuss before making changes which are clearly incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Cryptocurrency

Upon looking into the matter, I realize this user has been re-adding his prefered marketing material, and avoiding a deletion proposal without discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BlackCoin

Comments:

late December, I discovered the cryptocurrency page is quite outdated and made an edit. User:Greenman decided to revert, citing things I removed were legit. I initiate a talk attempt while looking into the matter. I realize same user has attempted to block a deletion of a page BlackCoin, there was no censensus and nearly no debate took place. However claims from Greenman made about 'references' being legit were all blogs and press releases from the same media circle without mainstream media endorsement, which makes the material non-notable. A quick google search also finds no legit news from mainstream media. User:Greenman attempts to camouflage a 'Reuter's forwarded press release' as 'Reuters news' and claims a 'blog on wall street journal' as 'WSJ reference'. Connecting the dots together, I realize this User keeps reverting the pages back to a version which contains 'BlackCoin' in cryptocurrency and its template, which leads me to believe he's trying to use Misplaced Pages for Marketeering for his own profits. I am uncertain how to take this further, and believe asking a third party, or reporting to admin for a more objective check on the matter maybe a better way to deal with this rather than engage in meaningless editting war on this person. While I was typing this up, the same violater is adding non-notable cryptocoins like 'Tit coin' back to the Cryptocurrency template.

diff link: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Cryptocurrencies&diff=641242355&oldid=641234767

I now think this is a clear case of proposeful sabotaging. I will stop dealing with this person and allow this matter to be dealt with in proper channels. thank you. WinterstormRage (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel myself involved in that matter because I'm advocating auroracoins removed from the same list of currencies by the same User without previous talking. ONaNcle (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to his accusations of "sabotage", let's look at the edit history. I reverted some edits by User:WinterstormRage that I felt were overzealous (for example, removing entries with articles from a navigation template, all while making unsubstantiated accusations of them being scams etc.) In response, WinterstormRage accused me, as the user that added one of the coins back, of a 'marketing heist'. I responded politely, asking him to WP:AGF (link and link). After reverting another of his edits, he then accused me of trying to 'sabotage Misplaced Pages' (link and link). The user also attempted to solicit other users to his assistance, stating on their user pages that I am involved in "a clear attempt to mislead" (link). Luckily for the editor's blood pressure, he has only made a few edits, all related to trying to remove certain cryptocurrencies, but I can only imagine how he would react if he got into a real edit war :) The editor has strong opinions on notability, but Titcoin, which he uses as one example of my heinous attempts to cover my sabotage, has an article, and so adding it to a navigation template is probably not the most controversial decision in the world. Perhaps someone should post some hugs on his page to help him calm down - though I think he may not appreciate any coming from me, the evil saboteur :) Greenman (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I admit I lack experience in wiki-rules and that's the reason I refuse to go on an editting war with you. You however forgot to mention how to removed the Deletion discussion for BlackCoin, and that you tried to use invalid references which were all press releases/blogs and KNOWING that you call them from Reuters and WSJ. I do not think anyone looking into the matter will have a problem seeing the black and white of the situation. If you are as 'experienced' as you claim, you will know that violates the non-notable rules. Though you clearly are trying to defend your own coin for that propose, re-adding without caring for consequences. I am the one trying to keep the information inline and lean, and you are the one actively adding trash to the topics. You were also adding WRONG info, claiming Vertcoin is 'scrypt-based', you did so with your meaningless 'reverts' without fact checking, FYI, Vertcoin is now LyraRE, they have changed that a while ago, hence my 'accusation' of you sabotaging, which you did as you start reverting 'wrong' information into the article (probably unknowingly to you, as you are trying to camou your addition of BlackCoin by adding Titcoin, Potcoin and all sorts of 'worthless' joke coins into the mix.) Anyway, I know you will likely hide behind rules, that is why I asked 3rd parties to be the judge of that matter, if they think I am wrong, I will accept. However, I think everyone seeing the matter will see your clear attempt to try to add 'bogus references' to support a Coin to have it's own page, and using that as a 'fact' to add it to 'cryptocurrency' page. (circular referencing yourself based on bogus references). I will let the admin decides the matter. I thank you for whoever will be dealing with this matter. WinterstormRage (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:WinterstormRage is warned for edit warring. You've also abused the WP:Proposed deletion process at BlackCoin, as pointed out by User:Laser brain. I suggest you limit your reverts and make better use of the talk page until you are more familiar with Misplaced Pages policy. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Coretheapple (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Comments:I see that this editor is no stranger to this noticeboard, and was previously blocked for edit warring in another article and warned three times for edit warring in still others. His behavior in this article has been nothing short of maddening, removing amply sourced content and edit-warring over it. I would like to build this article into Good Article and perhaps even Feature Article status, as the source material is ample (including a biography of Myerson that I own) but it is impossible if this editor makes nonsensical edits such as and edit wars over them. Myerson, the subject of a page one obit in the New York Times today, is a prominent person who is the subject of two three books, but her highly-trafficked article will remain stuck in "start" status if this tendentious conduct is not curbed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The wall-o-text below bears me out. Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note that he has continued to edit war after the filing of this case, such as by this edit insisting upon calling a housing project "Yiddish housing," and this edit that, without discussion, removed an essential element of Myerson's story and placing it in incorrect chronological order in the wrong section. Coretheapple (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Another revert since this report was made, edit summary "unexplained change by IP." , marked as a "good-faith edit." The fact that it was "unexplained" or "by an IP" is not a valid reason to violate 3RR. Coretheapple (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• And now this revert, edit-warring with User:Alanscottwalker. . Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Very one-sided report. Look at the reporting editor's edits and reversions. All he's been doing is adding back in wording he prefers. Wording, I might add, that is extremely close and only slightly paraphrased from the references he's added. For a better idea of both sides of the discussion (which I started at the article talk page, by the way), I will re-post what I've already said there (winkelvi used the same behaviour in the constitucion article ]:

• RE: Claim in article that she was a subject of anti-semitism and the Jewish community saw her MA win as a "seminal event". The attached reference says nothing of the kind. Anti-semitism is mentioned, but not in relation to Myerson's win. As well, nothing in the article gives proof that Jewish Americans felt her win was "seminal" nor that her win was affirmation. All the obit says is, "To many Jews...the title seemed an affirmation of some sort of acceptance in America." Note the words "To many Jews" and "seemed". Both qualify for WP:WEASEL status, and neither statements are supported by references. There are no sources attached to either statement that supports these obviously POV, emotional, and hyperbolic claims as being real or anything other than original research and personal opinion by the obit writer. What evidence do we have that the sponsors were actually anti-semitic? None. Both of these claims need to be removed as, even after a BLP article subject dies, WP:BLP policies still apply to the article for up to two years followig the article subject's death.

• RE: The Ha'Eretz reference used to support "anti-semitism": it is also POV. This would need to be supported by a non-biased source. There is no specificity in the article that gives context, just the claim of anti-semitism. Further, in reading throughly both the obituary and the Ha'Eretz article, you have taken WAY too much of both, paraphrased only slightly, and are bordering on plagiarism and WP:COPYVIO with the prose and content you keep reverting back in from those articles. For reasons of borderline plagirism and copyvio along with the reasons per BLP guidelines stated above, I am also removing the content you keep putting back in.

• RE: Comments about my editing at the article on Jimbo's page... Better to actually discuss than run to Jimbo's talk page and complain about, how did you put it? Oh, yeah: "a singularly difficult editor, which raises one of a number of issues I've seen discussed in the past year or so but never acted on. I.e., how to handle bad editors." (see here: ) That, in the vein of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, along with your edit warring behavior, plagiarism and copyvios... Doesn't look to good at all.

• RE: Editor's claim that I am using POV to edit the article... My feelings have nothing to do with the article content. In fact, I personally lean toward the anti-semitism claim. But my feelings have nothing to do with fact. The feelings of the writers have nothing to do with fact. Making claims of anti-semitism 70 years after he fact with no real evidence of actual anti-semitism is as stupid and POV as the claims of those saying anyone who didn't vote for Barack Obama did so because they are anti-Black. And yes, you did lift content from those articles. It's easy to see. So no, not ridiculous at all.

Personally, I'd rather see this worked out at the article talk page (which is why I started discussion there yesterday before the reporting editor, in fact). Consensus building is a good thing, even a dispute noticeboard would be fine with me if the other editor doesn't wish to actually discuss and work this out. In light of ignoring BLP guidelines, his copyvios, close-paraphrasing lifted from references, and need to see the article only reflect his content and wording version while trying to take the article single-handedly to FA or GA status (as he admits above), I don't guess he will be willing to discuss properly and work things out. Hence, his reason for coming here instead, I suppose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I find interesting the reporting editor keeps adding diffs to what he sees as edit warring on my part, but is failing to add diffs of his reverts to my edits. Personally, it seems to me that while we aren't agreeing with all of each others' edits, at this point we're just editing the article together and the article is improving little-by-little. That's cooperative editing, isn't it? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've not been reverting, you have. You're in excess of 3RR and have been working your will in the article almost entirely by edit warring. You used the revert tool to remove the word "cooperative" from the name of the housing project in which Myerson lived as a girl, without discussion, even though you were already well over 3RR. Your edit made something accurate into something inaccurate, but I didn't revert. This edit, insisting upon calling that housing project a "Yiddish housing project," without discussion, even after it was objected to, is revert-warring, and was not reverted by myself. The article currently contains this extremely questionable language, as the result of the edit warring that you've been engaged in. That's how you've edit-warred over one minor aspect of the article! It is, as I said, maddening. If that is your idea of "cooperative editing" you are mistaken. Coretheapple (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: "Yiddish housing cooperative" is certainly not a standard term. It's the exact opposite, in fact. Although its meaning is clear to those who know this bit of NYC/Jewish history, it certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia. Frankly, the Bess Myerson article should merely link to Shalom Aleichem Houses. (I remark that this is a redirect I just created, but if we have Amalgamated Housing Cooperative, we can have this too.)
• One of Winkelvi's edit summaries justified a reversion on the grounds that obituaries should not be relied in except for basic facts. He was rebuked by admins in this forum a few months ago when justifying some of his edit warring in Helen Hooven Santmyer for just this kind of second-guessing about obituary contents. That what's asserted from the source is POV, as Winkelvi claims, is irrelevant. NPOV stands for "Neutral" POV, not "Non" POV. If it seems to be stated in a hyperbolic manner, then phrasing it as "Time said X" should be acceptable. Choor monster (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Apple says, "I've not been reverting, you have." You can't, in all honesty, be serious. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comments and adding link to Bess Myerson talk page () I ask that anyone reading this report please look at the comments contained there. I have repeatedly tried to work with and reason with Coretheapple at the article talk page. His choice has been to make several personal attacks, even after I have asked him to stop doing so and instead talk only about bettering the article. Along with wrongly referring to himself and another editor trading talk page comments in the middle of the night over a span of an hour or so "consensus", his attacks and rude comments to me have been peppered with statements such as, "you have not read and/or comprehended"; "Please stop wasting everybody's time"; "we are adding relevant details, and this is clearly relevant, amply sourced, above dispute--except by you. Again, why are you wasting everybody's time"; "why are you wasting everybody's time"; "This discussion is utterly pointless...Please stop wasting people's time.". When I first went to Core's talk page early on when I was confused by one of his edit summaries, he answered rudely there as well: "And haven't you anything better to do than waste people's time? (page/section link here ). Yesterday, at Jimmy Wales' talk page he referred to me in the following manner: "a singularly difficult editor, which raises one of a number of issues I've seen discussed in the past year or so but never acted on. I.e., how to handle bad editors." (see diff: ). I have tried numerous times to work with Coretheapple yesterday, last night, today, on the article talk page. I've asked him to stop being rude and personally attacking me. I've even thanked him (via the "Send Thanks" option) for an edit today that was a particularly good addition. In spite of all this, Coretheapple chooses to remain tendentious, rude, angry, uncivil and non-collegial. All of this, in my opinion, shows that he not only refuses to work with me, but that this report isn't really about edit warring, it's about someone he has chosen to dislike editing an article he's taken an interest in. If it were the opposite, it stands to reason that he would have changed his tone hours ago based on the discussion I keep trying to have with him at the article talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Over the last 24 hours you've edit-warred with myself, an IP editor and User:Alanscottwalker, carrying out a total of 10 reverts at last count, and your wall-o-text rants are totally irrelevant to your incessant edit-warring. Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi: It is not a personal attack to identify your lack of comprehension when you have clearly failed to comprehend a source. Your justification of "Yiddish housing cooperative" below is simply your own interpretative original research (and mistranslation to boot). This is just one example: you frequently skim sources, find a few key phrases, paraphrase them into something creatively incorrect, and then aggressively edit-war for your version. My stating this is not a personal attack. It's just a time-wasting, disruptive editing fact of life on WP. Choor monster (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Someone who introduces the phrase "Yiddish housing cooperative" into WP, while having a history of reverting others for using "unencyclopedic" terminology (even when the contrary is documented) is not one to be taken seriously regarding who is or isn't "serious". I will leave the apportionment of blame to more experienced editors and admins, my comments stand on their own. Choor monster (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't introduce it, those creating the co-op did. The Shalom Aleichem Houses were originally called "Yiddish Cooperative Heimgesellschaft". In fact, they were called that when Myerson and her family lived there. Here's a great link to a CU discussion on the history -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Your version, both in your edit and in your statement here, misrepresents the link. In general, official names outside of the actual article on the subject are almost always a distraction at best and more commonly are reader-hostile intrusions, and your habit of edit-warring to make sure they are present is very unhelpful. Choor monster (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Think what want. You made an unfounded accusation, ridiculed what I added to the article, I showed where the historically correct content came from. If you want to continue with your assault on my character and ability to edit based on that, knock yourself out; It's doing you no favors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I commented on precisely what I commented, which was in regards to your precise language. Reading it as a comment on language you did not write or on other edits I didn't point out is just pointless thrashing. Also, edit-warring on your user page, where you have decided to implicitly but rather baldfacedly criticize Coretheapple, in open, knowing violation of WP:POLEMIC (you've done this trash before, and I referred you to it), is also pointless. Choor monster (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The only one edit warring on my User page is you, Choor monster . In fact, I see it as harassment. You don't have the right to edit the userspace of others. Doing it once is annoying. Doing it twice in edit warring-fashion is what's "pointless". Please stop the harassment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I wholly support Coretheapple. I personally think a ban is in order for Winkelvi. Just based upon my own dealings with user Winkelvi, the user is exceedingly disruptive and seems to be trying to pick edit wars with people. Even with me personally, he seems to be taking to vindictive, touchy and aggressive editing behaviors out of the clear blue sky. He seems to be spoiling for edit warring disputes and seems to be stalking to get that. I don't know what this user's problem is, but I really am in no mood for for his disruptive antics. Like others, I strongly think a ban and cooling off period is in order. We're not here to pick edit war fights and break rules. If you're here for that, take it elsewhere. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that WP:RFC/USER has been shut down as a bump on the way to ARBCOM. Choor monster (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I see that. One correction to my report: I see that the very final revert that I listed took place after the 24-hour 3RR period. However, I am leaving it in as it is an example of his continuing to edit-war. That has not abated. More recently, he reverted accurately sourced material here because he didn't believe what the LA Times reported in its obit. In fact it was accurate, though it could have been more precise in saying that she hosted the TV broadcast and not the pageant itself (Parks did). So the hair-trigger reverting has not ended. Coretheapple (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Whilst I don't have a real opinion to most things here, your attempt at edit warring on Winkelvi's userpage, Choor monster, was inadvisable at best; in no way was there such a blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC that you had the right to remove all of 15 characters from their userpage in the first place, let alone edit war over it and then drag them to ANI over it. Also, AN3 is not the place to hash out content disputes, or request people to be "banned"; it is the place where you make edit-warring cases, and that's it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • One month before—I provided links—the admin Drmies had reverted Winkelvi's user page for similar anonymous attacks on the grounds that it did violate WP:POLEMIC, after the issue was first raised on WP:ANI. I did not claim the new text was a "blatant" violation, merely at the same level as the previous instance. Choor monster (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Which still does not justify the second revert, let alone the ANI thread. Also, I'm not remotely sure how you can justify that claim; the text that Drmies removed did clearly toe the line of polemic at the very best, whereas what you removed wasn't even close. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• The difference is that it's much shorter. Meanwhile it toes the critical line: it's an attack on another editor, the one who brought this very AN3 report in the first, which is why it's getting mentioned in this particular AN3 discussion. Choor monster (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, the difference is that it wasn't a violation. "laundry list of reversion diffs" cannot remotely be interpreted on its own as polemic, and that is precisely what you were removing. Users are given quite a lot of freedom with what they can say on their userpages, and Winkelvi did not overstep that mark in that text. You had absolutely no right to act as you did there (you had a right to a single objection, not to two reverts and ANI thread). I'm a little surprised no admin has come in here to deal with the 3RR complaint though, because it does need looking at due to the large amount of reverts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I quote from WP:POLEMIC as to what is not allowed: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Winkelvi introduced the new material later the same day as this report. Whether it was done with this report in mind, or just happens to be a good-faith coincidence, is actually irrelevant, the timing means it "can be viewed as attacking other editors." Choor monster (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• With specific twisting, almost anything can be viewed as attacking other editors. As I already stated, you had every right to object politely to Winkelvi's edit; you had no right to revert them twice and then waltz off to ANI over a nothing edit. Besides, if something so simple Winkelvi did offends you this much, you shouldn't have their userpage on your watchlist, or be looking at it at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) You have now entered lalaland. Choor monster (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• So, let me get this straight; you complain about Winkelvi saying something polemic, and then write that? Well done. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• You're being completely ridiculous. This isn't a User page. Choor monster (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:SummerPhD reported by User:Qwesar (Result: no violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: User has too long a history of edits on the page.http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Food_combining&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Food_combining#A_Tad_Biased Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 2

Comments
SummerPhD's long history of edit to the Food Combining page has left the page a brief definition of Food Combining, Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary it is an encylopedia. SummerPhD is edit protecting a failed weight loss study that two users in the talk page of Food Combining have deemed bias because from the perspective of the readers, they would only remember Food Combining as failed weight loss when it is a respected area of study of nutrition rich with information. I also explained why weight loss studies shouldn't be included as encyclopedic information because weight loss varies greatly as people's diets and exercise routine are infinitely diverse. I simply want to contribute to the page but SummerPhD is going to have to be blocked before I can turn the disappointing bias stub of a page into an encyclopedic entry. Qwesar (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment No edit warring at all. I see one edit to this page by User:SummerPhD in the last seven months. Meters (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment: I see no evidence of edit warring. At best this appears to be a content dispute - although calling it that is even a stretch as SummerPHD has only edited the article once in the last six months. Even when looking at the older edits, they were to appropriately remove content that was unsourced or had sources which failed WP:MEDRS guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Agreed. A completely baseless action. Meters (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm not seeing it either. seicer | talk | contribs 02:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine I won't contribute to that bias dictionary stub, with everyone against me I'll just bow out and let it remain what it is, 5th page on google search of "Food Combining". Also the Food Combining chart on the page is outdated, not fixing that either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwesar (talk • contribs) 02:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:4444hhhh reported by User:Besieged (Result: No action)

Page

Accipitrimorphae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

4444hhhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC) "Removing those tags"
2. 00:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Getting rid of unnecessarily things."
3. Consecutive edits made from 00:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC) to 00:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 00:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Fixing the page and removing the tags as the proposal is based on the notion of old, out of date information as described in the talk page."
   2. 00:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Only make the proposal IF based on valid and up to date resources, not on personal or original research."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Accipitrimorphae. (TW)"
2. 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Accipitrimorphae. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Vultures are not Accipiters. */ new section"

Comments:

User is acting as if s/he owns the article and removing valid maintenance tags without action or discussion regarding those tags, and is presuming their own personal knowledge trumps that of others, even when up to date and valid 3rd party research was supplied to justify the placement of the tags.

Please see the discussion raised by USER:4444hhhh and my reply thereto here. besieged 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the above link to point to prior discussion at User talk:Besieged. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action at this time, but User:4444hhhh's removal of the article tags raises eyebrows. There were only three reverts, and problems did not continue after the warning. Try to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. There must be an appropriate WikiProject where you could ask for input if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:VoiceOfreason reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: blocked)

Page

Bowe Bergdahl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */"
2. 04:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */"
3. 04:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */"
4. 04:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Further reading */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring to insert negative personal editorial commentary into an article, editor appears to believe they are justified in doing so because they are righting great wrongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Gamaliel (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Tintor14 reported by User:Snowager (Result: already blocked)

Page

List of Naruto Characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tintor14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "lying isnt nice! the naruto characters have all three of this."
2. 10:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641385551 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
3. 10:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641385708 by Snowager (talk) ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! ok let me get Tintor2 up in here, and screw u Sjones27."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He also hurled a personal attack at Sjones23 again. Snowager (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked --slakr 13:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Sveuciliste1669 reported by User:Amelung10 (Result: no result)

Page: University of Zagreb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sveuciliste1669 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Instead of blanking with no rationale, you should take it to the talk page. I have locked the page for 24 hours. Go get consensus for the removal, please. seicer | talk | contribs 17:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Heinerj reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof & User:Zero Serenity (Result: Blocked)

Page

Anita Sarkeesian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Previous version reverted to: (this might be an odd scenario as the article keeps changing text as it goes.)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641451346 by Zero Serenity (talk) 5th bold revert, I still say wait and hear no response. My next edit will be the {{Recentism}} tag."
2. 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "4th revert, I take full responsibility. Please don't bring the Gamergame clusterf*ck mentality into this. I suggested to wait and your answer is clogging the statement with more recentism?"
3. 17:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641449508 by Zero Serenity (talk) See my previous summaries. I'm at the edge of my third revert, please explain before reverting again."
4. 17:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641446716 by Tarc (talk) Can you provide your reasoning? I cited a whole flipping essay."
5. 17:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Feminist Frequency */ Shouldn't we wait until something comes out of this partnership before slapping it into Misplaced Pages? We can't just include every news or plan of the day. WP:RECENTISM"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Intel Partnership */"
2. 17:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Intel Partnership */"
3. 17:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Intel Partnership */"

Comments:

User clearly knows they're reverting way beyond their third and has decided to do so anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User seems to be trying really hard to remove information announced yesterday while citing the Recentism essay. In this case, the information doesn't seem to qualify for said essay and since essay is not policy is rendered nil. Zero Serenity 18:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This would fall under the Gamergate Sanctions, would it not? --MASEM (t) 18:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My gut is telling me no. Zero Serenity 18:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think my edit summaries speak for themselves. Tarc, Zero Serenity and NorthBySouthBaranof didn't address my multiple pledges for discussion and instead blindly reverted my attempt to improve the article without providing a reason. That's a clear symptom of WP:OWN, and I know I was exceding the 3RR, but I was simply trying to find a peaceful solution.

Of course, I want nothing to do with the "gamergate clusterf*ck mentality" and atm I think I have nothing more to add about this incident. Heinerj (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Concerns about recentism are not an exemption for edit-warring. And I don't see this incident as a GG sanctions candidate. Acroterion (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:208.91.96.4 reported by User:Avono (Result: 48h)

Page

Death of Leelah Alcorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

2. 18:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641451661 by Avono (talk)"
3. 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 17:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 17:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 17:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Editors ignoring Joshua Alcorn's biological gender."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Death of Leelah Alcorn. (TW)"
2. 17:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Death of Leelah Alcorn. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* WP:RPP */ comment"

Comments:

WP:MOSIDENTITY violations. Editing against consensus. Avono (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked for 48h by Seicer. FWIW, I would have done the same. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:109.157.113.209 reported by User:68.98.224.182 (Result: Semi)

Page: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 68.98.224.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. "/* November 2014‎ */"
2. "/* November 2014‎ */"
3. "/* November 2014‎ */"
4. "/* November 2014‎ */"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:21, 7 January 2015‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Spshu sockpuppet, also is quick to undo any reverts to old revisions that are true. 68.98.224.182 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Neither party has used the talk page. If agreement is reached the semiprotection can be lifted. No data was offered to show that User:Spshu has played any role in this dispute. It is unclear why reverts from November 2014 have been offered as evidence. The first one is actually by a different IP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )

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

Big Note: See the new clean report below - this has gotten quite complex.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Following on this report that was just archived with no action: where he went 4RR in one day. He also warned User:Lipsquid over edit warring as detailed there.

1. Signedzzz adds text again soon after the last 3RR report, and after I assessed the merits of the issue as an uninvolved editor and posted my assessment. This was a little over 24 hours after the last of the previous round of edit warring not involving me.
2. IP changed with the note (Editor changed in violation of discussion per BRD)
3. Signedzzz adds text again
4. Lipsquid undoes Signedzzz's edit
5. Signedzzz adds text yet again
6. Legacypac undoes Signedzzz this time
7. Signedzzz adds text again and accuses me of edit warring (on my first edit to this section) and stalking.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:While at but not over 3RR in 24 hours right now, this is a long term edit warring situation against consensus and he is at his 8th revert now. He seems to see this as a personal attack (see edit summary), which it is not. He just will not accept consensus that the info is misleading/not relevant in this particular article and shows no sign of stopping.

I commend User:Lipsquid for taking this dispute to Dispute Resolution, where I have summarised the dispute the best I can. (Unfortunately, someone has since muddied the waters by adding irrelevant stuff about the infobox, so I doubt anyone will bother with it, now.) I thought the issue had been resolved after talk page discussion here, which followed extensive discussion on his talk page. I honestly believe his only reason for deleting the sourced, accurate, unbiased material is that he thinks it implies that the APC/ACF support Boko Haram, which is no reason to delete it (Boko Haram are widely assumed to have infiltrated the army and government, so it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that they have supported them to some unknown degree).

I am perfectly willing to discuss the wisdom of keeping or changing any part of the article. Such a discussion should revolve around rational arguments like this one did. However in this case, the idea that material should be deleted is fundamentally flawed (the background section is already a bit short), and the user needs to listen to arguments presented and either present counter-arguments or just edit something else instead.

User:Legacypac's use of the word 'consensus' here is nonsensical. He has simply agreed with Lipsquid that it looks like the group may support Boko Haram - which is not a reason to delete it, as I have pointed out on the talk page. I'm still waiting for a reply to this point. zzz (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My assessment as posted was that Lipsquid's conclusion that it should be removed matched my assessment that inclusion implied the APC support Boko Haram, as clearly Signedzzz understands. The information is just tangentially related to the article topic, which is a heck of an argument to remove. If the background section is too short (and it should be short) find something relevant in the vast amount of info published on the group. Consensus is now 3:1. Why should Signedzzz WP:OWN the article and tell other editors to "just edit somewhere else"? Lipsquid told him that a topic ban would be sought if he continued with the edit warring, before or during the activity in this report. Legacypac (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"The main political interest group representing the interests of northern Nigeria" is by definition the background of Boko Haram (and no argument has been presented to suggest otherwise, obviously). I just checked the talk page, and its still just you and Lipsquid, and still no attempt to reply to me using rational argument. That is not "consensus" (last time I checked, "A process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members"). zzz (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"(Boko Haram are widely assumed to have infiltrated the army and government, so it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that they have supported them to some unknown degree)." It is entirely possible that penguins in Antarctica have supported Boko Haram, to some unknown degree, but unless I have a reliable source that states "Penguins support Boko Haram", quotes about penguins belong on the penguins page and not on the Boko Haram page. I don't know anything about the APC nor do I really even care about the APC. What I do know is that a statement that infers a relationship between some very bad people and another group, needs to be reliably sourced and not based on your personal belief "that it is not beyond the realm of possibility". As a very casual editor of Misplaced Pages, I am kind of stunned that it is this painful to fix something that seems to be fairly straight forward Lipsquid (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? "It is entirely possible that penguins in Antarctica have supported Boko Haram"??? zzz (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Source says APC does not support BK. Inclusion of the background of BK and a quote from them is misleading and unwarrented. End of discussion. Will Signedzzz drop trying to reinsert this or will he not? Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The source says "While not intending to suggest herein"... that they support BH. Legacypac, you need to pay attention to what you are reading. The source does not say "APC does not support BK". How many times are you going to repeat that it does? zzz (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And, again, if the accurate and unbiased info about the APC makes you think they may have supported BH, that is not a reason to delete it. Are you going to come up with a counter argument to this, or just continue ignoring it? zzz (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The source is about the background of Boko Haram. I believe it is a good source for the background section of the article. What is so hard to understand about that? zzz (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, the source does not say they support BH is says the opposite. So the answer is NO you will not stop with your edit warring and you continue here to argue. Topic ban is in order to go with the ISIL topic ban earned for the same style of editing. Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say they support BH. It just says what the source does. The source doesnt say they support BH either. And nor does it say they don't. It's really not that complicated! zzz (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I already answered your argument. Penguins... Lipsquid (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just spent the best part of a hugely unproductive and unpleasant week's editing trying to get some sense out of you. And, it turns out, that is the best you can do? zzz (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Signedzzz please see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrap Up Please: Time for admin action. This user is WP:NOTHERE except to argue and beat up other editors. For background

1. First report by Signedzzz against Lipsquid on this exact wording no violation found
2. Second report by Legacypac against both Signedzzz and Lipsquid on exact same wording not closed So this is the third trip to 3RR for Signedzzz on the exact same wording.
3. Earlier Signedzzz reports Lipsquid at 3RR both warned
4. Signedzzz gets a topic ban here for very similar behavior. Based on a report by Legacypac.

Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP in the diff at the top is clearly a sock of Lipsquid. I don't believe either of these editors believes a word of what they are saying. zzz (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(IP and Lipsquid both edited Talk:Buddhist influences on Christianity, Boko Haram, and very little else. And both have the same "superior" tone.) zzz (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Also, IP contacted me at my talk page, thanking me for deleting the paragraph that Lipsquid had edit-warred to force me to delete, several weeks ago. No doubt IP/Lipsquid thought that was hilarious, and made him feel enormously superior. zzz (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attacks. I am a very casual editor of Misplaced Pages. I don't usually log in before using Misplaced Pages and reverted the change without being logged in which was an error, I had no intent to hide and I also stopped after my second revert, for which I did log in, to avoid the 3RR even though my first revert was not logged in. Actions speak to intent, my intention was not to sockpuppet a bunch of changes. I made a change not logged in, I made a second revert while logged in and I stopped after my second revert logged in or not to follow 3RR, even though the prejudicial PoV-based information remains on the page today. Lipsquid (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion User:Signedzzz should be blocked unless he agrees to wait for consensus before once again adding the paragraph about the Arewa People's Congress to the Boko Haram article. He has done so seven times already, from January 2 through 8th. So far as I can tell nobody supports this addition, and the reason to include it in the Boko Haram article is truly unclear. It looks like he will keep reinserting this material forever unless admins do something. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason is, the source about the background of Boko Haram thinks it's important. "Consensus" consists of Legacypac and Lipsquid/IP, versus me. If admins think the source is wrong/misleading, I'll leave it - obviously. Hopefully someone will explain why they think the source is wrong, first. zzz (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody complained about the addition until Lipsquid did. And no one doesn't support it except him (and Legacypac, of course). zzz (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, What you seem to be saying is, anything Legacypac (who has been trying to get me banned+blocked for a while now) + one other person (such as sockmaster Lipsquid) agree to delete gets deleted, regardless of being sourced, etc. No arguments required. That's pretty depressing, then. zzz (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ed gave his CLEAR opinion after looking at the issue, but the editor is too busy with WP:IDONTHEARTHAT Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ed said the reason for the addition was unclear. I explained the reason was that the source thought it was important. I would like to know his response to that. There really aren't that many good sources about the background of Boko Haram (less than a handful, that I know of). zzz (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Found 2438 edits by User:Signedzzz on Boko Haram (55.31% of the total edits made to the page) The other 847 distinct authors made the rest of the edits. I suspected OWN, and based on these stats, the rest of the article should be checked line by line against the sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That's because I'm well-known for falsifying information, presumably. And it's ok for Legacypac to say that about me, why? zzz (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Request Admin Close this is totally pointless. Can't or will not understand. Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Question: while you defend the inclusion of irrelevant penguins can you explain why these facts are not in the article?

1. UN Security Council has designed Boko Haram a terrorist organization
2. They have been linked to al-Qaeda (basically only denials of the link are there)
3. They pledged allegiance to ISIL recently
4. They declared a caliphate

As the user with 55% of the edits I'd think you are responsible for these facts being excluded. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Read the article zzz (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still wondering if EdJohnston thinks the source is good enough for the background section of the article, by the way. zzz (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I've raised factual errors right here (which he refuses to answer) and on the talk page Signedzzz has already reverted my first edit and removed the POV and accuracy tags. This is going nowhere good. That takes him to 4RR today on the article. Legacypac (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No one has "raised factual errors". Please stop lying about factual errors. zzz (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac Changing the article to say 'boko' means 'book' is a factual error (the source in the article says it does not). Do you have a source that says it does mean 'book'? Or did you just pointlessly insert a factual error? And your edit summary "revise unsubstantiated content not found in the source" is factually wrong. There is no "unsubstantiated content not found in the source". zzz (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My new text said " boko... originally meaning 'fake' but has come to mean and is widely translated and thought to be a corruption of the English word 'book' " For support see pages 2-5 of the preexisting source Legacypac (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, Source no.1 does not say "'boko'... has come to mean book". It doesn't even mention 'book'. It says 'boko' means 'fake'. As does every other RS.

Source no.2 says "It is commonly asserted that boko is derived from the English word book. This widespread view is incorrect." It then goes on to mention a few embarrassing instances of this incorrect translation, beginning with "often unreliable" (sic) Misplaced Pages before I started editing. The Boko Haram article, and other articles I have edited, are not unreliable. I would like them to remain that way. zzz (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.gamji.com/tilde/tilde99.htm
2. http://www.megatchad.net/publications/Newman-2013-Etymology-of-Hausa-boko.pdf

References

User:Loveconquers1 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

Page: Laura Owen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Loveconquers1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has also probably been socking as 2601:2:481:21:ACB4:D1B9:74FB:7C14 and H1n1fluvirus

Previous version reverted to:

• note: article was nominated for deletion and the result of the discussion was keep, as of 7 December 2014 (UTC.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff by IP address earlier today
2. diff after deletions reverted, H1n1fluvirus reverted to delete again
3. diff after deletions reverted, Loveconquors reverted to delete again
4. diff made other changes and nominated for speedy delete (?)
5. dif blanked page and left note on page "This Wiki page is under review for deletion." and left first edit note: "malicious administrator / author posted multiple inaccuracies"
6. dif same as above
7. dif same as above
8. dif now with message left on article "WHO ARE YOU? Why are you targeting me? What have I possibly done to offend you? Do you realize that what you are posting about me includes a mix of inaccuracies"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
• warned about socking here (stopping doing that it seems)
• warned about removing material without edit notes or discussing here
• asked user to talk on their Talk page here and on article Talk page here

Comments:
Please block, and please block the other two probable sock accounts too. User seems really angry; unclear how to get them to start talking. This is a bummer. User will not talk. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

too late, already blocked for vandalism, here. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Funkatastic reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: )

Page: Top Dawg Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Neon Icon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Funkatastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Top_Dawg_Entertainment
2. Top_Dawg_Entertainment
3. Top_Dawg_Entertainment
4. Neon_Icon
5. Neon_Icon
6. Neon_Icon
7. Neon_Icon
8. Neon_Icon
9. Neon_Icon

Comments:User apparently warring on two separate pages with two other editors.
Mlpearc (open channel) 04:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:The above user's report, though true, doesn't include all of the details of the situation. For the Neon Icon page, I explained to the above user on his talk page that the edit war took place due to myself repairing constant damage (deleting referenced information with no causation) by another user, and I reported said user for doing so. As for the issue on Top Dawg Entertainment me and the other user have taken to the talk page and are waiting for fellow users to get involved before making more changes. Funkatastic (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Koala15 reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: )

Page: Neon Icon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Neon_Icon
2. Neon_Icon
3. Neon_Icon
4. Neon_Icon
5. Neon_Icon
6. Neon_Icon

Mlpearc (open channel) 04:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

They are controversial edits, and the editor that added them knows that. They need to be discussed. And days old edits don't count as "edit warring", the statute of limitations is over with. Koala15 (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"The editor that knows that" is me, and no the edits are not controversial. One is an additional genre which is attached with a reference that confirms the genre by the artist himself in an interview with Billboard magazine's website. Another is information on a bonus track that is exclusive to the vinyl edition of the album, which is attached with a reference to the record label's merchandise website. There is a copy of the tracklist in the reference that confirms the change, yet just like the edit before the user above continues to delete this referenced information with no explanation. Additionally, the user continues to change the opening line of the article to claim the album is the "second studio album" and claiming the debut was "The Golden Alien" which was an independently released album with zero record label involvement, while the page Riff Raff (rapper) already displays the difference between the studio albums and independent albums. He's also deleting a referenced excerpt from the page that mentions the music video released for the album's second single. But apparently music videos are controversial in his eyes. This user has continuously damaged the Neon Icon page and has given zero explanation for any of his repeated changes. Funkatastic (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

An artists calling his album "EDM", does not mean that is the case. Your gonna need a better source than that. "The Golden Alien" was clearly his debut regardless of what he/anyone else says. And my bad, for deleting the music video sources, that was an accident. Koala15 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page, where it should have started several edits ago. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:DHeyward reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: no block, user admonished)

Page

Anita Sarkeesian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC) DHeyward self-reverts
2. 04:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641526877 by Binksternet (talk) It's not her, it's her series. WP:UNDUE as no terms were released regarding FF's role let alone Sarkeesians"
3. 04:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Feminist Frequency */ WP:UNDUE - not about Sarkeesian and barely about her video,"
4. 08:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641371608 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) don't edit war over sourced material that is about the same topoic"
5. 07:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 641362950 by Starship.paint (talk): Sourced and easily verified, neutrally worded criticism. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Anita Sarkeesian. (TW)"
2. 04:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "/* January 2015 */ note all four reverts"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Intel Partnership */"
2. 18:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Intel Partnership */"

Comments:

User was politely asked to self-revert; they simply reverted that request. The user has declined to engage in the talk page discussion related to the material in question and has simply engaged in stale revert-warring with no evidence they intend to stop. User is well aware of the 3RR. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't read your drivel anymore, especially templates, so I didn't see any request. You may revert if you wish, all of them were different topics that you've edit warred for months and it wasn't my intention to edit war. It's off my watchlist and I am not disruptive. You've dragged my name through offsite bullshit so knock it off. --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your accusation about something "offsite" is patently false; please refrain from making unsupported and untrue personal attacks about other editors. I have never mentioned any other editor in any offsite context. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop lying. . BTW, I've reverted my edit above but you've never apologized for the above unfounded accusation. . --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your accusation strongly suggested that I had mentioned you in some offsite forum, which is not true. More to the point, I'm not sure what that has to do with this issue. You have self-reverted, however, and I appreciate that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

--DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Warned @DHeyward: That self-revert is the only reason I'm not blocking you right now. Your annoyance at a two-month old comment does not excuse you from your obligation to use the talk page to discuss contentious edits. I'm protecting the page and I will consider sanctions if you continue to refuse to engage in discussion and/or berate other editors. If you have an issue with NorthBySouthBaranof's conduct or comments in regards to any GamerGate-related article, please take it to Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement. Gamaliel (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Sol2893781 reported by User:Snowager (Result: Indef)

Page

MLG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sol2893781 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
2. 09:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
3. 09:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
4. 09:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Straw bear. (TW)"
2. 09:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Straw bear. (TW)"
3. 09:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on MLG. (TW)"
4. 09:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Sol2893781 (talk) to last revision by Snowager. (TW)"
5. 09:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on MLG. (TW)"
6. 09:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on MLG. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He kept vandalizing and blanking sections and entire pages in a blink of an eye. He didn't care about his warnings. Snowager (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – Indef for vandalism by User:Materialscientist. See also the edit filter log. Could be part of a mass attack: see the edit history. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Amelung10 reported by User:Sveuciliste1669 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: University of Zagreb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amelung10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result: Filer blocked one week for vandalism at University of Zagreb by User:Bjelleklang. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:ChrisGualtieri (Result: Blocked )

Page

Dominion: Tank Police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
2. 12:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
3. 12:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
4. 12:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
5. 12:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
6. 12:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
7. 12:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
8. 12:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
9. 12:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
10. Consecutive edits made from 12:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC) to 12:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    1. 12:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Restore version of article produced by copy paste moving"
    2. 12:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Use current title until move"
11. 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015: Title of page must be in the first paragraph and be the first thing, until you convince people this page must be renamed this is how it should be set up. (TW)"
12. 12:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641571134 by MetalMan2015 (talk) typos can be fixed and WP:LEDE requires this"
13. 13:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015: WP:LEDE explicitly says the article title must be the subject of the first sentecne and until this article is officially moved that title is not just dominion. (TW)"
14. 13:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Until this page is moved, tank police must be in the first sentence"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Ryulong is well-aware of 3RR rules per his extensive history. MetalMan2015 has been warned and as of this posting, has not made another edit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for MetalMan2015. In part for the edit war but also he had been warned about the copy and paste move. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: N/A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. reverting this series of edits

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: New simple report because the last one was turned into a long WP:IDONTHEARTHAT debate. Above is clear 4RR within Jan 8 times stamps. If you review the page history it becomes clear that no other editor may make anything but a minor contribution to the article. Signedzzz has 53% of the total edits =over 2400 edits himself on this article and is guarding it, even while he keeps out important info. Debate is over - please act.

Legacypac has been going on an extended and increasingly hysterical witch-hunt of me, and apparently won't be happy until I give up editing. This has only intensified recently after I was pinged to make a comment at AN/I about my dealings with him. In the thread above, he discovered that I had written the Boko Haram article, which was supposedly a huge concern due to my habit of "factual innaccuracy".

His evidence for my long campaign of deception was 4 facts which were supposedly missing from the article, which he could, of course, have simply added (except, only one of the facts was actually missing). I was unable to comment much on this, as 2 of the facts (which actually are in the article) concerned a subject which he has had me TBANned from. This lead him to add 2 warning banners at the top of the article to warn readers of POV and factual inaccuracy, and he opened a thread in article talk about the supposed dire condition of the article, listing the 4 missing facts and complaining in outraged tones of the fact that I had written the article.

The 1st diff (which occurred after the last 3) is me reverting Legacypac's edit to a different section of the article, which he added, with warning banners, after arguing all night on the thread above. As I explain in the thread above, it introduced a factual error and removed sourced material while claiming it was unsourced. I also removed his unexplained warning banners; I am not sure why he didn't mention that - perhaps because he is aware that they are unambiguous vandalism.

In this report, User:Legacypac again suggests that I have been disruptive by writing an article that needed to be written. He implies that I prevent others from editing it - this is absolute rubbish. And despite his repeated hysterical claims, he has yet to find a single factual inaccuracy.

The 2nd, 3rd & 4th diffs are the subject of the thread above. They are me reverting Lipsquid's edit and the edit of his sockpuppet.

I notice that Legacypac and Lipsquid have now "taken over" the article. Therefore I wont be contributing to it any more, per User:EdJohnston's advice on my talk page, and I sincerely doubt I'll ever edit or disrupt or add factual innaccuracies to any other page either. zzz (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:YashShah008 reported by User:Dai Pritchard (Result: )

Page

List of Indian monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

YashShah008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC) to 14:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "I removed non Indian monarchs"
   2. 14:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "I removed foreign rulers who never actually ruled Indian subcontinent"
   3. 14:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "British emperors were never ruling from India subcontinent"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) to 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "These rulers never ruled any part of Indian subcontinent so they cannot be called Indian emperors"
   2. 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "This not an Indian civilization"
4. 12:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Foreign Emperors in North-Western India (c. 538 BC – 750 AD) */Persians and seleuid dynasty never ruled indian states they were on other side of Hindu kush and it was alexander who ruled indian states ."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

, , , , ,

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

, , and subsequent discussion at Talk:List of Indian monarchs#Large-scale section blanking and at User talk:Dai Pritchard#list of indian monarch. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Sveuciliste1669 reported by User:Amelung10 (Result: blocked)

Page: University of Zagreb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sveuciliste1669 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sveuciliste1669 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted 9 times the article - without explaining why nor participating in any discussion!!

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Bjelleklang - talk 19:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring