Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) at 21:38, 3 December 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

Page: 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skookum1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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; @Resolute: has advised me as has @Veriditas: 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 @GBFan: 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)

• Comment 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. :) Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: @Skookum1:: 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. @Legacypac:: 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 07:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Cold Season (Result: )

Page: Gojoseon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cydevil38 (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:

• 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#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Komdori (Result:), reported by Komdori, May 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252#User:Cydevil38 disruption, reported by Assault11, May 2007
• WP:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) (creating a POV fork), reported by Jiejunkong, August 2007
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD, reported by Benlisquare, October 2011, with evidence of disturbing off-wiki racist comments
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Inappropriate WP:CANVASSing by User:Cydevil38, not the first time, 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, Bbb23. 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)

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

Page

Aris Velouchiotis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bougatsa42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "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 Dolescum. Δρ.Κ.  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:Warwar86 reported by User:TopGun (Result: blocked 36 hours, now indefinite)

Page: 2014 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Warwar86 (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:
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)
• Drmies, 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)

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

Page

Skoda Octavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 13:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 10:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 21:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "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. Lukeno94 (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 Misplaced Pages 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. Lukeno94 (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:Srich32977 reported by User:2.177.211.97 (Result: 2 weeks--for the IP)

Page: State Bar of California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srich32977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/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 2.177.207.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), previously blocked by Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Head of state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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#Powers to remove ministers

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)

• Page protected (full) for a week by CambridgeBayWeather.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Brian Babin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiblanks (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: 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)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for sock puppetry by Mike V.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "There is a dispute going on Undid revision 636296462 by GorgeCustersSabre (talk)"
2. 10:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "Please dicuss on the talk page Undid revision 636294781 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
3. 10:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "I am keeping tags because there is a current discussion Undid revision 636294604 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
4. 10:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "I will report you both if you dont stop Undid revision 636294294 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
5. 07:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "Stop Undid revision 636283055 by GorgeCustersSabre (talk)"
6. 07:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "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. 09:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "/* 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. Lukeno94 (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). Lukeno94 (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. Lukeno94 (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's Sabre (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Revert number six. This needs actioning, and actioning quickly. Lukeno94 (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. Lukeno94 (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. Lukeno94 (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)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "Now what is your excuse? The compas page is based on sound references and material. Best Regards"
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC) to 21:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "The compas article is supported with solid references and sound materials."
   2. 21:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "With calm and confidence we're repairing the vandalism caused by inept haters"
3. 05:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "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."
4. 06:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "Patiently but surely rebuilding the compas page; it will contain only pertinent materials"
5. 17:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "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. 06:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Compas. (TW)"
2. 18:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "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. —/Mendaliv//_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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

Page: YoYo Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 195.99.213.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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 Misplaced Pages: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#Vandalism and First Party Editing. User:MusikAnimal is another admin who has worked on this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

2015 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Szymonn04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 08:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"
2. 15:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"
3. 12:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"
4. 18:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"
5. 18:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2015 Formula One season. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "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.Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

(Non-administrator comment) According to the user's global contributions, they've only made one edit to Polish Misplaced Pages. 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 | talk | 18:40, 3 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

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "Restoring corrections made per Talk page section Abuse of Sources"
2. 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "Continuing to correct article per Talk page Section Abuse of Sources. Reversions will be reported as vandalism."
3. 22:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636376041 by Iryna Harpy (talk) Reason: vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. (TW)"
2. 22:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Addendum to Volunteer Marek's edit warring warning.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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.

Comments:

SPA not only edit warring, but refactoring content per POV & GEVAL. Clearly NOTHERE. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (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: 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 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 @Myopia123: 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)

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 Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards under the WP:GS/SCW community sanctions, for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Guru234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC) to 19:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Campus */"
   2. 19:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Campus */"
2. 14:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Mode of admission */"
3. 15:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) to 05:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   4. 16:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "/* History */"
   5. 18:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   6. 18:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   7. 18:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   8. 18:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC) ""
   9. 19:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "/* History */"
   10. 05:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC) to 13:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Mode of admission */"
   2. 13:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Undergraduate */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC) "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, Raghu149 (talk · contribs) after seeing his/her talk page warnings.— CutestPenguin 14:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for copyright violations, sock/alt-account blocked indef per WP:DUCK. Nick (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Federal State of Novorossiya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC) to 12:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636423703 by My very best wishes (talk) Vandalism"
   2. 12:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636421562 by My very best wishes (talk) There is no denying that the referendums were recognized"
2. 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC) "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. 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)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months. As before. Kuru (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Antonioptg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First edit war, pre-3RR warning:

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

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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring