Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:55, 8 December 2014

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

Page: List of sovereign states in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 186.69.107.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Low editor traffic article because new States rarely form. This IP has engaged in a long term project to add Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (as well as the separatist portions of Ukraine and other non-states) into Misplaced Pages as new countries. This is against consensus and can not be supported by RS. On November 25 they reverted two different editors to reinsert ISIL, therefore breaching the 1RR Active Community Sanctions. This article is not tagged with the sanctions because it should not contain any ISIL content. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Right after the IP reverted my deletion of the ISIL I went to their talk page and requested they revert themselves at 19:34, 25 November 2014. After Kahastok reverted the IPs revert they added the material again, braking 1RR.

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

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

Comments:

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

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

It seems that with the recent changes or movements that have shown many conflicts about the new countries or "de facto" countries that were born as a result ot that conflicts, many people are in constant debate wether this countries (like ISIS, Crime, Donetsk, Lugansk, etc.) should be accepted or not as states to include in the wikipedia article "list of sovereign states in 2010s" but as I see that you really included them in the wikipedia article but in a neutral way (as the user Kahastok said in the article history) until further notice wether we find out they become sovereign states or "de facto" sovereign states I see it is a good way for everyone who is still challenging each other about this "sovereign states" debate, with this message I entrust in you wikipedia administrators the content of this page and I won't edit the page anymore. User:186.69.107.211 00:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: The IP user is warned for violating the WP:GS/SCW 1RR rule. If they keep their promise and stop the reverts there will be no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Incandescent light bulb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Famartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. These last four are four reverts within one hour let alone twenty four hours.

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

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

Comments:

–LiveRail < Talk > 14:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: List of wars involving Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lake4455 (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:

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

Comments:

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

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's edits:

1. Revision as of 11:29, 26 November 2014 adding "During the August counteroffensive against the Ukrainian milatary. Sepratist militia managed to push the Ukrainians out of the city and life slowly started to return to normal."
2. Revision as of 12:05, 26 November 2014 adding "During the August counteroffensive against the Ukrainian milatary. Sepratist militia pushed the Ukrainian milatary out of the city to smile and life slowly returned to normal in the city."
3. Revision as of 05:49, 27 November 2014 adding "During late August sepratist militia forced government troops out of the city. And life slowly returned to normal.<ref>""<ref>"
4. Latest revision as of 20:45, 27 November 2014 adding "<span data-ve-clipboard-key="0.387875659391284-0"> </span><span>In late August the sepratistss forced the ukrainian milatary out of the city pushing them north. Life slowly returned to normal in the city</span>

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

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

Attempt to discuss the dispute on article talk page: Talk:Luhansk#Removing the fiction of "life returning to normal" while under control of an invading army

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Page: Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:05, November 25, 2014
2. 04:38, November 26, 2014
3. 05:31, November 26, 2014
4. 05:49, November 26, 2014

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note @Bloom6132: regarding your latest revert here, I must point out that 3RR exemption does not apply in this case. Quoting FPaS at "The exemption only applies to edits that were made during the block, i.e. through a sock. Edits made before the block don't count, just like edits made before a ban don't count." You are just continuing the pointless edit warring. - NQ (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  Indeed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  My apologies. I did not know about the specifics of the exception until now. Would you like me to undo my revert? —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually reading the exception might have helped. No need for you to do anything, since the discussion at Talk:DYK shows that sanity is prevailing and you will be reverted in due course. EEng (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you didn't read (or can't read; not sure which one), it's pretty obvious I read the exception given that I cited it in the ES. I was referring to how I didn't read FPaS' elaboration of the rule from 2 years ago. If you're expecting me to search through archives for comments made years before in order to correct a blatant 3RR violation, you'd be a moron. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The exception you cited, in making the reversion for which NQ quite rightly scolded you, allows "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users". I was neither a banned user, nor a sockpuuppet of a banned or blocked user, and no archived explication should be needed to understand that the exception didn't apply.

For many months you've been expressing anger toward random people at Talk:Did You Know, beginning (to my recollection) after a shift in rules designed to raise the minimum quality of contributions there. This seems to have inconvenienced you, and since then you've felt free to call people morons, accuse them of intentionally fudging project statistics, muse that they "can't read" or "can't do math" even as you misinterpret moderately complex logical constructs (such as above) and much more. Personally I'm not distressed by such nonsense, but I know others are, and for their sake everyone would like you to cut it out.

The pattern seems to be that if you're allowed to get the last word in, you go away and stop bothering people, at least for a while. So please be my guest. You have my permission to vent by calling me any names you like, if that helps.

EEng (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Page: State Bar of California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.177.207.221 (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:
Myself and other users have tried to discuss this issue with this user time and time again but they just revert edits and post walls of text in the talk page. We have told them that they need to acquire consensus but they have only ignored us. I have personally been called a "stalker and habitual vandalized of article who claimed he worked for the public entity the article is about" as you can see here and all of which is not true. I have not reverted any their revisions because I am trying to resolve this through discussion and I am bringing this here despite them copying and pasting a warning onto my talk page accusing me of such as you can see here. - SantiLak (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply: If he is trying to discuss the article, he should discuss the article and refrain from making anti-semitic and homophobic slurs. The article is about a public entity - he has edited his talk page where an administrator told him to stop vandalizing the article by deleting entire sections without discussion. 2.177.207.221 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never made any homophobic or anti-semitic slurs. This is just another example of the behavior of this user with these ridiculous things they say about other users. I also have no ideas what he is talking about when it comes to any admin. - SantiLak (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Page: Category:Arab-Israeli footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Uishaki (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:

Comments:

Uishaki violated a topic ban. He's the one that added (unsourced) content and was reverted, so he's the one that need to reach consensus. Please notice his long history of warring, violations and blocks on these topics, including a topic ban. Infantom (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Infantom is forum-shopping. See this discussion between the two users at WP:ANI from a couple of days ago (the edit warring at the category also took place a couple of days ago and is itself Stale). I have no comment on the topic ban allegation. Infantom also neglected to notify the user of this discussion as required; I have done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, the other discussion was 2 days ago and didn't get a response, so i thought it would be better to report it myself. the edit warring is stale because i stopped it for now(until the issue will be settled by report), not because there is an agreement. As for notify the user, you are right, i thought the user would get a notification by mentioning him. it's the first time i'm reporting. Infantom (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Median household income (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.104.112.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Median_household_income&action=history

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Talk:Sonic Boom (TV series) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcbanners (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:

Violating the voluntary restriction which prevented him from editing the main page / talk page for one month. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. TheMeaningOfBlah, next time please include a diff to the report in which the user agreed to the restriction. I had to go hunting for it. Also, it would have been helpful if you had reported this when it happened, as opposed to a few days later. That said, I look at it like a temporary article ban, which isn't generally susceptible to stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to remember it next time. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Nick Studio 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635814915 by 123.50.114.181 (talk)"
2. 20:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635807212 by Mrschimpf (talk)"
3. 17:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635736922 by 87.254.229.53 (talk)"
4. 05:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635718920 by Mrschimpf (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No warning, but user is a DUCK of 162.254.144.149 who was blocked for similar behavior, see pending Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/162.254.144.149. Seahorseruler 00:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have warned the user here, however I don't see them stopping considering they've ignored and removed every other warning and notice placed on their talk page (including the notification about this 3RR thread). Seahorseruler 01:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User has reverted again after warning --Seahorseruler 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Wi-Fi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */Added content"
2. 15:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */"
3. 16:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */"
4. 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */Added content"
5. 16:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wi-Fi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also warned for copyright violation, username and promotion. NebY (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by User:Barek. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: The Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.238.79.44 (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:

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

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

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

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's edits:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

Reply:

- : This correction is regarding specific information, the term FGM being forced by PolenCelestial, which is clearly written as FGC in the source.

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

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

Hope admin consider the above facts, my intention was not to have edit war but to not to allow miscreant to use Wiki. SPA type editor doing mischief at Wiki may please be discouraged. It is my intention to keep Wiki norms above all.--Md iet (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Admins, I explained on the talk page that female genital mutilation is the only term considered accurate by the international medical profession. It is the title of the Misplaced Pages article on the subject and the term used throughout that article for this reason. I also defended my account against the WP:SPA accusation due to this not being the intent behind my account but rather I am a new editor, also I made a previous unrelated edit on the Spanish wiki and the ones I've made to Dawoodi Bohra don't violate WP:NPOV which is one of the requirements for dismissing SPA activity.

Furthermore, the user's claim that the sources cited don't use the term female genital mutilation is false, they do use it as do 27400 Google results which upon examination consist of a very large number of reputable news sources which can also be cited if this is the issue.

The user also claims that I'm targeting a particular community, when in fact I added the information to the Dawoodi Bohra article because it's the only FGM group I'm aware of that is distinguishable by religion rather than locality.

The entire article on FGM is written from the perspective of the information I'm trying to include in the Dawoodi Bohra article. There aren't generally considered to be multiple sides to the issue, analogous to how the article on murder isn't considered an NPOV violation due to objections by members of sacrificial cults. PolenCelestial (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The dawoodi bohra article is not the place for discussion regarding FGM issue. PolenCelestial is straying from the main topic. too much weightage is given to this issue. this article has gone through edit war several times before .Earlier we had requested that before any changes made to this article consensus should be gained by fellow editors. PolenCelestial simply ignored this request and acts as the owner of this article. We are here to contribute positively to Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia and not the platform for imposing partisan views.Rukn950 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Md iet is topic banned under WP:ARBIP from anything to do with the Dawoodi Bohra, on all pages of Misplaced Pages. He seems unable to edit neutrally on this subject. This action is taken under the discretionary sanctions authorized by Arbcom. I'm also leaving WP:ARBIP alerts for User:Rukn950, User:Burhanhusain, User:Ramiericson and User:Dawoodibohra5253. Three pages are being semiprotected: List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra, Mohammed Burhanuddin and 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Md iet (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 05:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC) to 05:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "repetition deleted."
   2. 05:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 05:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra)&oldid=635735930 Summichum (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Esoglou reported by User:2602:306:bd61:e0f0:644a:5508:1251:8d09 (Result: no violation)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

I realize I've formatted this complaint incorrectly. Apologies. Hopefully that won't matter. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:644A:5508:1251:8D09 (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

2602, I've edited your report to remove the malformed portions. Generally, it's considered edit warring if a user makes multiple reverts on a single page in a short duration, what I see in Esoglou's contribs is the normal cycle of bold, revert, discuss. Given that, the fact that discussion is still ongoing on the WikiProject Catholicism talkpage, and that Esoglou incorporated some of your changes in a self-revert , I'm closing this report without action. No violation. — east718 | talk | 16:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: I.Bhardwaj (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: ... another user has left him a soft warning in an attempt to discuss.

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

• Note. I've alerted the user to WP:ARBIP.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Oslo Accords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "This wasn't added by a "sock". And you should explain on the talk page why you are removing content supported by reliable sources."
2. 15:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "Please stop removing sourced content"

Comments:

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

• Page protected (semi) for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Lusija Ećevarija (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

RadioaktivnaKokica12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "Notice: Please use English when contributing to the English Misplaced Pages. (TW)"
2. 18:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Lusija Ećevarija. (TW)"
3. 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "General note: Creating inappropriate pages on Lusija Ećevarija. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated recreation of article. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked the reported user as a sock puppet. Also blocked the master. Article has been salted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Jimmy Somerville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amamamamama (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:

Revert warring still in progress. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Page: Sabra and Shatila massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peleio Aquiles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Extreme edit warrior has managed to violate the 3RR on a 1RR article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As anyone can see in the entry's history, the above user was a full party in the edit war. However, he doesn't expect you to notice it because he was doing so from an anonymous IP. This is his filthy tactic to draw me in such a war so as to have an excuse to denounce me - edit a highly controversial article from an anonymous account so as to provoke reversions, and then re-appear with his registered account when enough reversions have been provoked. EDIT --- Also, I don't see anything in the entry identifying it as having the 1RR. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If you actually believe your own rationalizations, then file an SPI. While sockpuppetry is obviously at play here, that does not justify your conduct. The IPs most likely belong to Wlglunight93.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No reason to do so - we don't need two venues to discuss the same issue. Whoever judges my conduct will have to take yours into account, too, Mr. Anonymous Sockpuppet. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I also have reason to suspect talk:TheTimesAreAChanging is canvassing his friends to edit the entry from an anonymous IP. After he opened this request, an anomyous IP account, different from the original one, has reverted my edit using the same justification as the other one. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peleio Aquiles (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pleas be aware that claiming someone is s sockpuppet without lodging an SPI is unlikely to be looked upon in a positive light. This is the board for reporting edit warring and 3RR issues. If you have a belief soeone is a sockpuppet then you should go and report it. Otherwise you should stirke your claim until you have the evidence to prove it. Amortias (T)(C) 19:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Since reverting IPs does not usually count towards 1RR violations, and Wlglunight93 is currently blocked, Peleio Aquiles should not be sanctioned for his actions, but he should be warned about his aggressive editing tendencies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And you should be warned for harassing users having full knowledge that you lack a cause. I have re-inserted your crappy content, for the one reason I don't want negative attention and that I'm not fully acquainted with edit policy. But tomorrow there will be more. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Page: Afrobeat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• User being reported: 69.120.215.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User being reported: 24.190.22.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User being reported: Qwerfdsazxc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. link
2. link
3. link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

• Page protected (semi) for one week. The two IPs are fairly obviously the same individual. It's not obvious to me that they are related to the named account.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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)

 Declined If you file a complaint and duplicate it on AN/I, I cannot block the editor now. The editor needs to have the opportunity to respond to your accusations at AN/I, and since there is a proposal to topic ban them. It's not fair to make the editor defend the same complaint in two different places at the same time. Jehochman 15:55, 8 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: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)

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: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: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)