Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 03:26, 10 January 2015 (→User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked): Closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    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
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report

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

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


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]
    5. [5]
    6. [6]
    7. [7]
    8. [8]
    9. [9]
    10. [10]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] Attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [13]

    Comments:I see that this editor is no stranger to this noticeboard, and was previously blocked for edit warring in another article[14] and warned three times[15][16][17] for edit warring in still others. His behavior in this article has been nothing short of maddening, removing amply sourced content and edit-warring over it. I would like to build this article into Good Article and perhaps even Feature Article status, as the source material is ample (including a biography of Myerson that I own) but it is impossible if this editor makes nonsensical edits such as [18] and edit wars over them. Myerson, the subject of a page one obit in the New York Times today, is a prominent person who is the subject of two three books, but her highly-trafficked article will remain stuck in "start" status if this tendentious conduct is not curbed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The wall-o-text below bears me out. Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Very one-sided report. Look at the reporting editor's edits and reversions. All he's been doing is adding back in wording he prefers. Wording, I might add, that is extremely close and only slightly paraphrased from the references he's added. For a better idea of both sides of the discussion (which I started at the article talk page, by the way), I will re-post what I've already said there (winkelvi used the same behaviour in the constitucion article [[21]]:

    • RE: Claim in article that she was a subject of anti-semitism and the Jewish community saw her MA win as a "seminal event". The attached reference says nothing of the kind. Anti-semitism is mentioned, but not in relation to Myerson's win. As well, nothing in the article gives proof that Jewish Americans felt her win was "seminal" nor that her win was affirmation. All the obit says is, "To many Jews...the title seemed an affirmation of some sort of acceptance in America." Note the words "To many Jews" and "seemed". Both qualify for WP:WEASEL status, and neither statements are supported by references. There are no sources attached to either statement that supports these obviously POV, emotional, and hyperbolic claims as being real or anything other than original research and personal opinion by the obit writer. What evidence do we have that the sponsors were actually anti-semitic? None. Both of these claims need to be removed as, even after a BLP article subject dies, WP:BLP policies still apply to the article for up to two years followig the article subject's death.
    • RE: The Ha'Eretz reference used to support "anti-semitism": it is also POV. This would need to be supported by a non-biased source. There is no specificity in the article that gives context, just the claim of anti-semitism. Further, in reading throughly both the obituary and the Ha'Eretz article, you have taken WAY too much of both, paraphrased only slightly, and are bordering on plagiarism and WP:COPYVIO with the prose and content you keep reverting back in from those articles. For reasons of borderline plagirism and copyvio along with the reasons per BLP guidelines stated above, I am also removing the content you keep putting back in.
    • RE: Comments about my editing at the article on Jimbo's page... Better to actually discuss than run to Jimbo's talk page and complain about, how did you put it? Oh, yeah: "a singularly difficult editor, which raises one of a number of issues I've seen discussed in the past year or so but never acted on. I.e., how to handle bad editors." (see here: [22]) That, in the vein of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, along with your edit warring behavior, plagiarism and copyvios... Doesn't look to good at all.
    • RE: Editor's claim that I am using POV to edit the article... My feelings have nothing to do with the article content. In fact, I personally lean toward the anti-semitism claim. But my feelings have nothing to do with fact. The feelings of the writers have nothing to do with fact. Making claims of anti-semitism 70 years after he fact with no real evidence of actual anti-semitism is as stupid and POV as the claims of those saying anyone who didn't vote for Barack Obama did so because they are anti-Black. And yes, you did lift content from those articles. It's easy to see. So no, not ridiculous at all.

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

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

    I've not been reverting, you have. You're in excess of 3RR and have been working your will in the article almost entirely by edit warring. You used the revert tool to remove the word "cooperative" from the name of the housing project in which Myerson lived as a girl, without discussion, even though you were already well over 3RR[23]. Your edit made something accurate into something inaccurate, but I didn't revert. This edit[24], insisting upon calling that housing project a "Yiddish housing project," without discussion, even after it was objected to, is revert-warring, and was not reverted by myself. The article currently contains this extremely questionable language, as the result of the edit warring that you've been engaged in. That's how you've edit-warred over one minor aspect of the article! It is, as I said, maddening. If that is your idea of "cooperative editing" you are mistaken. Coretheapple (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Yiddish housing cooperative" is certainly not a standard term. It's the exact opposite, in fact. Although its meaning is clear to those who know this bit of NYC/Jewish history, it certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia. Frankly, the Bess Myerson article should merely link to Shalom Aleichem Houses. (I remark that this is a redirect I just created, but if we have Amalgamated Housing Cooperative, we can have this too.)
    • One of Winkelvi's edit summaries justified a reversion on the grounds that obituaries should not be relied in except for basic facts. He was rebuked by admins in this forum a few months ago when justifying some of his edit warring in Helen Hooven Santmyer for just this kind of second-guessing about obituary contents. That what's asserted from the source is POV, as Winkelvi claims, is irrelevant. NPOV stands for "Neutral" POV, not "Non" POV. If it seems to be stated in a hyperbolic manner, then phrasing it as "Time said X" should be acceptable. Choor monster (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apple says, "I've not been reverting, you have." You can't, in all honesty, be serious. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments and adding link to Bess Myerson talk page ([25]) I ask that anyone reading this report please look at the comments contained there. I have repeatedly tried to work with and reason with Coretheapple at the article talk page. His choice has been to make several personal attacks, even after I have asked him to stop doing so and instead talk only about bettering the article. Along with wrongly referring to himself and another editor trading talk page comments in the middle of the night over a span of an hour or so "consensus", his attacks and rude comments to me have been peppered with statements such as, "you have not read and/or comprehended"; "Please stop wasting everybody's time"; "we are adding relevant details, and this is clearly relevant, amply sourced, above dispute--except by you. Again, why are you wasting everybody's time"; "why are you wasting everybody's time"; "This discussion is utterly pointless...Please stop wasting people's time.". When I first went to Core's talk page early on when I was confused by one of his edit summaries, he answered rudely there as well: "And haven't you anything better to do than waste people's time? (page/section link here [26]). Yesterday, at Jimmy Wales' talk page he referred to me in the following manner: "a singularly difficult editor, which raises one of a number of issues I've seen discussed in the past year or so but never acted on. I.e., how to handle bad editors." (see diff: [27]). I have tried numerous times to work with Coretheapple yesterday, last night, today, on the article talk page. I've asked him to stop being rude and personally attacking me. I've even thanked him (via the "Send Thanks" option) for an edit today that was a particularly good addition. In spite of all this, Coretheapple chooses to remain tendentious, rude, angry, uncivil and non-collegial. All of this, in my opinion, shows that he not only refuses to work with me, but that this report isn't really about edit warring, it's about someone he has chosen to dislike editing an article he's taken an interest in. If it were the opposite, it stands to reason that he would have changed his tone hours ago based on the discussion I keep trying to have with him at the article talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Over the last 24 hours you've edit-warred with myself, an IP editor and User:Alanscottwalker, carrying out a total of 10 reverts at last count, and your wall-o-text rants are totally irrelevant to your incessant edit-warring. Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Winkelvi: It is not a personal attack to identify your lack of comprehension when you have clearly failed to comprehend a source. Your justification of "Yiddish housing cooperative" below is simply your own interpretative original research (and mistranslation to boot). This is just one example: you frequently skim sources, find a few key phrases, paraphrase them into something creatively incorrect, and then aggressively edit-war for your version. My stating this is not a personal attack. It's just a time-wasting, disruptive editing fact of life on WP. Choor monster (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone who introduces the phrase "Yiddish housing cooperative" into WP, while having a history of reverting others for using "unencyclopedic" terminology (even when the contrary is documented) is not one to be taken seriously regarding who is or isn't "serious". I will leave the apportionment of blame to more experienced editors and admins, my comments stand on their own. Choor monster (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't introduce it, those creating the co-op did. The Shalom Aleichem Houses were originally called "Yiddish Cooperative Heimgesellschaft". In fact, they were called that when Myerson and her family lived there. Here's a great link to a CU discussion on the history [28] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your version, both in your edit and in your statement here, misrepresents the link. In general, official names outside of the actual article on the subject are almost always a distraction at best and more commonly are reader-hostile intrusions, and your habit of edit-warring to make sure they are present is very unhelpful. Choor monster (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Think what want. You made an unfounded accusation, ridiculed what I added to the article, I showed where the historically correct content came from. If you want to continue with your assault on my character and ability to edit based on that, knock yourself out; It's doing you no favors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented on precisely what I commented, which was in regards to your precise language. Reading it as a comment on language you did not write or on other edits I didn't point out is just pointless thrashing. Also, edit-warring on your user page, where you have decided to implicitly but rather baldfacedly criticize Coretheapple, in open, knowing violation of WP:POLEMIC (you've done this trash before, and I referred you to it), is also pointless. Choor monster (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Note that WP:RFC/USER has been shut down as a bump on the way to ARBCOM. Choor monster (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I see that. One correction to my report: I see that the very final revert that I listed took place after the 24-hour 3RR period. However, I am leaving it in as it is an example of his continuing to edit-war. That has not abated. More recently, he reverted accurately sourced material here because he didn't believe what the LA Times reported in its obit. In fact it was accurate, though it could have been more precise in saying that she hosted the TV broadcast and not the pageant itself (Parks did). So the hair-trigger reverting has not ended. Coretheapple (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst I don't have a real opinion to most things here, your attempt at edit warring on Winkelvi's userpage, Choor monster, was inadvisable at best; in no way was there such a blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC that you had the right to remove all of 15 characters from their userpage in the first place, let alone edit war over it and then drag them to ANI over it. Also, AN3 is not the place to hash out content disputes, or request people to be "banned"; it is the place where you make edit-warring cases, and that's it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • One month before—I provided links—the admin Drmies had reverted Winkelvi's user page for similar anonymous attacks on the grounds that it did violate WP:POLEMIC, after the issue was first raised on WP:ANI. I did not claim the new text was a "blatant" violation, merely at the same level as the previous instance. Choor monster (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which still does not justify the second revert, let alone the ANI thread. Also, I'm not remotely sure how you can justify that claim; the text that Drmies removed did clearly toe the line of polemic at the very best, whereas what you removed wasn't even close. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that it's much shorter. Meanwhile it toes the critical line: it's an attack on another editor, the one who brought this very AN3 report in the first, which is why it's getting mentioned in this particular AN3 discussion. Choor monster (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the difference is that it wasn't a violation. "laundry list of reversion diffs" cannot remotely be interpreted on its own as polemic, and that is precisely what you were removing. Users are given quite a lot of freedom with what they can say on their userpages, and Winkelvi did not overstep that mark in that text. You had absolutely no right to act as you did there (you had a right to a single objection, not to two reverts and ANI thread). I'm a little surprised no admin has come in here to deal with the 3RR complaint though, because it does need looking at due to the large amount of reverts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quote from WP:POLEMIC as to what is not allowed: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Winkelvi introduced the new material later the same day as this report. Whether it was done with this report in mind, or just happens to be a good-faith coincidence, is actually irrelevant, the timing means it "can be viewed as attacking other editors." Choor monster (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • With specific twisting, almost anything can be viewed as attacking other editors. As I already stated, you had every right to object politely to Winkelvi's edit; you had no right to revert them twice and then waltz off to ANI over a nothing edit. Besides, if something so simple Winkelvi did offends you this much, you shouldn't have their userpage on your watchlist, or be looking at it at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. And it would be awfully nice if administrators could monitor the talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts: Following on this report that was just archived with no action: [29] where he went 4RR in one day. He also warned User:Lipsquid over edit warring as detailed there.

    1. [30] Signedzzz adds text again soon after the last 3RR report, and after I assessed the merits of the issue as an uninvolved editor and posted my assessment. This was a little over 24 hours after the last of the previous round of edit warring not involving me.
    2. [31] IP changed with the note (Editor changed in violation of discussion per BRD)
    3. [32] Signedzzz adds text again
    4. [33] Lipsquid undoes Signedzzz's edit
    5. [34] Signedzzz adds text yet again
    6. [35] Legacypac undoes Signedzzz this time
    7. [36] Signedzzz adds text again and accuses me of edit warring (on my first edit to this section) and stalking.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37] and [38]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

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

    I commend User:Lipsquid for taking this dispute to Dispute Resolution, where I have summarised the dispute the best I can. (Unfortunately, someone has since muddied the waters by adding irrelevant stuff about the infobox, so I doubt anyone will bother with it, now.) I thought the issue had been resolved after talk page discussion here, which followed extensive discussion on his talk page. I honestly believe his only reason for deleting the sourced, accurate, unbiased material is that he thinks it implies that the APC/ACF support Boko Haram, which is no reason to delete it (Boko Haram are widely assumed to have infiltrated the army and government, so it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that they have supported them to some unknown degree).
    I am perfectly willing to discuss the wisdom of keeping or changing any part of the article. Such a discussion should revolve around rational arguments like this one did. However in this case, the idea that material should be deleted is fundamentally flawed (the background section is already a bit short), and the user needs to listen to arguments presented and either present counter-arguments or just edit something else instead.
    User:Legacypac's use of the word 'consensus' here is nonsensical. He has simply agreed with Lipsquid that it looks like the group may support Boko Haram - which is not a reason to delete it, as I have pointed out on the talk page. I'm still waiting for a reply to this point. zzz (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My assessment as posted was that Lipsquid's conclusion that it should be removed matched my assessment that inclusion implied the APC support Boko Haram, as clearly Signedzzz understands. The information is just tangentially related to the article topic, which is a heck of an argument to remove. If the background section is too short (and it should be short) find something relevant in the vast amount of info published on the group. Consensus is now 3:1. Why should Signedzzz WP:OWN the article and tell other editors to "just edit somewhere else"? Lipsquid told him that a topic ban would be sought if he continued with the edit warring, before or during the activity in this report. Legacypac (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Seriously? "It is entirely possible that penguins in Antarctica have supported Boko Haram"??? zzz (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Source says APC does not support BK. Inclusion of the background of BK and a quote from them is misleading and unwarrented. End of discussion. Will Signedzzz drop trying to reinsert this or will he not? Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The source says "While not intending to suggest herein"... that they support BH. Legacypac, you need to pay attention to what you are reading. The source does not say "APC does not support BK". How many times are you going to repeat that it does? zzz (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And, again, if the accurate and unbiased info about the APC makes you think they may have supported BH, that is not a reason to delete it. Are you going to come up with a counter argument to this, or just continue ignoring it? zzz (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is about the background of Boko Haram. I believe it is a good source for the background section of the article. What is so hard to understand about that? zzz (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, the source does not say they support BH is says the opposite. So the answer is NO you will not stop with your edit warring and you continue here to argue. Topic ban is in order to go with the ISIL topic ban earned for the same style of editing. Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article doesn't say they support BH. It just says what the source does. The source doesnt say they support BH either. And nor does it say they don't. It's really not that complicated! zzz (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comment: In my opinion User:Signedzzz should be blocked unless he agrees to wait for consensus before once again adding the paragraph about the Arewa People's Congress to the Boko Haram article. He has done so seven times already, from January 2 through 8th. So far as I can tell nobody supports this addition, and the reason to include it in the Boko Haram article is truly unclear. It looks like he will keep reinserting this material forever unless admins do something. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason is, the source about the background of Boko Haram thinks it's important. "Consensus" consists of Legacypac and Lipsquid/IP, versus me. If admins think the source is wrong/misleading, I'll leave it - obviously. Hopefully someone will explain why they think the source is wrong, first. zzz (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody complained about the addition until Lipsquid did. And no one doesn't support it except him (and Legacypac, of course). zzz (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, What you seem to be saying is, anything Legacypac (who has been trying to get me banned+blocked for a while now) + one other person (such as sockmaster Lipsquid) agree to delete gets deleted, regardless of being sourced, etc. No arguments required. That's pretty depressing, then. zzz (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed gave his CLEAR opinion after looking at the issue, but the editor is too busy with WP:IDONTHEARTHAT Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed said the reason for the addition was unclear. I explained the reason was that the source thought it was important. I would like to know his response to that. There really aren't that many good sources about the background of Boko Haram (less than a handful, that I know of). zzz (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    1. UN Security Council has designed Boko Haram a terrorist organization [40]
    2. They have been linked to al-Qaeda (basically only denials of the link are there)
    3. They pledged allegiance to ISIL recently (he is topic banned from ISIL so I should not have asked this)
    4. They declared a caliphate

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

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

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

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

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

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

    My new text said " boko... originally meaning 'fake' but has come to mean[1] and is widely translated and thought to be a corruption of the English word 'book' " For support see pages 2-5 of the preexisting source [2] Legacypac (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Legacypac, Source no.1 does not say "'boko'... has come to mean book". It doesn't even mention 'book'. It says 'boko' means 'fake'. As does every other RS.
    Source no.2 says "It is commonly asserted that boko is derived from the English word book. This widespread view is incorrect." It then goes on to mention a few embarrassing instances of this incorrect translation, beginning with "often unreliable" (sic) Wikipedia before I started editing. The Boko Haram article, and other articles I have edited, are not unreliable. I would like them to remain that way. zzz (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

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

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

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


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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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


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

    too late, already blocked for vandalism, here. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – Indef for vandalism by User:Discospinster. Another admin has semiprotected the article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Funkatastic reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: See a later report)

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


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

    User:Koala15 reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: No action)

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


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

    They are controversial edits, and the editor that added them knows that. They need to be discussed. And days old edits don't count as "edit warring", the statute of limitations is over with. Koala15 (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "The editor that knows that" is me, and no the edits are not controversial. One is an additional genre which is attached with a reference that confirms the genre by the artist himself in an interview with Billboard magazine's website. Another is information on a bonus track that is exclusive to the vinyl edition of the album, which is attached with a reference to the record label's merchandise website. There is a copy of the tracklist in the reference that confirms the change, yet just like the edit before the user above continues to delete this referenced information with no explanation. Additionally, the user continues to change the opening line of the article to claim the album is the "second studio album" and claiming the debut was "The Golden Alien" which was an independently released album with zero record label involvement, while the page Riff Raff (rapper) already displays the difference between the studio albums and independent albums. He's also deleting a referenced excerpt from the page that mentions the music video released for the album's second single. But apparently music videos are controversial in his eyes. This user has continuously damaged the Neon Icon page and has given zero explanation for any of his repeated changes. Funkatastic (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An artists calling his album "EDM", does not mean that is the case. Your gonna need a better source than that. "The Golden Alien" was clearly his debut regardless of what he/anyone else says. And my bad, for deleting the music video sources, that was an accident. Koala15 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page, where it should have started several edits ago. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page
    Anita Sarkeesian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC) DHeyward self-reverts
    2. 04:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641526877 by Binksternet (talk) It's not her, it's her series. WP:UNDUE as no terms were released regarding FF's role let alone Sarkeesians"
    3. 04:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Feminist Frequency */ WP:UNDUE - not about Sarkeesian and barely about her video,"
    4. 08:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641371608 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) don't edit war over sourced material that is about the same topoic"
    5. 07:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 641362950 by Starship.paint (talk): Sourced and easily verified, neutrally worded criticism. (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Anita Sarkeesian. (TW)"
    2. 04:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "/* January 2015 */ note all four reverts"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 17:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Intel Partnership */"
    2. 18:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Intel Partnership */"
    Comments:

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

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

    Your accusation about something "offsite" is patently false; please refrain from making unsupported and untrue personal attacks about other editors. I have never mentioned any other editor in any offsite context. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop lying. [41]. BTW, I've reverted my edit above but you've never apologized for the above unfounded accusation. [insults redacted]. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your accusation strongly suggested that I had mentioned you in some offsite forum, which is not true. More to the point, I'm not sure what that has to do with this issue. You have self-reverted, however, and I appreciate that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [insults redacted] --DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned @DHeyward: That self-revert is the only reason I'm not blocking you right now. Your annoyance at a two-month old comment does not excuse you from your obligation to use the talk page to discuss contentious edits. I'm protecting the page and I will consider sanctions if you continue to refuse to engage in discussion and/or berate other editors. If you have an issue with NorthBySouthBaranof's conduct or comments in regards to any GamerGate-related article, please take it to Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement. Gamaliel (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page
    MLG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Sol2893781 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    2. 09:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    3. 09:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    4. 09:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Straw bear. (TW)"
    2. 09:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Straw bear. (TW)"
    3. 09:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on MLG. (TW)"
    4. 09:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Sol2893781 (talk) to last revision by Snowager. (TW)"
    5. 09:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on MLG. (TW)"
    6. 09:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on MLG. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

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

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

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


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:

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

    Page
    Dominion: Tank Police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 12:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
    2. 12:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
    3. 12:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
    4. 12:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
    5. 12:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
    6. 12:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
    7. 12:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
    8. 12:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
    9. 12:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015 (talk) to last revision by Ryulong. (TW)"
    10. Consecutive edits made from 12:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC) to 12:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      1. 12:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Restore version of article produced by copy paste moving"
      2. 12:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Use current title until move"
    11. 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015: Title of page must be in the first paragraph and be the first thing, until you convince people this page must be renamed this is how it should be set up. (TW)"
    12. 12:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641571134 by MetalMan2015 (talk) typos can be fixed and WP:LEDE requires this"
    13. 13:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MetalMan2015: WP:LEDE explicitly says the article title must be the subject of the first sentecne and until this article is officially moved that title is not just dominion. (TW)"
    14. 13:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "Until this page is moved, tank police must be in the first sentence"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

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

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

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


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [42] reverting this series of edits [43]
    2. [44]
    3. [45]
    4. [46]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [this is the 4th trip to 3RR in a few days]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47] [48] [49]

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

    Legacypac has been going on an extended and increasingly hysterical witch-hunt of me, and apparently won't be happy until I give up editing. This has only intensified recently after I was pinged to make a comment at AN/I about my dealings with him. In the thread above, he discovered that I had written the Boko Haram article, which was supposedly a huge concern due to my habit of "factual innaccuracy".
    His evidence for my long campaign of deception was 4 facts which were supposedly missing from the article, which he could, of course, have simply added (except, only one of the facts was actually missing). I was unable to comment much on this, as 2 of the facts (which actually are in the article) concerned a subject which he has had me TBANned from. This lead him to add 2 warning banners at the top of the article to warn readers of POV and factual inaccuracy, and he opened a thread in article talk about the supposed dire condition of the article, listing the 4 missing facts and complaining in outraged tones of the fact that I had written the article.
    The 1st diff (which occurred after the last 3) is me reverting Legacypac's edit to a different section of the article, which he added, with warning banners, after arguing all night on the thread above. As I explain in the thread above, it introduced a factual error and removed sourced material while claiming it was unsourced. I also removed his unexplained warning banners; I am not sure why he didn't mention that - perhaps because he is aware that they are unambiguous vandalism.
    In this report, User:Legacypac again suggests that I have been disruptive by writing an article that needed to be written. He implies that I prevent others from editing it - this is absolute rubbish. And despite his repeated hysterical claims, he has yet to find a single factual inaccuracy.
    The 2nd, 3rd & 4th diffs are the subject of the thread above. They are me reverting Lipsquid's edit and the edit of his sockpuppet.
    I notice that Legacypac and Lipsquid have now "taken over" the article. Therefore I wont be contributing to it any more, per User:EdJohnston's advice on my talk page, and I sincerely doubt I'll ever edit or disrupt or add factual innaccuracies to any other page either. zzz (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly stop with the false allegations and the WP:IDONTHEAR. When editors point out errors you act like you can't see what they are saying. A number of different editors are working to fix the article up and correct the inaccuracies and missing critical issues. 4 different editors have now assessed the part linked here you inserted 9 times and found it inappropriate for inclusion. Please start listening to what people are saying. Legacypac (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "False allegations". You've said I'm "hypocritical" and "pushing" a [pro-terrorist] "agenda", for example. So what "false allegations" are you referring to? Or is that just like my "factual inaccuracies", ie. there are none?
    • Since other editors have said they dont like the paragraph I haven't added it
    • Lipsquid used a sockpuppet: evidence is crystal clear in report above.
    • After I discovered his sockpuppet, you proceeded to:
    • added a NPOV tag for no reason.
    • added a Factual accuracy tag for no reason.
    • added and re-added false information: "'Boko'... is widely translated and thought to be a corruption of the English word 'book'" - no source says it means "book", all sources say it means "fake", including the 2 sources cited inline for the statement, one of which specifically says it doesn't mean book, and mocks Wikipedia for previously saying it means "book" - all of which I explained to you in my very last comment in the thread above, hours before you added it back again
    • remove sourced info claiming it is "unsubstantiated content not found in the source" when it is in the source
    • You knew I'd revert these edits, so you could try yet again to get me sanctioned
    • yoouve now got the infobox claiming they are allied to al qaeda when the source in the article says they aren't since the middle of last year at least
    • you've changed the infobox to say "strength=9000" when the source says "up to", and the first para says "a few 100s to a few 1000s" (sourced)
    • you've been accusing me of factual errors left right and centre and you haven't pointed out one single factual error. And before you say "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT", point out a factual error
    • Its totally pointless editing if Legacypac's endless mudslinging and Lipsquid's sockpuppetry & trolling (eg "the word 'Boko Haram' is not in the reference you cited", referring to "Revolt in the north - Interpreting Boko Haram's war on western education") allow you to get rid of any editor you don't like and change an article that is totally accurate and balanced that I slaved over into a bunch of lies
    • The fact Legacypac can do all that, and add a "multiple issues" tag is a complete joke. That's all I wanted to say zzz (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the update. Lipsquid (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, socking and trolling is fun, huh, Lipsquid?

    Starting with this edit, 1:23, 8 Jan, I count at least 5 reverts for User:Legacypac in less than 24 hours. Also on the 8th Jan, User:Lipsquid did 8 or 9 reverts [50]. zzz (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The intro and every point in the multi-bullet post is incorrect. Further, either Signedzzz can't count or understand what a revert looks like. He continues to be disruptive and not get the WP:POINT as shown here. Now can we get an Admin to close this? Either block him completely or do a topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of WP:3RRNO do you think your reverts fall under?

    Unbelievably, User:Legacypac has "archived" ie. closed all the discussions about content on the Talk:Boko Haram that just started in the last day or two, preventing ie. CENSORING any opposing views. And this is the user that sticks a POV tag on the article and repeatedly and without cause accuses me of pushing an agenda. zzz (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for bring this to my attention - a few hours ago I missed a single { in the archive bottom tag - fixed. The result was all the subsequent threads were combined in a huge close box. Any editor is allowed to fix such things. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, 12 hours ago. zzz (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Boko_Haram#POV_Issues, where you "justify" or "explain" your POV tag which I reverted and you re-reverted, is of course nothing more than one long polemic WP:PA against me. "55% of the total edits here are by one editor". You incorrectly and irrelevantly list 4 facts supposedly not in the article. Then you merely state without explanation or justification that I have a [pro-terrorism] "agenda that does not meet NPOV". I will have to seek sanctions for this. I didn't write this article to get publicly slandered. zzz (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I could ask questions or for diffs, but he would just blather on with more nonsense allegations and never answer the questions or justify them. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legacypac Do you want to name one of these mystery "nonsense allegations"? Or do you just want to delete the (unjustified) tags and corresponding attack thread? zzz (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I should not feed the trolls, but the source in question -Paul Newman- lists 11 other sources that say Boko also means book as in "Book Learning" or "Western Learning". http://www.megatchad.net/publications/Newman-2013-Etymology-of-Hausa-boko.pdf Which also leads to the most reliably sourced definition of Boko Haram. "Western learning is forbidden". I have not seen any reliable sources that say the translation of Boko haram means - "fake is forbidden". There are 11 points of view available in the link. Only one says definitively that Boko does not mean book, but even 1 against 11 is a fair point to show contention, so I changed the article to take a more neutral stance on the definition of Boko. I am sure this will still lead us spinning off into a new, new, new tangent even though I again am trying to address the concerns you have made in good faith. Having an edit war over insisting that "Boko means book" absolutely must be deleted because you find it in one source while ignoring all other previous sources that say it does mean book, is pretty much the opposite of what an editor should do. You should show both sides, remain neutral and let readers draw their own conclusion whenever there is a discrepancy between sources, which is what I am trying to do in my latest edit. Lipsquid (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "There are various pieces of evidence that support the view that boko not only never meant book, but could not have come from book. No one factor is crucial in and of itself, but they add up to the same conclusion, namely that the resemblance between boko and book is purely coincidental and of no historical linguistic import." (page 8, my added emphasis).

    Or just read the first paragraph, the "Abstract", which means "what the entire reference is all about".
    Could an administrator please look at the ref and try to explain it to the user? I really don't know if he's wp:trolling or just lacking in wp:competence. Either way, I'm positive he won't listen to me. zzz (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lipsquid, how do you explain your claim that "the word 'Boko Haram' is not in the reference you cited" (after you deleted a large paragraph of the article) when the phrase is in the title, and repeated prominently throughout? Were you wp:trolling? Are you trolling again now? zzz (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not taking the bait. Have a nice weekend... Lipsquid (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It was an honest question. I suppose I've got to assume that someone who habitually uses wp:sockpuppets also enjoys wp:trolling. zzz (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – Signedzzz is blocked four days for long-term edit warring at Boko Haram, as well as a 3RR violation on 8 January. The closure of this complaint was delayed due to discussions which took place both here and in a report above. It appeared for a while that Signedzzz was agreeing to take a break from the article, but he made this controversial edit on 10 January which removes article tags, showing that he has not stopped editing at Boko Haram. This block can be lifted if Signedzzz will accept a topic ban from Islamic extremism and Boko Haram, which will apply everywhere on Wikipedia on articles, talk pages and noticeboards. Signedzzz is already banned from editing on WP:GS/SCW per an earlier complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page
    List of Indian monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    YashShah008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC) to 14:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
      1. 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "I removed non Indian monarchs"
      2. 14:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "I removed foreign rulers who never actually ruled Indian subcontinent"
      3. 14:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "British emperors were never ruling from India subcontinent"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 18:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) to 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
      1. 18:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "These rulers never ruled any part of Indian subcontinent so they cannot be called Indian emperors"
      2. 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC) "This not an Indian civilization"
    4. 12:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Foreign Emperors in North-Western India (c. 538 BC – 750 AD) */Persians and seleuid dynasty never ruled indian states they were on other side of Hindu kush and it was alexander who ruled indian states ."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    [57], [58], and subsequent discussion at Talk:List of Indian monarchs#Large-scale section blanking and at User talk:Dai Pritchard#list of indian monarch. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: [59]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [60]
    2. [61]
    3. [62]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

    Comments:

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

    User:Funkatastic reported by User:OccultZone (Result: Blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [65]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [66] "(Undid revision 641508672 by Koala15 (talk))"
    2. [67] "(You have been reported for damaging this page. Undid revision 641512603 by Koala15 (talk))"
    3. [68] "(Deleting references with no explanation.)"
    4. [69] "(User continues to make revert edits without explanation, and is not waiting for a compromise to be reached on the talk page.)"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Icon#Video track

    Comments:

    I was not arguing your point just making note of other issues. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this clarification. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 31 hours to Funkatastic for violation of 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:88.73.246.78 reported by User:OccultZone (Result: 8 hours)

    Page: PEGIDA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 88.73.246.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [74]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [75] "21:43, 8 January 2015‎ - 88.73.246.78 (talk)‎ . . (22,781 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (No it is discrimination for style of some peoples here go away with your nonsense templates) "
    2. [76] "22:05, 8 January 2015‎ 88.73.246.78 (talk)‎ . . (22,781 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (You are not efficient and paid by the BB) "
    3. [77] "23:30, 8 January 2015‎ 88.73.246.78 (talk)‎ . . (22,781 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (undo)"
    4. [78] "23:42, 8 January 2015‎ 88.73.246.78 (talk)‎ . . (22,781 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (Undid revision 641647979 by JimRenge (talk) nonsense)"
    5. [79] "09:15, 9 January 2015‎ 88.73.246.78 (talk)‎ . . (22,825 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (removed nonsense)"
    6. [80] "09:25, 9 January 2015‎ 88.73.246.78 (talk)‎ . . (22,963 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (nonsense)"
    7. [81] " 09:31, 9 January 2015‎ 88.73.246.78 (talk)‎ . . (22,964 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (reverted nonsense by paid British)"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]


    Comments:

    User:winkelvi reported by User:213.7.149.151 (Result:)

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

    Please see edit warring on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Collins&action=history

    Deleting information because he feels the source is not reliable. Fails to improve the alleged grammar problems or provide more references. He argues that TMZ is not a valid reference. Who has made that decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.149.151 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Have just filed a page protection request because of the reporting IP here [83]. Protection request reads as follows: Persistent vandalism – Sensitive BLP due to recent sexual abuse allegations against article subject. IP reverting back in bad content, content not referenced by reliable sources, using bogus reasons for reversions. Likely same sockpuppet IP from Constitucion, Chile article - that article had to be protected, as well, and the IP has a vendetta against me. IP is using proxies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Allegations are completely unjustified, user:winkelvi is rigourously edit warring to secure his revisions. He is not making an attempt to improve the article. user:winkelvi is currently banned from editing the Bess Myerson article due to edit warring.

    Reporting user is IP hopping again. And no, I am not "banned" from editing any articles. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed it because you are an IP-hopping sockpuppet who is trolling and this report is completely bogus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Might interest some that User:Winkelvi was reported just a couple days ago by User:Coretheapple for similar edit warring 3RR violations, as shown here [85]. Additionally, Winkelvi has engaged in similar behaviors toward myself AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on this [86] and then this [87], I'm now wondering if the reporting IP and edit warring IP at Stephen Collins (see here [88], [89], [90], [91]) isn't actually User:AmericanDad86 behaving in a sockpuppet fashion in order to fulfill his current agenda: seeking to have me blocked (or "banned" as he erroneously stated in the report here and at the report he referenced above and commented on yesterday). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks, Bjelleklang. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:XxDMAN00xX reported by User:MrX (Result: indef)

    Page
    Death of Leelah Alcorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    XxDMAN00xX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 16:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 16:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ""
    6. 16:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Leelah Alcorn */ new section"
    2. 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Death of Leelah Alcorn. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC) on User talk:XxDMAN00xX "Leelah Alcorn"
    Comments:

    User:36.72.191.4 reported by User:ChamithN (Result: )

    Page
    Jessica Jung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    36.72.191.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 02:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC) "Hi, haters! Why don't you remove Barbie & Ken Awards from all Korean celebrities who win it but keep remove it from this page?"
    2. 02:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641668982 by TerryAlex (talk) You OT8 stan, Jessica haters has no life!!!"
    3. 08:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ""
    Comments:

    User:176.195.15.246 reported by User:Favonian (Result: )

    Page: Stepan Bandera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 176.195.15.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [92]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [93]
    2. [94]
    3. [95]
    4. [96]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]


    Comments:
    This salvo doesn't seem to indicate a willingness to compromise. Favonian (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:173.71.99.175 reported by User:TheGoofyGolfer (Result: )

    Page: WMGM-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 173.71.99.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMGM-TV&diff=641540217&oldid=641539913

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMGM-TV&diff=641628964&oldid=641540217
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMGM-TV&diff=641763350&oldid=641640910
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMGM-TV&diff=641763803&oldid=641763661

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

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

    Comments: This IP user is insistent of changing the opening paragraph from "WMGM-TV, virtual channel 40 (UHF digital channel 36) is a television station licensed to Wildwood, New Jersey" to "WMGM-TV, virtual channel 40 (UHF digital channel 36) is a Soul of the South affiliate licensed to Wildwood, New Jersey." First off opening paragraphs of broadcast stations always start with W*** is a television station or radio station following by its channel/frequency location and city of license then a description of the station including its affiliation is there is any. It has already been established in the InfoBox and in the article that WMGM is a Soul of the South affiliate so it is completely redundant and unnecessary to include this in the opening paragraph plus everytime their edits are reverted they re-revert it in violation of the 3RR. They have been warning via Twinkle on their talkpage by myself and another user. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Spshu reported by User:Nathan3068alt (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Artists&diff=641816922&oldid=641813499
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metro_Pictures&diff=641817415&oldid=641813686
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MGM_Holdings&diff=641636680&oldid=641583651
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=POW!_Entertainment&diff=641818262&oldid=641818227
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Artists&diff=641816962&oldid=641816922
    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    Bloodthirsty, nonstop vandal with sockpuppet IPs who kept pointlessly pretending to be admin, but is no admin at all. All he does is destroy lots of entertainment company articles by eliminating useful information and botching up the grammar, spelling and formatting, removing the owner/parent company lists on infoboxes because they think they apply to pages for defunct companies only (C'mon, just because a company like MGM has gone through ownership changes doesn't mean it's defunct), renaming the era headings of history sections to past company names without any explanation, and reverting any of the old revisions I'm trying to bring back. Heck, he want these pages to stay like that for life, but no, his edits are nothing but persistent vandalism, and he just never leaves the pages alone. Nathan3068alt (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=641822901"