Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 6 February 2014

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

User:Capricornmanager1 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Warned)

Page

World number 1 male tennis player rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Capricornmanager1 (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 11:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
   2. 11:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   3. 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
   2. 18:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
   3. 18:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
   4. 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   3. 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   4. 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   2. 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
   2. 19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
   3. 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Refrain from reverting */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is not the first time this editor has been told not to keep reverting by multiple editors, though it is mostly in the subject lines. His 3RR is going on. Not sure why he won't listen. Warning given and yet he did it again. I certainly have no qualms about an administrative warning being given instead of any kind of block... but I thought it should come from someone semi-official instead of just other tennis editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. All editors are expected to abide by consensus. If this behavior continues, Capricornmanager1 can be blocked with no further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Batiste Igienice reported by User:TheSickBehemoth (Result: )

Page: Vader (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batiste Igienice (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:

User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 13:16, 2 February 2014 (removed identification of the Jazali group)
2. Revision as of 07:27, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
3. Revision as of 07:47, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
4. Revision as of 08:17, 3 February 2014 (ditto)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User violated 3RR over content dispute on Yemen. He has been revert-warring on the page over BLP material with a number of different editors, including administrator User:Materialscientist. The user has in the process also engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, while altogether avoiding discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, he is simultaneously revert-warring on the Najahids page with several editors over the same issue (, , ). Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This user has admitted formerly being User:Kendite. Back on December 15 this editor was also reported at this noticeboard for warring at Queen of Sheba, and it seemed to be a 3RR violation. That particular report was closed as stale. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• May I add there is a problem with this editor please see the comment and its racial overtones. no plan of discussion with "Africans"--Inayity (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The user has been reverting the Yemen article a lot but does not participate on Talk. As with the edit mentioned by Inayity he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss. His theory about his opponents was also stated in his edit summary here: 'some Afrocentrists here are working together'. Any admin may lift this block if the user agrees to engage in discussions and wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity is quite right about the racial overtones. Accusing opponents of "Afrocentrism" and a priori of being "African" seems to be a routine part of Kendite/يوسف حسين's modus operandi (c.f. the related Sheba debacle here with the non-African User:Til Eulenspiegel). Kendite/يوسف حسين also uses antiquated, derogatory epithets like "Negroes" with no compunction . Elsewhere, he also claimed to be reluctant to engage in discussion because he was "tired" . Apparently not tired enough to revert war with several editors on two pages simultaneously, though. Additionally, the user has serious WP:OWNership issues and threatened an editor ("just stay away from any Yemen related article" ). Middayexpress (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Precision123 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Warned)

Page: Sodastream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Precision123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sodastream#CS_Monitor

Comments:This is a 1RR article as stated on the talk page which this user has edited. I've edited other parts of the article, but not any part related to this 1RR infraction. I have however interacted with this "new" editor on other articles and believe they are not here to help the encyclopedia but to further a POV by edit warring - - 5 reverts on a 1RR article in January. Sepsis II (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Wester reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned)

Page

French fries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wester (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 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "back to original version"
   2. 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 11:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 12:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "again: back to original version before someone screwed up"
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) to 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Belgium */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* French Fries */ please stop"
2. 16:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* French Fries */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* France/Belgium origins */ new section"

Comments:

I restored it back to the original version of a few months ago. It's EvergreenFir that keeps pushing his version. If anyone should be reported it's him. A bit lame that he tries to resolve it this way. I gave sources that the French claim is more recent than the Belgian claim. Then it's clear that in the template only Belgium should be mentioned and not France. --Wester (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And note that's it's NOT a edit war. The last two edits were not simple reverts but a rework of the page. EvergreenFir is even reverting things like this which are outside the mentioned conflict. It seems that he is not looking what he is doing.

In the last edit I even tried to resolve the matter by simply removing the 'invented' section in the template. Since all this talk about who invented the fries is getting kind of silly, the reality is that nobody knows for sure.--Wester (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You were asked repeatedly to take it to the talk page and refused. Your edits were still removing the content related to the reverts. You are being disruptive to prove a point. As I've said multiple times, we are here to report on the state other sources. There sources saying there's a debate. We must report on that. It would be biased to take sides and to choose one is original research. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep mentioning that holy source of you. A source that no one can verify since it's a book. Most sources, like this are clear: Belgian claim: 17th century and French claim: 1789. So France should not be mentioned in the template. It's as simple as that. And that was also the original version. France is only added on January 9, 2014 by an anonymous user: see this. It's that dubious edit that I reverted. --Wester (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to note this is not the user's first time edit warring according to their user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That is character assassination. I am active on Misplaced Pages since 2005 made nearly 3.000 edits and nearly 100.000 edits on the Dutch wikipedia and have never been blocked. That's a clear indication. I do not know what EvergreenFir's intentions are with this action. A block solves nothing here. --Wester (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wester (then known as Westermarck) has been blocked on the Dutch Misplaced Pages at least once, so that's a lie and they know it: Naturally, the links are in Dutch, but it was for sockpuppet use.

Wester has never been blocked on the English Misplaced Pages, but has come close more times than I can count. Their talk page history shows that it's repeatedly sterilized of the accumulation of warnings for their long history of edit warring, unilateral page moves and other edits that defy consensus. At any rate, the idea that Wester has a history of good behaviour is patently absurd.

As for the actual article, choosing an arbitrary edit from over a year ago isn't good justification for the deletion of content. And Wester's argument doesn't even make sense. With the actual origin unclear, the fact that one dubious origin story uses an earlier date than another dubious origin story doesn't make it the right one. It's not clear where fries were invented, so it doesn't make sense that Wester (or ES&L) dismiss it as obvious. Oreo Priest 23:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, if you knew Dutch you would see that that block was a mistake and not sock puppet use. So that doesn't count. Second: that edit you mentioning is made in January 2014. So not 'over a year ago'. Barely two weeks ago. It was an anonymous edit that I reverted. And no: there is no actual debate between France and Belgium who invented fries. I find that only in American sources. Probably since it's named 'French' fries. --Wester (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Can we put this on WP:LAME? The world (including the French) know that Frenched, Fried Potatoes were invented in Belgium. Citations are everywhere ES&L 19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That isn't the issue. It's the removal of the fact that the French and Belgians both claim it from the article. Repeatedly. Also, it doesn't matter if Wester is right or not (as the EW warning template says). (S)he was edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not looking to other sources and keep focussing on the words 'ongoing battle'. Most sources are clear that the Belgian claim is older then the French one. BTW: lot's of sources also mention Spain. --Wester (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Wester is warned. If they continue to revert at French fries without getting a talk page consensus first they may be blocked without further notice. If you intend to participate in controversial articles, clearing all the messages from your own talk page does not suggest a willingness to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that suggest that I do not feel my talk page should be used against me like EvergreenFir did. A talk page is a private thing.--Wester (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:92.11.xxx.xxx reported by User:Scolaire (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Easter Rising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.11.192.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 92.11.202.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 28 March 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:16, 2 February 2014
2. 16:03, 2 February 2014
3. 20:24, 2 February 2014
4. 14:56, 3 February 2014
5. 18:35, 3 February 2014

No four reverts within 24 hours, i.e. gaming the system.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 92.11.202.180, 92.11.192.215

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: initial post by Denisarona, entire discussion to date

Comments: The user is a dynamic IP. I am requesting page semi-protection. Scolaire (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected - semi for 4 days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:94.27.233.95 reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

Page

Karl Marx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593772711 by DMacks (talk) Being born of a line of rabbies is pretty much being of Jewish origin."
3. 20:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "That doesn't make the Jewish ancestors disappear."
4. 20:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593777695 by Jim1138 (talk)"
5. 20:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593779411 by Jim1138 (talk)"
6. 06:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (No summary, but same reversion)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Karl Marx. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 day. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell reported by User:Underlying lk (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Lord of Rivendell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "After a massive removal spree of factual and visual content, you arrived back to 172K. Bravo..."
2. 22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Adding back all the citation tags (they didn't save a significant amount of space, anyway)"
3. 23:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Sorry, I missed two citation tags: One in the intro, one in the Etymology section. Now they are all complete."
4. 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "All the citation tags are now restored. Your deletions saved less than 1K."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Turkey. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Comparing Turkey with its equivalents */"

Comments:

Note that my changes were the result of a five-day discussion on Talk:Turkey#Recent_expansion_of_the_article where the article's issues were extensively discussed and there was wide agreement on the need for changes, but that didn't stop Rivendell from restoring his own revision. Several other uninvolved users also complained of Rivendell's tendency to violate WP:OWN. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit: after another editor restored the previous version, Rivendell went on to revert a fifth time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

He always violates WP:OWN and makes changes against the decisions that we made on the talk page, all the time. I give my support for it. And he recently filed a complaint about me to Administrators' noticeboard, but it didint approved, it got rejected.KazekageTR (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week and User:Underlying lk warned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:117.201.217.221 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Stale)

Page

Kamma (caste) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. addition
2. 13:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593882352 by Sitush (talk) See Talk page"
3. 13:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593883747 by Sitush (talk)"
4. 13:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593884810 by Sitush (talk) See Talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kamma (caste). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Kamma_(caste)#Reliablity

Comments:

• Stale Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:41.96.7.179 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 17:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 19:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 19:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Moors. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There's an ongoing discussion on talk page, editor is ignoring it and has reverted 5 times in two hours despite invitations to talk and 3rr warning. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ersroitasent reported by User:Faizan (Result: Indef)

Page: Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ersroitasent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Again he has violated 1RR. Earlier he was reported too and was blocked for a day. But his disruptive edits and edit warring continue even after the block. I request a strict action to be taken. He is edit-warring with four users on the article, and moving without consensus. Instead of discussing it on the article's talk, he keeps on reverting others' edits. After this severe violation of 1RR just one day after the block ended, it seems that now a more strict action is needed. Thanks. Ping DangerousPanda, am I gaming the system now? Faizan 03:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

nonsense claim! There's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk nonsense claim by User:Faizan What disruptive edits...... What.....

the edits i reverted was not supported by consensus stop your disruptive edits Do not edit war, Instead take it to talk page--Ersroitasent (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion, but is not seeing your active participation. You have no material or reliable sources in support of your your claims. This diff explains your disruptive behavior, is this discussion? Besides you have clearly violated 1RR. Faizan 07:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

i DID Not have any claims to support i reverted No consensus edits stop cite misleading information--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

note that, on Misplaced Pages, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This diff There's an active participation What......... an argument!!!!--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next time--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument was discussed and proved wrong in an earlier discussion. I'd be more than willing to discuss if you provide a serious argument on why we should remove sourced content from the article, but so far you have only unspecifically denied the validity of the information. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

i reverted No consensus edits the countries that sent troops are in the Aid to Egypt and Syria section and Not in the infobox--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite. The return to the identical edit after a block for that edit, and full-bore lack of willingness to discuss shows longer-term protection of the project is unfortunately required DP 09:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:72.214.164.94 reported by Corkythehornetfan (Talk) (Result: Semi-protected)

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

User being reported: 72.214.164.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of user informed of report: here
• Diff of attempts to resolve at user's talk page 1, 2, 3. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

KCKC Alice 102.1 is switching its format on 5 Feb. 2014 at 3 p.m. This I.P. user is changing it as if it had already happened. Plus, its website is still branding as Alice 102.1 I also think the I.P. user is using 24.166.187.131 this IP address too, who is also reverting and changing the article. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 03:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi by Mark Arsten). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Cityinfonorns reported by User:IIIraute (Result: 24 hours)

Page: 2014 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cityinfonorns (talk · talk history · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · (permalink) · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. &
7. (this revert was done after edit warring warning by admin)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion, removed as "nonsense" →

--IIIraute (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Warning: Ownership of articles noticeboard discussion, removed as remove nonsense!!!!!!→ --Cityinfonorns (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Toccata quarta reported by User:Zabadu (Result: Submitter warned)

Page: Music for Millions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toccata quarta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

toccata quarta Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but this person keeps reverting my plot of this moving because I've added "too many links to Wiki (for the character actors) and because I signed the page. He apparently wants an outside link for the plot and a similar one is on TCM. I wrote the plot while watching the movie. Do we seriously have to find a written sources for movie plots??

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Toccata_quarta Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've asked for clarification, but all I get is reverts. Okay, so I signed the wrong page, but how do you cite a movie plot? I was trying to give more plot - am I restricted to just a blurb because that's what's published? If I am in the wrong here, I will be the first to apologize, but this persons history makes me wary. Zabadu (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Zabadu is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert without getting consensus first. They have made 3 reverts while Toccata is only at two reverts. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to both of you. Zabadu, you did not notify the other party of the 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User: Precision123 reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: Warned again)

Page: Haaretz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Precision123 (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:

Content is clearly related to the IP conflict (and under WP:ARBPIA 1rr restrictions) as it regards a research paper looking at the bias in reporting in the Israel Palestine conflict. Editor has been repeatedly ignoring the 1rr restrictions on IP related topics, and has been previously warned about this behaviour. For previous recent example see e.g. . Dlv999 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring was not present here.

(1) To respond briefly to what should have been an uncontroversial edit: Because citable references are made to the text of an article, and not the abstract, I merely edited the sentence to reflect what is stated in the article's text (p. 117) and not the abstract. Last, the sentence had problems with WP:Editorializing. That was all this one-sentence edit involved.

(2) User:Dlv999 has cited three edits above. In chronological order, the first (#3) was a bold edit (removed for WP:OPED and WP:V), and #2 was the compromise sought after a user reverted me. I only reverted once.

I further submit that User:Dlv999 did not attempt to resolve the dispute in the article talk page--the editor just added a section in talk moments before deciding to report this. In fact, no constructive explanation for edits was made in the edit summary nor any citation to a Misplaced Pages rule. --Precision123 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this editor was warned about edit-warring just yesterday. See #User:Precision123 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Warned). — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 11:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Warned again, only because he has been told that 1RR didn't apply to this article. Precision123 you need to discuss these issues on the article's talk page, when you make the first revert. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ghassanid Page, User Lazyfoxx (Result: Malformed)

Hello. I believe that User Lazyfoxx keeps obsessively reverting my edits on the Ghassanids page, removing my sources at will, which I believe is Misplaced Pages vandalism, and replacing them with incredibly unreliable sham internet sources found via original research to back his pre-existing biased opinion. He undoes all my hard efforts to improve the page within a day or so of the edit, and is obsessed to have the page based on the version he wnats. The page has been an edit-war between myself and him for some time now. I have tried conflict resolution and unilaterally offered compromises to him to no avail. Can I pleaserequest further editor help and mediation n the article, and perhaps article protection based on the most reliable sources judged by third parties. Many thanks for your help. SaSH172 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Startropic1 (Result: Protected)

Page: Larry Norman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"(cur | prev) 17:28, 5 February 2014‎ Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,382 bytes) (-992)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 71.168.245.210 (talk): Primary source lies. (TW)) (undo | thank)" Edit added: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Larry_Norman&diff=594071982&oldid=594063528 Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Larry_Norman&diff=594077979&oldid=594071982

Diffs of the user's reverts: For history see: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Larry_Norman&action=history The user is trying different methods of editing my material out to dodge infractions.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Larry_Norman I posted at the bottom of the talk page, and on the user's talk page as well. Seems to be just ignoring my posts.

Comments:
Apologies if this is formatted poorly. This is my first attempt at this. Any tidying would be greatly appreciated.

Startropic1 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this came up. I was just about to go to RSN, because even after a compromise edit I feel very uneasy about the page, but this forum should do. Let's look at the "source" being added. Here's one of the adds and here's the source: http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com/news/recantations. Some background: the website that this "source" is hosted on is an attack site levelled against a documentary film that brings-up some damning evidence against the subject of the article.

1. First, the author of this "story" is Alan Coughlin. There's no other story on the site by this author and there's no indication that the author has any credibility. No other writing credits by the author. However there is someone who goes by that name who writes a blog: http://www.alancoughlin.com/Blog/TheSubjectiveAspectOfTheGospel.jsp
2. Second, there's no statement of editorial oversight or anything that would help this site to meet the standards set at WP:RS.
3. Third, there's no support for this statements made by Newman. It would be good to know the circumstances of the interview. Some of the statements were made on the interviewee's Facebook page, but there isn't a link to it to confirm that this is the case.
4. "David Di Sabatino told my friend that he planned to destroy Larry Norman with this movie." We have an unnamed "friend" who made a claim. This already sounds unreliable. Could you imagine going to your editor and saying that? The truth is that this "claim" has been made by various fans of Norman's and have been refuted by the director. The back-and-forth happens in Larry Norman fan sites and discussion boards.
5. The title of the page and the addition to the article claim that Newman "recanted". I don't see a recantation anywhere in the story. To recant, is "to announce in public that your past beliefs or statements were wrong and that you no longer agree with them" I see "I ... decided to remove myself and all the pictures I let him use of Larry and I." I don't see her saying that her past statements on Norman were wrong. She does say that she is "sorry even shared anything with . He just twisted my words and left out the most important part". I'm not sure how Newmans words were twisted, and Newman does not go on to clarify how that was the case. There was clearly editing out of material.

The whole thing fails WP:NPOV and WP:RS and should be removed. If the material passes RS then keep it in. If the prose pass an third-party review, I'll agree, but the addition to the article is poorly written, biased, sourced by material that does not pass RS and is certainly below standards for Misplaced Pages.

As for ignoring posts Startropic1, the discussion made on the article's talk page wasn't made by Startropic1 but by the anon. I didn't see the discussion because they were added during my commute. (I must stop having a real life). The warning on my talk page fails WP:NPA as it clearly uses legal wording (‎Cease & Desist Larry Norman Edit Removal Please), but that can be forgiven by a new editor. So, let's get some eyes on those recent additions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Some rebuttals:

• You seem to suggest the director as a reliable source. While in fairness, he IS the director of the film, the information in question is material that he is hardly the primary source for. It has become clear that he tampered with some of the interviews and some of the people interviewed are suspect as well. Furthermore his body of work prior to the Larry Norman film, and his notoriety puts his credibility in serious doubt.

• If you go to the previous URL, http://www.failedangle.com you are redirected to the new site that I added to the Misplaced Pages page. It is run by the authorized biographer of the Larry Norman Estate, Allen Flemming. I have noted this several times but you don't seem to be able to grasp this. If you bothered looking through the site, you would find numerous recordings of Larry and Pamela along with transcripts, there are no sources more primary than that! See them here: http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com/shot-down/pam-newman/

Here are more sources:

Failed Angle facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Failed-Angle/114494451912560

Archived copy of the original Failed Angle page: http://archive.is/eAgqg

I'm getting tired of people like David Di Sabatino and supporters of his like yourself that continue to besmirch Larry Norman, and spread lies about him all over the internet conveniently after he has passed away and can no longer defend himself against your lies. If the sources I have cited are insufficient, then all mention of the Fallen Angel film and the lies it suggests should be removed from the page as that film and its director are far less credible than the sources I have provided. Also for the record, I was the anon because I didn't immediately login until after the malicious edits began.

• Lastly, you technically didn't violate Misplaced Pages policies because you proceeded to edit out my material in different ways to circumvent the limits. Rather than doing the prohibited 3rd undo, you instead created a new edit, thus circumventing that rule.

Startropic1 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think that I consider the director to be a RS. Is that why I had his article deleted from Misplaced Pages? I will elaborate below.

While Ian Flemming is the authorized biographer, that simply means he has a conflict of interest in discussing Mr. Norman. He is certainly free to publish a book to set the record straight. If it's self-published, it wouldn't meet RS any more than his self-published websites are. If he can get it published by a reputable publishing house, it will be. Regardless, I will buy the book and read it with great interest.

I am not "a supporter" of Di Sabatino. I'm a supporter of FC Bayern Munich. I'm a supporter of Vancouver Whitecaps FC. I can understand how you have come to the conclusion that I'm supporter: because I don't toe the Norman family party line on Mr. Norman and remove unbalanced information on Misplaced Pages, but that's not the case. In fact, I was accused of being a fan in a recent Facebook event notification of the documentary by someone who really does hate Mr. Norman.

With that in mind, there are no lies in the documentary. There some very one-sided statements though. If there were lies, the Norman estate would have taken Di Sabatino to court. They haven't. So while I don't think that the director is a reliable source, I do think that his film is, and I can back that up. I also think that the sources you have added do not meet WP:RS and should be removed immediately.

Now, I will point you once again to WP:NPA and ask you to retract your statement that I am spreading lies about Mr. Norman ("can no longer defend himself against your lies"). You may use simple <s></s> tagging around the statement.

Lastly, even if I had reverted your material, I would not have violated 3RR, that only happens on the fourth revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In regards to Allen (not Ian btw) Flemming having a conflict of interest, this is incorrect. He has been given direct access to a mountain of legal documents & recordings left behind by Mr. Norman. Apparently Mr. Norman had the foresight to document a lot of pertinent information. Mr. Flemming previously stated that the biography he will be publishing will include Mr Norman's faults, which no one suggests that Larry Norman was a perfect saint. He has hardly been biased in what he has shared thus far. How are documents and recordings he shares on his site which are DIRECTLY from the Larry Norman Estate NOT valid sources?!

In regards to the assertion that the Norman family would have sued Di Sabatino if the film was full of lies. As a matter of fact, they DID sue him. Among other things Di Sabatino used Larry Norman's music without permission. In the end, the Normans decided to abandon the fight because they didn't want to bother wasting anymore of the Estate's limited funds, (Larry had significant medicals bills to get paid), on a film they believed "few people would even see." It is unfortunate that people associated with Di Sabatino litter sites like Youtube with clips of the film to futher propogate his lies. The truth can become a lie when it is intentionally removed from context as Di Sabatino most certainly did with the entirety of his film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startropic1 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected two weeks. Please use this time to reach agreement on the disputed items. The WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard can help with sourcing questions, like the usability of http://thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com or Facebook as a source. User:Startropic1 should carefully read our policy on WP:Reliable sources. Both parties are warned to stop describing the other's statements as lies. Startropic's reference to 'malicious edits' by Walter had better not go further. If this continues, blocking for personal attacks should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: No action)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See also User talk:Garbage turk (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (6RR at present)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "remove socks comment"
2. 19:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Andy Dingley (talk) to last revision by Werieth."
3. 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Please stop proxing for a sock, you where warned"
4. 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "remove socks comment"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User had been warned by myself and another user and alerted he was deleting legitimate comments by another user and persisted in removing the comments. He states this is because it partially is a copy and paste from a banned sock, however it has been pointed out that the entire comment being removed is not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I only removed the socks post. I left Andy's comment alone. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:3RRNO removing posts by socks/banned users is exempt from 3RR. Werieth (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you also removed my post. You have since been told that too, which you then excused as you only did it once! Please do not lie to us quite so obviously, it fools no-one. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As I stated before, the first time I missed that you added an additional comment. which is why it was reverted. Werieth (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You were since corrected on that point. It's OK, we forgive mistakes. Since then however you have stated that your removal of my post was OK because you only did it once (an excuse for 3RR, but no excuse for simply not blanking other editor's comments at ANI). On this page you have also since claimed "I only removed the socks post", which you had already been told was untrue. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• This comes down to two core issues – along with most of Werieth's re-appearances at ANEW

1. Does 3RR apply to Werieth? He is after all the editor with 18RR and an excuse as to why that was permissible and why he was unblocked for it.
2. Does AGF apply to Garbage turk?

There is no policy reason to remove posts by socks. WP:3RRNO does not say this.

There is a policy reason to remove posts by banned and blocked users, which is something different.

Werieth (and others) have claimed that Garbage turk is a banned user. They have given no evidence for this, nor even indicated which user they refer to and why they are banned. In the absence of such evidence, AGF requires us to treat Garbage turk as a user, possibly even as a sock (as no-one contests that much), but we are not allowed (per AGF) to treat them as if banned.

Werieth should either show evidence that Garbage truck is banned, or else stop treating them as if banned. If there is no evidence that they are banned, then 3RR still applies. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. 3RR cases about user talk are sometimes a judgment on who is behaving more disruptively. Since User:John Reaves has indefinitely blocked User:Garbage turk with talk access disabled he has already made the call on this. If you think sanctions are due to User:Werieth you could try making the case to John. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr Shempenstein reported by User:Wieno (Result: Warned)

Page

Jeremy Piven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dr Shempenstein (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 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   2. 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   2. 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
3. 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
4. 02:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
   2. 01:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
   3. 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
6. 01:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Jeremy Piven */ new section"
2. 21:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jeremy Piven. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Content dispute - Music video */ 3O response"

Comments:

User has admitted a personal connection to the producer of the video he keeps trying to add to the page. There are 3 of us reverting his edits and telling him to work it out on the talk page, but we're hitting the point where we're reaching our own 3R limits. I got involved because of a 3O request. Wieno (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Has not reverted since warned. Next time warn earlier. John (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:APZ982 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked)

Page

Thom Loverro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

APZ982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC) to 22:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 22:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 00:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 02:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 17:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
7. 18:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
8. 18:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
9. 18:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
10. 19:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
11. Consecutive edits made from 20:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 20:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
12. 20:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor warned repeatedly: , , , RolandR (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:82.132.232.24 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Semi)

Page

List of music considered the worst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "do the right thing and leave it be, the beatles are regarded as the most important band in history by fans and critics alike"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also using IP User:82.132.224.38 and User:82.132.224.8. Has history of challenged reverts, edit warring, and blanking. Looking at the other two IPs, multiple warnings have been given in the past and at least one block for disruptive editing. Appears to be an edit warring and vandalism-only account.

Other reverts from the other IPs on this particular article found here and here

Warnings given on other IP pages here and here

Unfortunately, because the IP addresses keep changing, a block will not likely work for long. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. The use of a fluctuating IP in an edit war violates WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:SharpQuillPen reported by User:Ring Cinema (Result: 48 hours)

Page: The English Patient (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SharpQuillPen (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:

I have tried to work with this editor. Some of his arguments have been accepted just today. (See ). The particular difficulty has to do with content that no editor has questioned since its inclusion in 2010. When I warned about too much reverting, he responded, "Good!" --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to lodge a concern here as well. Are you not the same contributor that has issued 3 revert warning endlessly to all the participants that have been involved lately. except one, I believe and that has been since you contacted that person to say that you were having trouble. This was after you lodged a dispute resolution claim, was preliminarily suggested that your contribution could be replaced and then you never responded to the request for rebuttal. Then you had the whole article, or at least the plot, reverted to a version that did not reflect all the corrections that had been made after that time. This revert caused some non-plot content to be distorted and thus no longer correct as it was before. You have been rude to people actually insulting in the edit summaries and on the TALK page. You even questioned someone's primary language, called someone arrogant as to think that only Europeans could study and map an ancient site and that exploration since Columbus has been nothing but genocide.

The article as it now stands is remarkably far different than what it was three months ago including numerous attributions, some quoted, that after an issue about the suitability of "gasoline" being included in the plot, were found to be erroneous and possibly transfers that existed in that version two months ago. A transcript of the dialogue in the movie was found to determine those facts. You came to a speculative conclusion about gasoline being in the movie by using with out due diligence a draft copy that lacked most of the dialogue and ended with Katherine in the cave. You then announced to the group that gasoline did not appear in the movie. And as if that were not enough then went on to speculate that "airplane fuel" should be used totally based on speculation when you yourself would let stay in the article speculation, interpretation and assumption. There have been great efforts to portray the plot with that information in which can be verified by the content of the movie. All that needs to be done is some incorrect characterization which then down the line people start using as a source when it can be found that in such things as movie review book content has been included making some people think the movie has far more explanation than it does.

The issue in question is that was Almasy's 3 day walk to El Tag in scorching weather. The answer is, according to the content of that part of the movie, no. There is not indication that the weather was unpleasant despite it being desert. Now mind you, the area of concern includes where the cave is located a mountainous plateau. El Tag is also on an uplift in the area albeit 3 days walk. You assert that by scenes elsewhere depicting heat is enough to interpret/speculate/assume that it was hot when he walked. A desert is marked by extreme temps and being arid. Not necessarily hot all the time. Palm Springs, California is a perfect example that follows much the same temperature pattern as that part of the Sahara. It can be assumed that if it is arid, drinking water is scarce. He is in the sun for an extend period of time. Anyone can get heat exhaustion from merely exerting themselves without proper supplies. It does not need to be hot. That is why when people think that when it is overcast and they do not mind having been exposed for a prolonged period of time that they find they have sunburned and possibly get heat stroke. That is regardless of heat. To speculate based on other scenes in the movie is not for what Wiki strives. The sequence of the film cannot be used as a timeline because it is non-linear. It was edited that way. It did not follow the final script. So to say that someone is being difficult is insincere and a wrong characterization. This has been the situation with every contribution to the group.SharpQuillPen (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that I have had a chance to review "the evidence", you can insist on something all you want but if it did not happen it is not fact. It is never mentioned in the dialogue when it clearly could have been. Also, since the film was not edited according to the final script, what reference there may have been to describe any anticipated difficulties with the walk could have made the cutting room floor. "Lured"? That was a conclusion of Almasy during his explanation of what happened for the period to which Caravaggio sought answers. It is absent from any scene previously. The intent of picking up Almasy at the camp was to bring him back to Cairo. If Katherine knew that she had been lured she does not say. She does not even speculate. So to say that Geoffrey lured her is speculation, well assumed, but just speculation based on Almasy's after the fact interpretation. So if the issue of scorching and lured are to be included in the plot then they should appropriately be characterized as speculation, interpretation or assumption. But the fact remains that in both situations they are not portrayed in the film as such.SharpQuillPen (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

CLARIFICATIONS MARKED BY SharpQuillPen (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, before this goes any further, the TALK page will document well the amount of discussion and justification for these particular changes. A discussion was open for the entire plot which would have been useful to go through the text from beginning to end in one swop to avoid never ending changes. Ring Cinema responded that we will discuss these issues and then opened new additional discussions on the same text without presenting to the group that maybe these issues should be treated individually. That is the pattern of Ring Cinema, unilateral action regarding the text of the plot. If Ring Cinema did not take possession of everything that is in the content then there would not be so many reverts of what makes it to the plot.SharpQuillPen (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This complaint has nothing to do with the "gasoline" issue, however it is instructive. When the evidence was presented, I agreed that it was correct to use the word 'gasoline'. That is good editing. There has been no further dispute on this content issue since the evidence was presented on the Talk page. That is not a problem.

Secondly, have I issued other 3RR warnings? Yes, it is true that I have issued such warnings when editors revert enough to receive a warning. There is nothing suspicious about that; neither is it germane to this complaint, as far as I know.

Regarding the matter of the heat in the desert, I would simply mention that the word 'scorching' has been used continuously in this article since May 2010. It was included in one of the first expansions of the plot summary beyond a stub. No other editor seems to have found it objectionable. I am open to an argument that the desert heat was not scorching as depicted in the film, but I don't see anything persuasive on offer there and it seems to be a longstanding consensus for more than three years. Absent a good reason, it seems more accurate to say it was "scorching" than not to say it, particularly since the heat has a disastrous effect on the main character. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

--The gasoline issue just illustrate that YOU will not allow ANY to insert language in specifically the plot until they provide you with absolute evidence. Yet there are countless times of when others have suggested language and you reverted it. With the gasoline issue it was said to you countless times and since no one had provided any "evidence" you would continually change it. Then in an attempt to prove your assertion which by the way was total speculation since the item to be fueled was a plane that obviously it had to be airplane fuel. You got trumped when the source you used turned out to be reviewed without due diligence. So, it was permissible for you to include speculation but not others. So you continue to fail to recognize that you have such a dominate presence in the plot that everything is connected to you regardless as to who suggested it. You even have the audacity in the edit summaries to say such terms as what was suggested was acceptable to you, not a consensus of the group. And by the way, when you were commenting on the transcript that was provided of the dialogue seem to have the impression, for what reason I do not know, that it was written by the person who submitted commenting that the person submitting it had misspelled gasoline when in fact it was clearly presented as being directly from the source.

As for scorching, how long did "Afrika Corps" appear instead of Germans, which the former never was dialogue in the film. How long was "north to Benghazi" included and never justified by quote in the film according to the dialogue transcript. This just goes to show that the article has contained various inaccuracies that with a review of the dialogue transcript shows how fallacious transfers from the book, that sometimes made it into reviews and stories about the movie, made it into the plot. And then if in plot, although based on speculation, is used by countless people to give a proper characterization of that instance in the film. But it does not exit in the released version. Even when it is pointed out that a statement made by you in the plot, was not an accurate characterization, the pattern repeats about continual reverts, reverts, reverts. And that is the situation with scorching. You assume and speculate that because there are scenes of a hot desert that it is hot all the time. That is just not true. The Palm Springs, California example has been already been brought up and still you refuse to accept, despite no evidence during those portions of the film (the plane crashing; Katherine being in the cave and Almasy getting to El Tag) to think other than that the desert was hot (24/7/365). Since there is no direct dialogue or visual representation in those scenes then to state so is total speculation. It very well may have been included in the script used for the filming and it very well may have been filmed. But it did not make it into the released version, if it existed. But, remember that we are talking about the content of the movie; not the final script. And the dialogue transcript clearly points out that no representation of any heat had an affect on Almasy on his 3 day walk. His exhausted presence when he gets to El Tag is totally explainable by the exertion of a three day walk with out proper supplies. Did the sun affect him? Probably. But then it would affect anyone in an arid environment without supplies and exposed to the sun although the temperature may be in the 60sF and 70sF if so at the time (which we do not know). At least in Lawrence of Arabia we see them tenting themselves in their garb during the day to protect themselves from the sun (as well as the heat when they crossed that particular desert during a very disagreeable time with the waves of heat rolling across the horizon. We do not see that in the released version of The English Patient.

Reverts. Not germane to this issue? Previously, you filed for a dispute resolution mediation. Everyone that was asked to participate did so except for you. And when closing that matter the mediator said that a decision could not be made because all the parties were not willing to participate. You lodged a concern and then felt, for whatever reason, that either you did not have to defend your position or did not defend it in or to thwart a decision that was already made against your original imbedded sentence. The mediator attempt to bring about a consensus by suggesting language and in fact some of that language had previously been suggested in the TALK page but you disregarded it and then lodged the dispute. That's cooperation? It seems that there is a pattern of threatening people, that you will lodge a 3 revert policy complaint for those that changed YOUR characterizations, and then when you were challenged to do so, do not follow through. That happened to me several times from you and each time I welcomed a review and no follow through came about. This last time, again, you issued a threat and instead of lodging a 3 revert complaint came to this board. Just as I said at the beginning of my statement that I was just about to lodge one myself after I had asked for advice about it and was directed to this process. So, yes. I did say "Good" because I had intended to do it myself. But it is not who did it first but who is characterizing the content of the film accurately. Holding firm on the truth is not being a tendentious contributor, so do not attempt to throw that out into this issue because it goes no where. Well, when it comes to the truth, the characterization is just as important as the facts. That is how you avoid characterizing people, events or issues with out a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpQuillPen (talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Changes in .SharpQuillPen (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of this has anything to do with the edit warring. SQP lacks a consensus for the change he is proposing and has only offered OR as an argument. His participation in the discussion has been accusatory and not accepted by other editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment Three accounts (User:LimeyCinema1960, User:WordWrightUSA, User:SharpQuillPen) all registered within three days of each other and all have spent an unholy amount of time editing/commenting at The English Patient (film). Here is the interaction between all three: . This activity looks deeply suspicous to me and any admin who takes on this case should be aware of it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal

Registration is merely that--registration. It does not account for time spent on the site when not registered. I have been using the site for several years and decided to register so that when I wanted to contribute whatever format others contributors had available so the same would be available to me. If you wish to say that all three concentrated on TEP then how do you explain the other articles to which contributions were made. It would appear that the work on TEP was not only on the plot. As I saw new things added to TEP article I would look at the coding to see how things were done to see if I could do the same especially when there seem to have been some thing that changed a sortable table. Does that mean if we all worked on similar stuff of the article we are the same or just took a gander at seeing what was appearing on the page and then working through it to see if it was possible. There was always the cancel button and the review button. Work was done on the other aspects of the article as well as other articles as can be seen with the following taken from the contribution pages of each:

WordWrightUSA

•18:30, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,534)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard ‎ (→‎Summary of dispute by WordWrightUSA: Is Misplaced Pages Obligated To The Sentence?) •05:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+20)‎ . . m Hugh Henry Brackenridge ‎ (link) (current) •05:34, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . m Mark Abley ‎ (→‎Selected bibliography: link) (current) •05:31, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Mark Abley ‎ (link) •05:24, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . Mark Abley ‎ (link) •05:22, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . List of Canadian writers ‎ (→‎A: link) •05:19, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+45)‎ . . m List of Canadian writers ‎ (→‎A: link) •05:13, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-19)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:08, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-9)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:05, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:03, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •04:25, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:23, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:21, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:16, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-9)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:14, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:11, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:07, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-8)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (link) (current) •04:05, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (link) •01:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (links) •01:31, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+42)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •17:15, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . m László Almásy ‎ (→‎Interwar period: correct link)

LimeyCinema1960

•08:30, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+259)‎ . . Talk:Ralph Fiennes ‎ (→‎Fiennes USE: new section) (current) •08:25, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ •08:19, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (starred is a misused word.) •02:44, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,448)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: definition and repetition) •02:05, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-22)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: the types of plane(s) is irrelevant to the plot and unnecessary detail that removing from the article has been the objective identified long ago to make it proper quality.) •02:00, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-5)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: In one of the reminiscences clearly it is said that it is gasoline that is traded not airplane fuel.) •01:47, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+40)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (insert sortable table) •01:37, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+210)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors) •01:05, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (redundant and repetitive phrase often used in high school papers for alliterative puffery) •01:02, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,551)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Not Cairo: possible time limits.) •23:10, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Cast: fix {}) •23:10, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+212)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Cast: insert sortable table) •22:48, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (superfluous and redundant phrase often used in gratuitously since the "he had been" is already establishes an end with "spell the end to" ; common superlative that just adds antiquity to the composition of the sentence.) •22:42, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot) •22:38, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot) •20:07, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-38)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (rid confusion) •17:52, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-91)‎ . . Saul Zaentz ‎ (→‎Film career: establish links) •16:54, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-87)‎ . . 48th Academy Awards ‎ (reduce confusion) •15:57, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-48)‎ . . m Saul Zaentz ‎ (→‎Early life: eliminate redundancy; too many "Zaentz" in such a small paragraph.) •15:43, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,032)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Unrealised cultural judgments and statements in Articles: new section) •14:57, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (superfluous and redundant statement of fact;) •06:46, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m Michael Ondaatje ‎ (→‎Personal life: correct link) •06:44, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-136)‎ . . m Michael Ondaatje ‎ (update links) •06:09, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Michael Tolkin ‎ (update links) (current) •06:00, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-198)‎ . . Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Career: update links) •05:15, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-18)‎ . . m Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Early life: provide reference) •05:06, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: links) •04:52, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-28)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: link) •04:46, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-21)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: correct link) •04:45, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+17)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Aeorplanes: increase references) •04:33, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,033)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: enhance with references production notes; update references) •03:44, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (correct ()) •03:41, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (correct bracket) •03:31, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-23)‎ . . m Leo Frobenius ‎ (provide sources) •03:22, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+408)‎ . . m Talk:Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Education: redundant phrases) (current) •03:15, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,944)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (rid redundant statements of fact; insert table; include new info and upgrade sources) •19:37, 24 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . m British Academy of Film and Television Arts ‎

SharpQuillPen

•08:53, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+275)‎ . . Talk:The Godfather (novel) ‎ (→‎Link to no mention of godfather or puzo: new section) •08:42, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . The Godfather ‎ (link) •08:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+51)‎ . . The Godfather ‎ (link) •08:03, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:59, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:58, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:56, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:51, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:47, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-8)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:43, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+15)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+46)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:01, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,499)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Unrealised cultural judgments and statements in Articles) •06:35, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-88)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: points of clarification) •06:17, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+152)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)) •06:15, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-327)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: I forgot the SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)) •06:14, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,431)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: What the hell is going on?) •05:39, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: Almasy's use of the cave) •05:32, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+16)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Archaeology: link) •05:23, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . m László Almásy ‎ (systemize citation) •05:07, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+17)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Aeorplanes: correct reference)

Seems like there has been a variety of other activities with TEP article plot and other Wiki articles. So if you want to characterize something then look at the whole record content instead of merely the statistics.SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that none of these accounts use indentation on their posts, which is something most editors learn how to do early in their career. For a style comparison, let's try these examples: --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR violation. There is a possibility that one editor is using multiple accounts on this article. Consider filing at WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Livingengine1 reported by User:Roscelese (Result: blocked )

Page: Stop Islamization of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Livingengine1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. removes sourced material, claiming that it's "not supported by the citation offered." The material removed is explicitly stated in the source, an academic book, to the point of using some of the same language.
2. makes the same edit, this time claiming that the author hasn't cited any evidence to support the statement, which is erroneous on several counts: a. that she explicitly cites her source, and b. that it's not his job to decide that he's more knowledgeable than this scholar.
3. makes the same edit, claiming that the content is "not supported by anything in the world."
4. same edit. In all of these he's claimed that BLP is being violated, in spite of having it pointed out to him that BLP is not a blanket exemption for removing anything you personally dislike and that quality sources like this one strengthen BLP.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning for blanking, after which he repeated the edit several more times.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: surely the user who wants to change the status quo should try to gain consensus? There's been discussion going on in this section in which I, Livingengine1 (the edit-warring user), and Binksternet have participated, but Bink and I have both been unsuccessful in trying to get Livingengine1 to articulate any actionable problems with the article, which he seems to view as a personal affront - including the cited text he's so determined to censor.

Comments:
Note that the fourth revert here falls juuuust outside the 24-hour window. Whether that half-hour gap is an attempt to game the system or not seems unimportant; the user is edit-warring without discussion to remove well-sourced material because it offends his personal sensibilities, and literally lying about the sources in order to justify doing so as well as spuriously waving at policies that don't apply. Also, this is a single-purpose account whose agenda on Misplaced Pages is to smear American Muslim organizations, as his edit history shows, and he's been taken to task in the past for edit-warring to include obvious BLP violations; it seems the faux concern for BLP extends only as far as it allows him to promote anti-Muslim organizations and smear Muslim ones.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | talk 05:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC) )

User:Andreas11213 reported by User:Elekhh (Result: Blocked)

Page: Australian Greens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andreas11213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:26, 5 February 2014
2. 19:55, 5 February 2014
3. 21:29, 5 February 2014
4. 21:51, 5 February 2014
5. 22:02, 5 February 2014
6. 22:03, 5 February 2014
7. 17:49, 6 February 2014

Also possible that this IP revert is from the same user, as the same IP turned up to revert to an earlier edit of User:Andreas11213 at Tanya Plibersek

Same user also engages in multiple-reverts at George W. Bush

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has similarly edit warred in the past 24 hours at Liberal Party of Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 days Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Stigmatella aurantiaca reported by User:DParlevliet (Result: Protected)

Page: Delayed choice quantum eraser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: "Stigmatella aurantiaca" is not a valid project or language code (help).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser&oldid=594078989>

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. makes clear that he will revert again and it concerns numerous edits over 2 months

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: fresh start

Stigmatella aurantiaca has reverted 2 months of editing without referring to a Wiki deletion rule and without discussion this revert on the talk page. The revert has been supported by Patrick0Moran and 129.217.159.124 (which declared that he has no plans to edit himself). None of them has questioned the edits during the last 2 months. Also at the moments of revert none of them has given arguments what was wrong in all those edits to justice a complete revert in stead of editing. There is only one small part which has caused an extended discussion, but that does involve all other edits. Therefore reverting so many edits without referring to Wiki deletion rules is not acceptable

DParlevliet (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Stigmatella aurantiaca

First of all, thanks for protecting the page.

DParlevliet has made three reverts in the last 24 hours against consensus, two reverts of my edits, and one of Patrick0Moran's edits, as expressed in the following diffs:

Diffs of DParlevliet's reverts:

• 18:15, 5 February 2014‎
• 19:28, 5 February 2014
• 08:25, 6 February 2014

DParlevliet's entire history of contributions since 07:41, 1 October 2013‎ has been of adding material expressing his POV against the consensus of (1) Patrick0Moran, (2) an anonymous IP who has actual experience in the field (who argued extensively with DParlevliet on the talk page but refrained from actually editing the article himself), and (3) myself.

The anonymous IP (who has recently opened up an account as Cthugha82) summarized the situation in the following talk page diff. In this diff, he recommended that we revert to the 1 Oct 2013 revision of the article. Patrick0Moran and I were in agreement on this issue.

• 16:57, Talk page: 5 February 2014

DParlevliet claims that "None of them has questioned the edits during the last 2 months." This is a completely false claim, as can be seen from even a cursory perusal of the talk page. (I'm a relatively recent addition to the debate so was not involved in most of these debates.) The pattern, repeated over and over, was that Patrick0Moran and 129.217.159.124 would argue with DParlevliet, but DParlevliet would completely ignore our recommendations and would proceed to edit the article the way he wanted. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Patrick0Moran

I support what Stigmatella aurantiaca has reported immediately above. I have been editing Misplaced Pages articles for several years and have rarely seen contributors who fail to give responsive answers to my questions about their edits or understandings the way he does. The difficulty is compounded because his native language appears to be Dutch (see his talk page) and his English is so poor that it is often difficult to determine even what he is trying to communicate. His main point appears to be that the several authors of "A double-slit quantum eraser," all university professors, have argued according to quantum mechanics and reached one conclusion (that is at the heart of their experiment design if not at the heart of their mathematics) but that he can correctly support an opposite conclusion by the use of what he calls the "rules" of classical physics. The paper is available at http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0106078%E2%80%8E. On many basic points (such as how and when quantum interference is manifested) he appears to be uninformed. I have endeavored to remain polite, question only the validity of his assertions, and provide him missing information (such has how BBO crystals can be used to produce entangled photons, a crucial part of the experiment design). However, he is extremely resistant to giving responsive replies to objections, always insisting that others argue from his premises. It is not just that he maintains his edits in opposition to the critiques of others, but that it quickly becomes impossible even to explore what he is trying to say. The IP editor, who must deal with real-world quantum-mechanical issues in optics as part of his work and therefore cannot have maintained any misconceptions for long, has tried to explain to him why his classical approach is inapplicable. He has been very patient, but he finally left the discussion in disgust.

While we have been trying to get a major issue that lies at the heart of problems I have with his edits on several related articles, many less central issues have been put in abeyance. It is difficult to fix a vague English formulation while not clear on what the writer was trying to communicate, and I believe that the IP and I have both attempted to prioritize the fundamental issues. P0M (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Cthugha82

I am the anonymous IP editor mentioned above. I am not frequently contributing to Misplaced Pages, but I support what Stigmatella aurantiaca wrote above. DParlevliet's edits to the article consist of one part which I consider wrong (the issue about classical explanations of experiments involving entanglement). If references are needed, the following article is one out of many explicitly stating that photon number (Fock) states can never be explained in a classical manner: Fock_state#Non-classical_behaviour. I can dig up further journal references if that is considered necessary. The other edits mostly consisted of deleting sections or rephrasing some wordings. The deletes were not necessary in my opinion and the rephrasing actually lowered the quality of the article, partially due to sloppy usage of scientific language, partially due to a lack of understanding the topic and partially also due to the editor not being a native English speaker. DParlevliet also refused to take place in constructive discussion with a habit of answering with very few words when other editors spent quite some time in explaining where his misunderstandings lie and where he is wrong, partially including in-detail references. Getting an "but I insist on it"-like-answer to that is not very satisfactory. Finally: Yes, I am a working physicist in the field of quantum optics. However, I am aware that Misplaced Pages cannot rely on what people claim to be as everybody could claim that. If there are any doubts about my identity or qualification with respect to the topic at hand, I will gladly post some of my publications and point out who I am - just not in public of course. Anybody may then contact the author via the official department mail or e-mail address and verify that it is really me if he/she wishes so.Cthugha82 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

Page

John Waters (columnist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594237182 by Tbrambo (talk)WP:BLP is not a suggestion and this is abusive to re-add when the BLP/N discussion is thataway"
2. 14:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Homophobia accusations */ rm named of living persons - accusations of homophobia are a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP and per discussions at WP:BLP/N"
3. 14:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594209880 by Tbrambo (talk)for g-d's sake READ WP:BLP!!"
4. 13:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594204113 by Alison (talk)read thre discussions at WP:BLP/N and make your case there -- at this point, it is a WP:BLP violation and is thus required to be removed"
5. 12:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC) "bold violations of WP:BLP are still violations of WP:BLP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

under discussion at WP:BLPN,

Comments:

Multiple editors (including Alison, an admin) have told Collect that this material does not violate BLP. I held off for the fourth revert, but Collect is now on 5 and it's clear that this editor intends to continue reverting. Collect will surely tell us that they were BLP violations (and so his violation of 3RR is therefore justified) -- but that assertion surely at some point runs up against the views of multiple editors in good standing who are convinced in good faith otherwise. Prevention of further disruption is now called for. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note that Tbrambo (talk · contribs) has likely also violated 3RR on this article; I have now warned that editor as well and will file a report if there is further reverting by him/her. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I consider an accusation that a living person is a "homophobe" to be a "contentious claim" from the start, and the fact is that the discussion at BLP/N, where Nomoskedasticity has stated Sometimes we come up against the limits of mindless whimpering of"BLP". As any reasonable reading of the material in question shows, this is one of those times. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC) indicates that he may have a particular ax to grind here, and fails to note his own edits and posts. My edits have been absolutely in accord with the mandates of WP:BLP and should be so regarded. I have filed a report at AN/I about a POV pusher on this topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also note that multiple editors have agreed with my stance on this -- Nomoskedacity is obfuscating the discussion in process at BLP/N utterly with that claim. Collect (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, a "warning" from April 2013 is not really what is intended here when they ask for your specific warning -- really that is about as far a reach as I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. APRIL 2013!! Collect (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course they have to be called "homophobe" THAT'S WHAT THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY IS ABOUT!!! The controversy of Panti, John Waters, Breda O'Brien, and Iona Institute is about the fact that they were called homophobic, O'Neill was censored, they were paid money and then A LOT of people, including individuals in the Irish Government, European Government, and general public, though this was a really controversial thing. So tell me WHY should homophobia not be used in these articles, when the entire article is about them being called homophobic?? This is CRAZY!!!! Tbrambo (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for proving exactly why WP:BLP is properly invoked when an editor holds your clear position. Collect (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that the sourcing is impeccable and multiple editors in good standing told you you were wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you think the above comment demonstrates beyond exacerbation at your removals? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Collect appears to be continuing his campaign at Iona Institute where he has removed reliably sourced material about the controversy over the payments by the irish broadcaster to Institute. See: . I also suggest people see for the level of coverage that is available on this material. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec)I did not know that removing contentious claims (that specific named living persons are homophobes, based on a claim made in a TV programme which was deleted by the broadcaster), meets the WP:BLP requirements. Retractions used to be considered retractions. Now they remain "reliable sources". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article is not making that claim and does not claim the Iona Institute is homophobic. Are you unable to distinguish between coverage of a controversy (and this is a very large controversy in Ireland), and a controversy itself? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting such a "controversy" on multiple pages, carefully naming living persons is, IMHO, improper. The word "libel" appears in some of the Irish papers -- and I find the idea that we must "expose homophobes" is not covered in any Misplaced Pages policy. In fact, I suggest editors whose purpose is to spread defamatory claims about living persons ill-serve the project. The "controversy" claims need not name living persons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Every Irish newspaper, every news website and every news channel covers this incident and in detail and also naming specific individuals (See ). Putting controversy in quotation marks considering the scale of the coverage is suspect. Maybe it's simply American exceptionalism at play here, but a controversy like this in the US would generally also get its own article here too. The coverage is in depth and sustained over a two week period so far. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a mistaken idea that in pursuit of writing articles Misplaced Pages editors are not responsible to real people in real life, that Misplaced Pages allows us to write and defame in pursuit of adding content to out articles, that our only responsibility is to our articles and that we have the Misplaced Pages-given right to add content if its sourced irrespective of who is hurt. In my opinion, out first responsibility is to real people in real life and so I'd suggest here that some compromise be reached between Collect whose passionate sense of real life responsibility trumps article content, and those who want to add content that notes the controversy. Edit warring is not the issue and I'd note many were involved. The issue is defining a apossible BLP infraction and finding the mid line between that and adding necessary content Collaboration is needed to suggest where living persons will not be harmed and WP can add content needed with the reminder to self that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper or gossip column. I'm not going to get embroiled in this further, just a thought.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC))

What I had sought was removal of the names of living persons, and removal of the spamming coverage in multiple articles. Not that hard to deal with. Instead we have editors who regard this as a holy war to make sure everyone knows that X and Y are "homophobes" -- which is not a valid reason per WP:BLP. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you did and agree that you are protecting real life people over the idea that Misplaced Pages somehow gives us the right to tell everyone, a newspaper's possible mission, over the mission of an encyclopedia. I'd agree this should be simple, and that responsibility to people must first and foremost be the agenda, and that we can add content while doing as little damage as possible, Frankly, I'm tired of the idea that this online environment gives permission to injure and damage, that we have a mission to spew out information no matter the consequences. And now I really will walk away. Best.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC))

User:Batiste Igienice reported by User:TheSickBehemoth (Result: )

Page: Behemoth (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batiste Igienice (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 user will not discuss the edit war and simply reverts edits. I have at least made an effort to try to resolve this on this talk page, but no response. Also, he logs out of his account and makes changes with the IP address 217.96.115.78 as well as Batiste Igienice. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

seriously ?, you revert changes that i made, just because you don't like them, you haven't given any explanations, and i am the bad one, you started edit war and copmlaing about it, grow up Batiste Igienice (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC) besides i did noticed on your discussion page, that according to Vader facebook only Peter is official member you did not respond on that, so why to bother Batiste Igienice (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC) you should be permanently banned for providing false information, for exemple you put Novy as official member of Behemoth, but on every band record he is session or guest 1, the same with other musicians Batiste Igienice (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You started editing all my information I previously added to the page. You don't even follow WP: ACCESS when editing the members page. And on the Behemoth website, it only lists former members and current members. You have some growing up to do. If you could reply to this post, why didn't you reply to any of the talk pages I sent you? You were edit warring, as well. You were NEVER in the right. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, Discogs and Facebook ARE NOT VALID SOURCES. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's an actual source, direct from their website, showing all former members of Behemoth. This is a valid source. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring