Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:22, 26 March 2010

• 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:Insider201283 reported by User:Financeguy222 (Result: protected)

Page: Network TwentyOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Insider201283 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
FinanceGuy222, currently a single issue editor, has been mass deleting sourced material on this article. I attempted to engage him on talk, he persisted in deleting the sourced material without discussion. My reverts have simply been of his mass deletions. Another user has warned him for edit warring on his talk page. FG222 has now engaged on Talk:Network_TwentyOne, 3rd party opinions there would be appreciated.--Insider201283 (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The above statement was by User:Insider201283 (Unsigned) I believe. I warned FinanceGuy and contacted Insider201283 on his / her talk page when I noticed that editing appeared to be unconstructive. Insider had tried to take the issue to the talk page of the article, but it appeared FinanceGuy was refusing to give any ground and was continuing to revert to their version. In my opinion, Insider201283 appeared to be acting in good faith, and did attempt to resolve the impasse, FinanceGuy did not seem to operating in good faith. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

oops, forgot to sign, done now, thanks for the reminder--Insider201283 (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded in the TALK page several times, my comments/recommendations were ignored. Of the several diputed statements and citations I edited for the "sourced material" I removed because either there were no sources at all(business system section), the source does not confirm the fact (the World Vision reference did not sufficiently confirm these charities are part of the business operations of N21), or poor souces (reference to a publication that cannot be confirmed, and a magazine scan of a publication on a POV blog). I attempted to find other sources, but could find nothing sufficient to back up Insider201283's statements.

The main point of contention is that, according to the references provided, the philanthropic section relates to Jim Dornan's private philanthropic acts, not those of Network 21 corporation.

A large majority of the article points to references of Jim Dornan's business interests/philanthropic interests, and Amway IBOs (Independent Business Owners), who by legal established definition are Independent of Amway and the Network 21 corporation, and as such these businesses/charities (neither Network of Caring or Fernando Foundation) are not part of the Network 21 corporation as a part of their business.

Of the references supplied for these sections neither of their official pages, nor the Network 21 official page directly states they are directly part of the same business, only that Jim and Nancy Dornan are involved in the operation/publicity. Financeguy222 (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The article as a whole would be much more credible and less like a PR/promotion for N21 if more facts were backed up by independent references. Instead, all but a minor few references are from the N21 official homepage, Network of Caring homepage, and official pages of charities cited as being part of the N21 business according to Insider201283 (who I understand has a business interest in these network marketing organisations)

The majority of the article does not appear to be independently verifiable by any other sources except the PR pages of these companies. Financeguy222 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

FG222, you did not participate in talk until you had mass deleted numerous time. You are now, which is good. Your comments there have not been ignored at all, they've been replied to several times. The sources re philanthropy clearly support the article as written. These are a variety of different sources - some directly attributed to the topic of the article (which is fine) and others independent, such as World Vision and The Christian Businessman, neither of which are "part of the N21 business". So frankly I don't know what you're talking about. However, I agree that the article could perhaps be clearer in differentiating between Network 21 Inc (or whatever it's business form is) and the organisation of affiliated business people. Looking at other similar types of organisations, such as Lions Clubs International or Rotary International or Scouts, where a similar mixing of terminology exists there seems to be no such controversy. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes you replied, but failed to address the issues sufficiently. Ok, Take the Microsoft wiki article for example, there is no mention of The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as it is independent of microsoft, the same as these philanthropic Dornan business interests, The reference you gave for FF http://www.fernandofoundation.org/history.asp mentions nothing of N21, only the Dornans. Another of your refs for Network of Caring http://www.n21corp.com/PressRel.asp?PRName=PR_2006_09_05 states Jim Dornan accepted an award on "behalf of the Network of Caring", not "Network 21". Another of your references http://www.networkofcaring.org/aboutus.php states NOC is "the Dornan's creation", and only briefly mentions on that homepage that the Dornans are also founders of Network Twentyone. The World Vision citation does not clearly support the material as presented in the article. Surely if these were part of N21 they would be mentioned explicitly in several verifiable sources. The Christian Businessman reference cannot be verified. The "Network 21 System for Success" reference cannot be verified.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Also, the majority of references on the N21 article page are official PR pages for these business interests, promotional in nature, which are defined as questionable sources, which does not necessarily make any of the statements/facts untrue, but this article appears to be heavily biased by your editing, and read like a promotional article, and the references lead to a large proportion of PR/promotional material.

Where are all the independently verifiable facts, newspaper article etc? Independent sources that do not have a business interest? The independent references on the article page point to critical aspects of the business, such as the Australian parliament.

Even though the references are dubious and promotional, they still do not explicitly state NOC and FF are officially part of N21, of all the sources the majority state that the Dornans have a vested interest. Financeguy222 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

FG222 has again deleted large swathes of this article, including material that is well sourced, from third parties, and verifiable. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Since "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", you should first address my issues above before adding all that unverified material back again and again. As mentioned by Will in the N21 talk page, the notability of the whole article is in question. Financeguy222 (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's clear Insider201283 has WP:CONFLICT Financeguy222 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Financeguy222 is now repeatedly adding the WP:CORP tag to the article. The tag explicitly states it should not be deleted if there are objections and should note re-added. I am concerned he is deliberately trying to provoke me into a third revert so he can claim 3RR against me again, however I am now going to do so. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor is now re-adding non-RS/V claims that were removed long ago after discussion. I've already reverted twice, he keeps putting it back. WP:V explictly states Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page. I'd not however WP:3RR only refers to WP:BLP as a waiver for 3RR? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:81.141.18.128 reported by User:Pyrrhus16 (Result: )

Page: Thriller (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 81.141.18.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user continually adds his own research into the Thriller (song) article. He has been reverted by three editors and has been told why his edits are unacceptable. Pyrrhus16 15:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No research involved. Just an EXTREMELY simple observation from a commercially available recording. It's the one of the focal points of the performance, so I'm not jumping to any conclusions at all. Besides, a reference does NOT just have to be a text link to a website. Books and DVDs are just as valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

But the DVD doesn't say he used the cabinet escape. You are using your own research to come to this conclusion. It is unnacceptable. Pyrrhus16 15:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your silence on the article Talk page doesn't seem consistent. Anyway, my approach has been show, don't tell - a direct, primary source (ie, being able to watch him disappear (eg at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jg6MXht-JU , ripped from the DVD) is clearly better than somebody simply claiming he did. You can't really argue with the video footage. Another thing - if you'd read my edits, you'd see that (1) there was other content/corrections/expansions than the live performance one, and (2) I added more and more specific sources each time, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I can argue with the video footage, and that's just what I will do: the magic trick at the end of the performance is not a cabinet escape. Why? Because he does not escape from a cabinet. The cabinet disappears with him inside it. Thus, it is not a cabinet escape. Secondly, you did not add more specific sources that said he performed a cabinet escape. You added links to unreliable sources that said jack about a cabinet escape. Thirdly, you blatantly violated the 3RR rule after a clear warning, which is why you were brought here. Pyrrhus16 17:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your continued silence on the article Talk page speaks volumes. Anyway, please read what you are linking. "The cabinet escape is the classic escapology trick, where the magician is trapped in a cabinet and required to escape from it." That's what everybody sees when they watch the performance. He's stuck inside a coffin and has to get out. If he didn't get out, he would still be inside it for Billie Jean! It seems like you might be inferring another meaning into this term. Anyway, later on, I might also outline the HIStory Tour version, which is similar, but where the coffin gets spiked and burnt. Perhaps you might be happier if I used the generic term "magic trick"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your continued ignorance on this matter speaks volumes. Everybody does not see Michael Jackson escape from the cabinet. Anybody could have removed him from the cabinet backstage, therefore, it is not a cabinet escape. A cabinet escape involves the audience seeing the person come out of the cabinet unassisted. And, no, I would not be happier if you added "magic trick". I'd be happier if you stopped adding your own research and added a reliable written source that clearly confirms what you want added to the article. Pyrrhus16 15:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You can be as smarmy as you like, but your continued silence on the article Talk page really does speak fucking volumes. "A cabinet escape involves the audience seeing the person come out of the cabinet unassisted"?! Says who?? Hardly ever does a magician work unassisted. According to the article we are discussing, "These can end either with the performer emerging from the escape prop or appearing magically at another point in the performance space", which is EXACTLY what EVERYBODY sees. The fact that a performer appears elsewhere must mean that they disappeared at one point. Michael Jackson disappears while in the coffin (whether the coffin also disappears doesn't matter). Michael Jackson then reappears on the upper part of the stage. Therefore he has carried out an ESCAPE from the coffin (with or without assistance doenn't matter). Where's my radical leap of faith?

Note that you have reverted a 4th editor in your 8th revert, suggesting that your edits to the page are problematic, disputed and with absolutely no consensus. Learn that a coffin disappearing with someone inside it is not a cabinet escape. "These can end either with the performer emerging from the escape prop or appearing magically at another point in the performance space", means that the person has went into the cabinet (which is in view) and then magically re-appeared somewhere else on stage with the cabinet still in view of the audience. Again, the content of your edits has been disputed and reverted by 4 editors, so I suggest you get a reliable source that clearly spells out that Michael Jackson did a cabinet escape during his live performance of "Thiller". Pyrrhus16 17:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have never made the same edit twice. Each one has successively refined text and/or added more references. Also, I think you're reading way too much into the definition of an "escape" = OR, even! Where have your sourced what you say about this illusion? Seems like you're just making stuff up when in fact you have no knowledge of this field- the article I originally linked says nothing of the sort. Anyway, in fact, it's clear from your reply that you haven't even read what I said most recently. I removed that term and replaced it with a simpler, more direct and factual version of the text. One that nobody could ever possibly disagree with. Consensus seems to have been reached, since (1) Nobody disagreed with me on the Thriller Talk page, and (2) the admin involed with the article seems in agreement with the essence of my update. It escapes me why you're still kicking up a fuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it may have been slightly altered text but the message of the content is still the same and still based on your synthesis of the published piece. Note in regard to the 3RR: "A user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24-hour period for a first incident." It does not matter if you have slightly altered the text in a failed attempt to game the system. And nobody, admin or otherwise, has expressed agreement with your edits to the page. Quite the opposite. Pyrrhus16 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've said previously, repeated here in caps, in case you miss it, THE LATEST VERSION OF MY TEXT CONTAINS ABSOLUTELY NO SYNTHESIS WHATSOEVER. You get that? It is a mere literal description of what happens on stage (=onscreen). No interpretation, no conclusions, no opinion, no ambiguity. Furthermore, in contrast to your last sentence, the article has been left in exactly the same state by both UberCryxic and Arthur Rubin http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Thriller_%28song%29&action=historysubmit&diff=351191781&oldid=351189163 . As you can see, both of these 3rd party edits leave my text intact. Oh, and fuck you on your comments about me trying to "game the system". If you're going to disregard the article's Talk page, and then go trying to paint somebody in a bad light in the hope of them getting banned, maybe you should think about whether you should be editing pages at all.

Your latest versions of text absolutely did contain original research. See this and this. How can you be sure it was Jackson who vanished in the cabinet and not a body double wearing a mask? It is a widely held opinion among fans that Jackson was not the one to vanish in the performance, but a body double. What you think you saw in the performance or what you believe is not good enough. Contentious material that is challenged requires exceptional sources that clearly verify what you have added. And nobody has explicitly stated that they agree with your edits. Two people have explicitly disagreed with you. Crystal Clear x3 (talk · contribs) expressed disagreement with your edits as well; see here. Tell me, why do you feel it is acceptable to go against consensus and break the 3RR after a clear warning? Pyrrhus16 15:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Slowly but surely, we're getting there. I'd add the following: (1) You seem to agree, at least in principle, that this material should be in the article. It just seems like we're arguing about the actual wording. However, instead of doing anything productive, you're just childishly reverting point blank. Why not embrace the wikipedia spirit and collaborate on a better wording via the Thriller Talk page? Until you do make yourself heard on the Talk page, your opinion isn't valid on this matter. (2) "a body double wearing a mask"? Potentially, it's possible that it's a clever misdirection while Jackson leaves the stage prematurely to change clothes, etc. But that doesn't mean it's not a magic trick. In fact, that IS how most magic tricks take place! Besides, bearing in mind you seem opposed to using the most accurate language, how would you explain that on the page without getting overly wordy, and providing a spoiler? "Somebody dressed as Jackson, who may or may not be him, is seen entering a coffin"?! Thinking about it, the main impact of the act is actually that the coffin has disappeared, anyway! Again, it still qualifies as a stage illusions, so maybe we just use that, or one of several related terms. (3) What you say regarding others agreeing/disagreeing is false. As I said previously, two people have edited the section on this point, one of which made slight changes in and around what I wrote (in fact, to remove a reference), while both of them left the wording of what I wrote intact. (4) As for your last question, until you directly address anything I've said, instead of just spouting rhetoric, I'll hold back on my answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to add anything regarding the magic/illusions if it can be backed up by a reliable source that clearly states what has happened on the stage. Pyrrhus16 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. As per the overview at Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources, the DVD itself is enough if we're just gonna say what can be seen. Seems like we are back full-circle to the beginning. You clearly have no interest in coming up with any content, so I will work on some text and update in a minute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not understanding what I am saying. Get reliable written third-party sources that discuss the magic trick, so that we can get a fair evaluation of the subject that is not based on one's interpretation of the performance. Pyrrhus16 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not needed. The DVD itself is enough if we're just gonna say what can be seen. Just describe what happens onstage, and leave it to the reader to make up their own mind what/how it was done. I'm thinking something along the lines of "A person is placed in a glass coffin, which is covered in a blanket and subsequently disappears". These are more or less the words you used earlier. So now, off you trot. Go and find another article to police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.128 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, off you trot. You are the one who is editing the article against the consensus of other editors, not me. "A person is placed in a glass coffin, which is covered in a blanket and subsequently disappears", raises more questions than answers. People will ask "Who is the person?", "Why is the coffin covered in a blanket?", and "How does it disappear?". These questions should be answered in the article by reliable sources. If no reliable third party sources cover the magic trick, then it is not notable to the performance. Pyrrhus16 11:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Domaleixo reported by User:J. Patrick Fischer (Result:1 week)

Page: Dili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Domaleixo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Main problem is, that Domaleixo don't want to accept, that CoA and flag are not in use anymore and are not a legal symbol. He is asking for a source, which confirms the NON-existance, without confirming a use after 1975. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

He's started again. And, he's also canvassing for more opinion. It's been going for 24 hours now. --Merbabu (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Domaleixo is still re-editing as IP everywhere, don't accept the "third opinion" and is offending everyone who has another opinion. His editings are not clean done. He is blind editing and doesn't care about the result. Check the gallery in the article at this version. This is not the first time. He is doing the same thing in every Misplaced Pages language, he can reach. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked one week. Went over 3RR, used an IP sock to participate in reverting the article, and has widely canvassed other editors. The editor has been blocked seven times before. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there a possibility to make it global? Please check the articles, where this image is used! --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Díli article has already been fully protected on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. Let me know if you see Domaleixo using IPs here to evade his block. EdJohnston (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Outback the koala reported by User:Middayexpress (Result:Stale )

Page: Muslim world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Outback the koala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1

• 1st revert: diff (user re-added the Somaliland region of Somalia to list of countries that I removed in this previous edit

Previous version reverted to: 2

• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff (user re-added the Somaliland region of Somalia to list of countries, but added a few words in parentheses to circumvent 3RR)

Previous version reverted to: 2

• 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: diff1, diff2

Comments:
The dispute is over Somaliland, a secessionist region in northern Somalia that declared independence a while back but which the international community as a whole (including the Somali government) only recognizes as a part of Somalia (1, 2). The user above is an advocate of this secessionist movement, and proudly indicates as much on his user page. He has been adding material to all sorts of articles attempting to insinuate that Somaliland is an independent country of its own. This usually takes the form of listing the region alongside and on par with Somalia itself wherever and whenever possible. We have discussed this issue to death on numerous different talk pages (see the links above), but to no avail. Two other editors just yesterday to exception to his adding untruths to articles (1, 2, 3, 4), but that does not seem to have had an effect either. He still keeps pushing his POV -- his multiple reverts on the article listed above is just an extension of this same dispute. Middayexpress (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Before any decisions are made here, I'd recommend notifying the users involved in this discussion, as they'll be the most familiar with the topic. This is an old debate, and Outback appears to be attempting to uphold a consensus that was reached (without the assent of Middayexpress) by the majority on that talk page. Night w (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. As clearly indicated elsewhere on this page, this is not the place to pursue a dispute or attempt to parlay whatever happened months ago on another article onto this page (even if you were contacted for support). It is strictly for reporting recent violations of the three-revert rule on the article linked to above. Middayexpress (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

hello, pot, meet kettle. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, but those are not all reverts. Adding sources only to have them promptly reverted is not a revert; quite the opposite actually. Middayexpress (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, these four are fairly unambiguous: 1 2 3 4 reverting this initial edit. Four reverts of the word "Somaliland" within the space of just over an hour. Pfainuk talk 21:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Stale Ryan Postlethwaite 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:MidnightBlueMan reported by User:HighKing (Result:Both editors blocked)

Page: Settlement of Iceland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MidnightBlueMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

This editor is aware of the Misplaced Pages Talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples page for discussing edits related to "British Isles" usage. This editor reverted a number of article with no reasons, and when questioned about it, gave the reason that the edits were performed by a blocked user. When I queried this on his Talk page, it appear this was an opinion only. I'll only list the diffs for one article here, but there are 7 articles where 3RR has been breached.

Comments:

I recently identifed some edits which may well have been carried out by a blocked user, but which were, in any case examples of POV edits with no other purpose than to remove British Isles from the text. Arguably each of my reverts was a case of WP:BRD. The edits were all reverted by User:HighKing, who also stated WP:BRD in the edit summaries. HighKing then proceeded to carry on with the edit warring on six articles. I acknowledge my four reverts on some or all of these articles but I was goaded into it by the actions of HighKing, who I can only assume has been monitoring my edits. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protected - both of MidnightBlueMan and HighKing were edit warring on the page. In all fairness to MidnightBlueMan, he was merely undoing the last edit on the page which to me would suggest a correct application of WP:BRD - the next edit was reinserting the new material (yes, I realise the edit was a month old, but it was still the last edit to the page). The warning came after the 4th revert to the page and I'm not going to block a user who hasn't reverted after a warning. The page is protected for 3 days; take that time to discuss the edit in question. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking over this set of edits from HighKing and this set of edits from MidnightBlueMan, I see they were both blind reverting each other across multiple pages so I've blocked them both for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the last 3 edits of the IP User:84.19.169.231 here it looks as though User:HighKing is attempting to evade the 24 block for edit warring. Keith D (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Keith for spotting that. I've blocked the IP for a week and I've reset HighKing's block and extended it to 3 days for socking whilst blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The continuing fighting over British Isles usage/non-usage is getting pathetic. Block evading? jeepers. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

] reported by User:Nograviti (Result: No block)

Page: British Nigerian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 94.7.69.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
->

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:67.180.84.52 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result:Stale )

Page: Lair of Grievous (The Clone Wars Episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 67.180.84.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (IP user deleted the warning , and reverted the restoration of it by another user with the edit summary "one is permitted to remove BS from their own talk page")

Comment:

Except for one edit in 2007, this IP popped up on March 16th , with apparently strong knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikpedia. A SPI request was turned down because of stale accounts .

This editor has done some good vandalism reversion work, but they also seem overly fond of deleting articles, and their judgement doesn't seem to me to be too good in that area. The editor has a history of deleting multiple notices from the talk page, so a look through the talkpage history will be necessary to see the extent of concern expressed by various editors about the IPs contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Whilst he did break the 3RR, I'm not going to block as he hasn't edited post receiving a warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually not the case. My 3RR warning is timestamped at 00:12. The IP reverted at 00:13. Another editor re-instated it at 00:13, and the IP reverted the warning for the second time at 00:14. His last reversion on the article itself was at 00:20, 6 minutes after he had reverted the warning for the second time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:67.180.84.52 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result:Stale )

Page: Wang Guowei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 67.180.84.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comment:

Please see the comment in the report above.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Whilst he did break the 3RR, I'm not going to block as he hasn't edited post receiving a warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:MikeWazowski reported by User:Xnacional (Result:Blocked 24 hours )

Page: Hannibal Rising (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MikeWazowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has removed warning from his talk page: . Xnacional (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Xnacional reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result:Blocked 24 hours )

Page: Hannibal Rising (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Xnacional (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5st revert:
• 6nd revert:
• 7rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This has actually been going on since mid-January - the above reverts are only over the last few days. Xnacional (who has a history of edit-warring on other topics) has tried to remove any reference to "Red Dragon" from this article. He has been fought on this by several editors, and refuses to compromise, even after a solution was found which should appease both sides. He continually reverts to his preferred version, which is inaccurate. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Xnacional is now edit-warring on my talk page as well - obviously going for WP:POINT now... MikeWazowski (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of hours Ryan Postlethwaite 13:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Professor Todd reported by User:Jonovison (Result:Both editors blocked )

Page: Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Professor Todd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Template:Userlinks/98.207.96.124

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

...

• 13th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User deleted half the introduction for Corporation, which is impeccably sourced. I've tried to discuss the edits in question, but the user makes personal attacks and won't engage in a reasonable discussion.

The latest nonsense arguments and personal attacks:

Note, if you are reading the comments in the talk section (), I recommend going over the diffs, because the user doesn't know how to format comments, and it's become a giant mess.

At this point, he himself is asking for action from an administrator , so it's over to you guys!

--Jonovision (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Both editors had reverted at least four times in the last 24 hours and if you look over 48 hours, many more times. Both blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:86.160.120.47 reported by User:snowded (Result: 24 h)

Page: English people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 86.160.120.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The edits are not the same text on each occasion but they have the same intent. The editor has refused to participate in the discussion on the talk page referenced and has also vandalized the page deleting all the pictures at one point. --Snowded 15:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked - 2/0 (cont.) 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Owain reported by User:Jeni (Result: both advised)

Page: Newport County A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Owain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
User constantly removing maintenance templates without taking appropriate action, alongside constantly reverting edits made by other users on the same page. General ownership issues of this article. Jeni 16:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Warned The first revert removes the recently-added template in question, but Owain also fulfilled a couple {{cn}}s with that series of edits. In absence of any talkpage discussion except a couple warning templates on Owain's talkpage and their responses there, I am advising both editors to follow the first step in dispute resolution and discuss the matter at the Talk:Newport County A.F.C.. There is a simple disagreement regarding the meaning of {{refimprove}}, which should have been discussed or even resolved about five hours ago. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:212.187.2.81 reported by User:MrDolomite (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Ulf Ekberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 212.187.2.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: diff 16:20, March 23, 2010
• 2nd revert: diff 15:09, March 23, 2010
• 3rd revert: diff 15:06, March 23, 2010
• 4th revert: diff 14:59, March 23, 2010

Please see the History of Ulf Ekberg for other user User talk:Raymondinho (who has been permanently blocked in this diff) and IP edits of the exact same information. Unclear if same editors or not.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link 15:12, March 23, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple editors have left warnings on this, and other user and IP talk pages.

Comments:
An entry had been made at WP:RFPP for temporary semi-protection for Ulf Ekberg diff 15:16, March 23, 2010 though it remains unacted on at this time. As the user had made yet another edit well after the {{uw-3rr}}, thought this would be an appropriate escalation point. — MrDolomite • Talk 00:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Article semi-protected by GedUK. Minimac (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:59.160.210.68 reported by User:ManasShaikh (Result: Protected)

Page: Dalit Voice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
and Page: Kancha Ilaiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported: 59.160.210.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
It seems that the same person has been involved with several other violations, and I suspect that the same person is also reverting the same articles using different DHCP IPs. After first warning, user responded by blanking the warning . User Talk:117.194.197.31 and User Talk:117.194.192.93 ManasShaikh (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Article protected by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rscottms reported by User:Work permit (Result: Warned)

Page: List of people from Mississippi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Rscottms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New single article editor keeps trying to add non-notable writer to article, using wp:sps as reference. Two editors have attempted to discuss and warn him on his talk page , and directed him to article talk. Further warning given before 3RR warning above.--Work permit (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. Rscottms does not appear to have consensus to add an entry for Anthony Colom to the list. He restored the entry at least four times on 24 March, which breaks the 3RR rule. If he continues to add this entry without first getting consensus on the talk page, he may be blocked. It is now more than 24 hours since his last edit. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ܥܝܪܐܩ reported by User:Sinharib99 (Result: Warned Sinharib99)

Repeated removal of additions to the article on Assyria (that are supported by independant, non pov/biased links). The problem seems to be that the reverter is a Suraye, and as such objects to the term Assyrian in the context of the existance of Assyria and Assyrians post 612 BC..The reverter has failed to engage on the discussion page, and failded to provide external links or research to back up his position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would refer Administrators to the discussion board on the Assyria article. I have attempted to engage with this person, and had minimal response. I have provided links and cross references to my additions, the person reverting me has not provided any independent references to counter them. I also feel the "real" issue the reverter has is more to do with the modern Suraye Vs Assyrian naming debate, and is utterly irrelevant to the article, and does show a degree of bias. As far as i am concerned people can call themselves Suraye, Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean etc at will.

Finally, i know of few other ethnic groups who have to continually defend their very existance in this way. I feel there is a degree of racism displayed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This user has had their nationalist edits reverted by several editors, previous to myself. but since I'm the only one to have subsequently spoken to him, his response has been to accuse me of racism, and being a Suriac, which I am not. His editing is viewed as disruptive, which is why people have reverted it (on Assyria). He was also undoing other people's editing during his earlier reverts on Assyria. I probably would not have reverted his edit, had others not already done so. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sinharib99's editing in general is highly POV and unreliable. In my interactions with him he has consistently considered fringe websites on a par with reliable sources and it has been clear that he doesn't completely understand the subject matter, but sees what he wants to see without considering and evaluating the source of any comment that he calls a "reference". He has a serious POV that is not supported by mainstream academic sources. In reading through his user contributions, his edits are unreliable and his sources highly suspect. (Taivo (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

These two users are a mirror images of each other. They have both not contributed positively and are only editing one word to another in these meaningless edit wars. Suspend both of them. Iraqi (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Sinharib99 is warned against edit warring. This is starting to look like fringe nationalist POV-pushing. Starting on 24 February, Sinharib99 began editing the article on Assyria to promote his thesis of modern continuity of the Assyrian identity, suggesting that the term continues to be meaningful after Assyria was conquered in 612 BC. Other editors complain that his view is unsourced. If he continues to revert, before getting any support from other editors, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Hermosillo123, User:Hermosillo1234, User:Hermosillo12345 reported by User:Gppande (Result: Indef)

Page: Template:Coup d'état
User being reported: Hermosillo123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Hermosillo1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Hermosillo12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user has been blocked once. But still continue to add the same stuff again and again using puppet account. See User_talk:Hermosillo123. Multiple warnings have been issued. See User_talk:Hermosillo1234 and User_talk:Hermosillo12345.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is adding same stuff again and again despite warnings and block. It has become a routine for me and many other users to keep a watch on the template. Need to put a permanent stop to this. -- GPPande 09:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC) -->

• Result - Hermosillo12345 is blocked indef as a vandal-only account. The other two accounts were previously blocked for the same thing. Appears to be a deliberate hoax - adding a link in the template to point to a non-existent coup d'etat. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sandert reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Protected)

Page: Keith Briffa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Sandert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (note: postdates last revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion at Talk:Keith_Briffa

Comments:

• Note apparently intemperate allegations of vandalism. There are BLP concerns here, noted on the talk page, which this new user is ignoring William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Result - Article protected by User:Beeblebrox. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

72.184.232.81 reported by 162.6.97.3

The MJ Morning Show User being reported: 72.184.232.81

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

This appears to be a minor dispute between anonymous IP editors, but 72.184.232.81 is not engaging in the debate and demonstrates a clear bias in edit history of this page.

162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:FactStraight reported by User:Editor8888 (Result: )

Page: Nobility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: FactStraight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
FactStraight is repeatedly deleting any description of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, including the link to its page, even when supported by authoritative references. I first tried to get Editor Assistance (see here). I have varied the wording to make it more reasonable, but any edit of mine is reverted by this user. I should add that user Yopie (talk) has issued me a retaliatory 3RR warning. This is despite the fact that I have not amended the current reverted version of article since it was changed by FactStraight again. I note that at the top of Yopie's talk page there is a message of solidarity from FactStraight. This may suggest Yopie is not necessarily impartial. I have to ask, why would Yopie warn me 3RR before contributing at all to resolving the discussion and 5 mins after I warned 3RR to FactStraight? Furthermore, Yopie removed one of my additions to the text that was well supported by evidence in footnotes: . Editor8888 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Phoenix of9 reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: )

Page: HIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Phoenix of9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:HIV#HIV_Risk_Table Comments:

User:80.254.146.132 reported by User:Jeffro77 (Result: )

Page: Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 80.254.146.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

(See also same user's edits on 16 March and 18 March.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User has been requested to discuss edits:

Comments:

After (as a result of) this notice, the user has started discussion at the article's talk page. However, there is a strong element of POV in the user's comments. Please review the user's edits to the article and their current comments at article talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Silver seren (Result: )

Page: Reincarnation research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User has been requested to discuss edits:

Comments:

This user has been trying to make drastic changes to the article, stating that the sources, already known as reliable, are not so and changing wording because they "do not reflect the sources", even when they do, along with changing viewpoints in the article that do not go with the sources being used. Any attempt at discussion in the talk page with this user has been met with statements that original research is being used and that the sources do not reflect what is said in the article, with no evidence to back up his/her statements. The user has been reverted by multiple editors when he has tried to make his changes, not just one, and has recently (see revert #3) tried to redirect the entire article without discussing anything on the talk page. It is a clear case of edit warring. Silverseren 18:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a -fourth- revert to be -more- than 3 reverts? Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If I was putting this up for 3RR, yes. But I am not, I am putting this up for edit warring. Silverseren 19:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional: This user, through a series of edits, has now completely changed the stance of the article to something wholly negative and one-sided, without showing both sides of the topic like the article did before. This appears to be a case of POV pushing, further undermining the integrity of the article. Silverseren 22:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There are at least 4 reverts. I will get it. It should also be pointed out that the user has completely ignored the result of his unsuccessful AfD for this article. He performed a "delete by redirect". Mitsube (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take any action yet, admin. Silver seren is likely not aware of what happened before he began editing today. I will provide a more complete picture of ScienceApologist's behavior at AN/I. Mitsube (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Nutriveg reported by User:Jack Merridew (Result: )

Page: Vitamin D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Nutriveg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 12:56, 25 March 2010:
• 18:55, 25 March 2010:
• 19:02, 25 March 2010:
• 19:15, 25 March 2010:
• 19:30, 25 March 2010:

Warning re 3RR is at: User talk:Nutriveg#WP:3RR

Discussion is at Talk:Vitamin D#consensus on cite pmid + cite doi vs. cite journal and the next section, too

NV's issue seems to be a preference to not use standard citation templates and to fight with Citation bot. Multiple other editors have undone his reverts. And, most important, the version he's reverting to breaks the page because of excessive template transclusion.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Peterm4589 reported by Mlpearc MESSAGE (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

California Jam II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Peterm4589 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

• Diff of warning: here

—Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I need someone to look into this for me.It feels like it's going to go places I don't want to be, it has to do with these people showing up at California Jam II. I keep undoing the edit and stating that some kind of cite is needed, one, for the fact they showed up on a greyhound bus, and second who are these people ? I've never heard of them. The editorUser talk:Peterm4589 did try to cite something once (today) but it was garbeled. Anyway I keep undoing thier edits, they keep puting them back. Please check the page history. Thanks

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring