Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 26 March 2010 (→User:Nableezy reported by User:Lanternix (Result: both blocked): also Gilabrand). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

User: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: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 (Result: Semi)

• Article: The MJ Morning Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: 72.184.232.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Result - Semiprotected one month, due to general edit-warring and BLP concerns. The circumstances of a staff member's departure from the show have been debated for more than a year on the talk page, and the quality of the sources for this departure have been argued. The IP filing this report wants to use linkedin.com for some info about this staff member. My semiprotection is an experiment to see if it will result in calming down the dispute. I'm aware that we can't single out the IPs as being the only source of problems without more study. If consensus is reached on the talk page about the outstanding issues, including the BLP problems, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

• Result - The four reverts listed above do not fall within a 24-hour period, so they don't break WP:3RR. I caution the submitter that he seems to have no support for his view on the talk page. If he continues to revert to his version before he gets consensus, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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:

• Result - Warned. I take note that Phoenix of9's last edit to the article was a self-revert, otherwise he might have been blocked. This is an extremely controversial article, and he seems to be ignoring the great amount of care and negotiation that has gone into the current form of the article. If he continues to make large changes to the article without getting any support on the talk page, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

• Result - Semiprotected by another admin. Besides breaking 3RR, the IP has been using reverts to push his own POV into the article. Our article is not intended to be a religious tract. His preferred opening sentence is "THE Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses consists of dedicated men who are anointed servants of God". If he shows himself willing to follow our neutrality rules, and can get consensus on the talk page for his changes, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Silver seren (Result: See report below)

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)

There were five (counting consecutive reverts as one), reported here. Mitsube (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - See a second report below about ScienceApologist for possible actions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 26 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)

Nutriveg has broken 3RR and is warring against a bunch of people. On his talk page I've proposed that he should agree to a 1RR for 30 days in lieu of a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(Pseudo edit conflict) I was thinking voluntarily refraining from related edits until that discussion winds down, but EdJohnston's solution looks good. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I forgot about this report. It seems Nutriveg sees the light at this point; His last edit to the talk page states "I'm likely following the wrong path." Anyway, less reverting would be best. I do hope he sees the template expansion issue. I'm hoping for understanding, not a block. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• That issue was resolved long ago in the article talk page. Thanks for your attention.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:14, 26 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

P.S. Below is the edit in question.

• • Peter Marchesi,Arby Girard and Bob Millard were also in attendance via a Greyhound Bus from Boston.

User:Nableezy reported by User:Lanternix (Result: both blocked)

Page: Mahmoud Abbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Nableezy (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: (please note that this revert was done after the reported user was made aware of the current 3RR violation report).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

BLP exemption. In fact the reporting user should be blocked for repeatedly pushing in unreliable sources into a BLP and removing information from the only reliable source discussing the material. I'll also note that the editor who initially added the information agreed with the way I modified the material (see here) nableezy - 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is your problem that the name of the website has the word Jewish in it? Just asking. --Geewhiz (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, unlike you I dont have a history of using a racist propaganda site so I dont know why you would ask that. And my beef is with using WND in a BLP. And why are you here? And arent you topic-banned? nableezy - 12:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy: Some of these reverts do fall under the BLP exception, including (for the reason given in the edit summary). But in most, such as , the change that is being edit warred over consists in removing an unreliable source (which is fine), adding a presumably reliable source (which is also fine) and adding new text (which is not). Instead, the reverts should only have removed the problematic material. To the extent these reverts also add new text, they constitute disruptive edit warring about a content disagreement. That disagreement is not covered by the BLP exception. In response, in enforcement of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Nableezy is blocked for 48 hours and made subject to a one revert per page per day restriction with respect to all pages or content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for the next three months. Obvious vandalism and BLP violations are excepted from this restriction.  Sandstein  14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix: Lanternix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred in violation of WP:BLP to include unreliably sourced material in a BLP (e.g., ). In response, he is blocked for 72 hours and warned about possible WP:ARBPIA sanctions.  Sandstein  14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and another one. Gilabrand, signing as "Geewhiz": The above comment () violates your topic ban. In response, you are blocked for two weeks (escalating from one week for your last infringement), and in addition, the three months topic ban is reset to begin anew today.  Sandstein  14:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Mitsube (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)

The diffs are complex. Here is the story. I originally posted a report at AN/I, but the admin who read the report there was unwilling to act on it because he isn't familiar with blocking users for edit-warring, and he asked me to report ScienceApologist here. The report at AN/I also has many other combative edits of his that are not edit-warring but I would still like an admin to look at that and give some sanctions. Here is a condensed version of that report:

A month ago, ScienceApologist nominated this article for deletion. The result was keep. Since then numerous well-discussed changes were made, especially in the last few days.

1st revert: Today ScienceApologist showed up and reverted some of these changes (version reverted to here, my changes to it were discussed here but ignored until many hours later.

In this same string of consecutive edits, he restored material to the introduction that I had removed (the use of the word "pseudoscience"), and carefully explained (in the “Described as pseudoscience” section of the talk page).

He furthermore undid the addition of a new section break that had been added by User:Sacca here.

These are consecutive.

2nd revert: undid previous edit. Note that he hadn't used the talk page at this point (which was full of justifications for the things he was undoing).

3rd revert: . This again undoes my changes to the introduction as in the first string of edits, and again removes material that he initially removed in his first string of edits, and which was twice restored. That sentence is "although it is possible that only some, but not all, people reincarnate, or that the conditions necessary for remembering a past life are specific enough to narrow the population which can do this".

I told him that this was his third revert in two places and asked him to finish the discussion we were having about a huge chunk of the article he removed against consensus.

4th revert: He then deleted all the content of the article, thus ignoring the result of his unsuccessful AfD, and redirected the article. With this edit, he removed numerous additions I had made to the article, including the second sentence of the introduction ("Most mainstream scientists have ignored or dismissed this work") which used a new source I had found, the other new content I had added specifically to better represent his opinions. He also removed two other large chunks of material I had recently added.

I noted on the talk page that this was his fourth revert. Silver seren reported him for edit warring soon after.

Fifth revert: In his next string of edits he performs a few reverts.

He reverted (version reverted to here) away yet again my "Paul Kurtz believes that deducing" language I had argued for on talk.

He again removes the next subsection divider that had been added by another user and twice restored.

He again reverted away the "although it is possible that only some, but not all, people reincarnate, or that the conditions necessary for remembering a past life are specific enough to narrow the population which can do this" language as before.

This again is in sum his fifth revert. And the time between his first and fifth reverts is about 22.5 hours. I would really prefer it if the responding admin would look at the longer version with more of his disruptive behavior at AN/I.

I hope that he will be blocked for a considerable period. Furthermore the fact that he cannot respect the results of an AfD shows that he should be banned from this article for a considerably longer time. Mitsube (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that ScienceApologist has been edit-warring, and I've asked him to accept a 1RR/day restriction on this article for 30 days. If he agrees I think this report could be closed with no additional admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

With his long record of disruptive editing and edit-warring, and 5 reverts in 23 hours, doesn't he deserve a long block? Ignoring the result of the AfD alone deserves a block. And his rudeness toward me that I chronicled on the other report deserves a block too. Mitsube (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are preventive, not a form of punishment, so the question of whether or not someone "deserves" a block is usually not germane. The rudeness to which you refer was hardly egregious, though if ScienceApologist agrees to a 1RR restriction but then problems continue I would encourage you to bring it to ANI. If the 1RR solves the problems then there's nothing to worry about. Also this report somewhat duplicates a report above. Really it should not have been refiled (I don't know why it was since on ANI I suggested adding to the other one) but in any case they should be closed together. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose placing only SA on 1rr. That's just presenting Mitsube with the ability to brute-force "win" his content dispute. Hipocrite (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, and respond to my question for you on the talk page. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your passive-aggressive question in the appropriate location. Hipocrite (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll let this one slide. Mitsube (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mitsube, consecutive edits count as a single revert for the purposes of WP:3RR. Often when articles are being edited heavily it makes the history easier to read if edits are broken up into logical chunks. You are treading on very thin ice with respect to the WP:VALID section of the NPOV policy. Please consider this next time you decide to incite an edit war and attempt to use this board to further your interests in a content dispute. As an uninvolved but WP:INVOLVED editor I would recommend locking the article for a few days - let the sources play out and calmer voices speak without Mitsube's aggressive disruption. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

2/0, there were five nonconsecutive reverts, some of which consists of a string of edits. In my report, I counted consecutive reverts as one. Please read the report thoroughly before using such dramatic language as "you are treading on very thin ice". About your other accusation, I have displayed only a desire for consensus and amity as the longer report shows. I am glad that you are recusing yourself. That is the honest thing to do. Mitsube (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is now stale anyway, so moot, but a large part of the problem is Mitsube trying to skew content towards a WP:FRINGE view of the topic. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been just watching this article from afar except for one edit I made at the talk page. This is a request for User:Mitsube to refactor a comment made about User:Verbal forgetting to sign in and editing as an IP. I found what was said to breach WP:Civil and WP:NPA. The user didn't see it and asked me about it but I chose not to continue the discussion and to let it pass. Then I found the AN/I discussion leading to here and took note that another accusation of socking was made at User:ScienceApologist here asking this user 'Are you sharing this account with someone else?" I think that Mitsube is editing tendentiously and in the extreme. Other editors are also reverting this editor's edits. I think that this all goes a lot further than just an edit war or 3r since the article is in need of balance. The personal attacks though need to stop as does the tendentious editing. As for SA, he is using the talk page during all of this and explaining his edits. That Mitsube doesn't agree with them, that is the issue here. This is a content dispute and maybe 2/0 is correct, that protection is the best way to handle this at this time. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 11:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Artefactual reported by User:Lanternix (Result: )

Page: Copt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Artefactual (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:

in my defense, i would like to say that User:Lanternix is exhibiting in my opinion religious bias in his re-edits of the article Copt. all i have been asking him to allow is that the percentage of copts be written as "6-20%" since the actual percentages can not be determined from the present facts espoused by all parties. some parties argue a lower range, while others argue a higher percentage range. however, all parties can also reference there percentages to reliable sources (as well as more biased sources). therefore, i have sought the middle-ground by arguing for the complete percentage range to be included for the meantime- untill an undisputable source can be produced. once again, i believe User:Lanternix is making an unneccessarily large comotion over an issue that should have been easily resolved- if the objective spirit of wikipedians had been employed.Artefactual (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC) i would also like to say that i am still learning the ins-and-outs of wikipedia policy. i honestly had no knowledge of this 3 edit rule thing- which i am still trying to fully understand. sorry for transgressing wiki procedure.Artefactual (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Note For admins editor has actually self-reverted, though hasn't used an appropriate edit summary and is seeking to use WP:DR to sort the problem. Seems a genuine misunderstanding but may be worth a look at the other party for gaming the system? Justin the Evil Scotman talk 10:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Birdlover777 reported by User:Snowmanradio (Result: User blocked for 48 hrs)

Page: Osprey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Birdlover777 (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: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User has changed a lot of other pages that will need checking, some after warning. All edits now corrected by at least 3 editors. An administrator has now blocked the user for 48 hrs probably without seeing this page. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring