Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive236

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Cityinfonorns reported by User:IIIraute (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: 2014 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive236/userlinks

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5] & [6]
  5. [7]
  6. [8]
  7. [9] (this revert was done after edit warring warning by admin)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion, removed as "nonsense" → [12]

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

Notice of Warning: Ownership of articles noticeboard discussion, removed as remove nonsense!!!!!!→ [13]--Cityinfonorns (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

User:Dr Shempenstein reported by User:Wieno (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Jeremy Piven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Dr Shempenstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    2. 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    2. 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
  3. 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
  4. 02:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    2. 01:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
    3. 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
  6. 01:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Jeremy Piven */ new section"
  2. 21:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jeremy Piven. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 07:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Content dispute - Music video */ 3O response"
Comments:

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Page
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See also User talk:Garbage turk (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (6RR at present)
User being reported
Werieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "remove socks comment"
  2. 19:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Andy Dingley (talk) to last revision by Werieth."
  3. 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Please stop proxing for a sock, you where warned"
  4. 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "remove socks comment"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

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

I only removed the socks post. I left Andy's comment alone. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:3RRNO removing posts by socks/banned users is exempt from 3RR. Werieth (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No, you also removed my post. You have since been told that too, which you then excused as you only did it once! Please do not lie to us quite so obviously, it fools no-one. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
As I stated before, the first time I missed that you added an additional comment. which is why it was reverted. Werieth (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You were since corrected on that point. It's OK, we forgive mistakes. Since then however you have stated that your removal of my post was OK because you only did it once (an excuse for 3RR, but no excuse for simply not blanking other editor's comments at ANI). On this page you have also since claimed "I only removed the socks post", which you had already been told was untrue. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This comes down to two core issues – along with most of Werieth's re-appearances at ANEW
  1. Does 3RR apply to Werieth? He is after all the editor with 18RR and an excuse as to why that was permissible and why he was unblocked for it.
  2. Does AGF apply to Garbage turk?

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

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

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

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

  • Result: No action. 3RR cases about user talk are sometimes a judgment on who is behaving more disruptively. Since User:John Reaves has indefinitely blocked User:Garbage turk with talk access disabled he has already made the call on this. If you think sanctions are due to User:Werieth you could try making the case to John. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This isn't about Garbage turk, it's about Werieth. How are GF editors supposed to operate when an editor whose behaviour is so bad they're repeatedly assumed to be Betacommand is instead given a free pass to ignore one of our basic behavioural policies? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Andy, Im not ignoring anything. Given the behavior of the numerous socks, and abusive behavior, identifying the master may not be doable, however given the behavior and the fact that non-involved administrators obviously see the accounts as abusive socks, (and from what I can tell there are several likely masters that are banned, I just dont have solid enough evidence to make that accusation at this point) the master account has a very high probability of being banned due to the disruptive nature of the socks that they have used. WP:AFG isnt a suicide pact, given the number of blocked accounts tied to this user common sense applies. Just because they spout rants that support your position doesnt mean that we should ignore common sense and let abusive trolls roam the wiki. Werieth (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
There is far more, albeit still inconclusive, evidence that you are a sockpuppet of Betacommand than there is for Garbage turk being a sock of any specific sockmaster, either banned or not. You assure us that Garbage truck is banned and that you know who they are because CUs have told you personally. Yet you want the corresponding statement "I think Werieth is Betacommand" to be revdeled on sight as you consider it (despite being told otherwise repeatedly) to breach WP:NPA. Despite this imbalance, you are still allowed to treat Garbage turk as if banned and basic policies like 3RR are thrown away in your favour. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:82.132.232.24 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
List of music considered the worst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
82.132.232.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "do the right thing and leave it be, the beatles are regarded as the most important band in history by fans and critics alike"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

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

Other reverts from the other IPs on this particular article found here [14] and here [15]

Warnings given on other IP pages here [16] and here [17]

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

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

Ghassanid Page, User Lazyfoxx (Result: Malformed)[edit]

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

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

User:APZ982 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Thom Loverro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
APZ982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC) to 22:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 22:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 00:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 02:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  5. 17:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  6. 18:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  7. 18:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  8. 18:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  9. 18:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  10. 19:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  11. Consecutive edits made from 20:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 20:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  12. 20:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor warned repeatedly: [18], [19], [20], [21] RolandR (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Startropic1 (Result: Protected)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some rebuttals:

  • You seem to suggest the director as a reliable source. While in fairness, he IS the director of the film, the information in question is material that he is hardly the primary source for. It has become clear that he tampered with some of the interviews and some of the people interviewed are suspect as well. Furthermore his body of work prior to the Larry Norman film, and his notoriety puts his credibility in serious doubt.
  • If you go to the previous URL, http://www.failedangle.com you are redirected to the new site that I added to the Wikipedia page. It is run by the authorized biographer of the Larry Norman Estate, Allen Flemming. I have noted this several times but you don't seem to be able to grasp this. If you bothered looking through the site, you would find numerous recordings of Larry and Pamela along with transcripts, there are no sources more primary than that! See them here: http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com/shot-down/pam-newman/

Here are more sources:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry if you think that I consider the director to be a RS. Is that why I had his article deleted from Wikipedia? I will elaborate below.
While Ian Flemming is the authorized biographer, that simply means he has a conflict of interest in discussing Mr. Norman. He is certainly free to publish a book to set the record straight. If it's self-published, it wouldn't meet RS any more than his self-published websites are. If he can get it published by a reputable publishing house, it will be. Regardless, I will buy the book and read it with great interest.
I am not "a supporter" of Di Sabatino. I'm a supporter of FC Bayern Munich. I'm a supporter of Vancouver Whitecaps FC. I can understand how you have come to the conclusion that I'm supporter: because I don't toe the Norman family party line on Mr. Norman and remove unbalanced information on Wikipedia, but that's not the case. In fact, I was accused of being a fan in a recent Facebook event notification of the documentary by someone who really does hate Mr. Norman.
With that in mind, there are no lies in the documentary. There some very one-sided statements though. If there were lies, the Norman estate would have taken Di Sabatino to court. They haven't. So while I don't think that the director is a reliable source, I do think that his film is, and I can back that up. I also think that the sources you have added do not meet WP:RS and should be removed immediately.
Now, I will point you once again to WP:NPA and ask you to retract your statement that I am spreading lies about Mr. Norman ("can no longer defend himself against your lies"). You may use simple <s></s> tagging around the statement.
Lastly, even if I had reverted your material, I would not have violated 3RR, that only happens on the fourth revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Livingengine1 reported by User:Roscelese (Result: blocked )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [each revert is explained below]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [22] removes sourced material, claiming that it's "not supported by the citation offered." The material removed is explicitly stated in the source, an academic book, to the point of using some of the same language.
  2. [23] makes the same edit, this time claiming that the author hasn't cited any evidence to support the statement, which is erroneous on several counts: a. that she explicitly cites her source, and b. that it's not his job to decide that he's more knowledgeable than this scholar.
  3. [24] makes the same edit, claiming that the content is "not supported by anything in the world."
  4. [25] same edit. In all of these he's claimed that BLP is being violated, in spite of having it pointed out to him that BLP is not a blanket exemption for removing anything you personally dislike and that quality sources like this one strengthen BLP.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] warning for blanking, after which he repeated the edit several more times.

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

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

Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | talk 05:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC) )

User:Andreas11213 reported by User:Elekhh (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28] 18:26, 5 February 2014
  2. [29] 19:55, 5 February 2014
  3. [30] 21:29, 5 February 2014
  4. [31] 21:51, 5 February 2014
  5. [32] 22:02, 5 February 2014
  6. [33] 22:03, 5 February 2014
  7. [34] 17:49, 6 February 2014

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

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

  1. [35]
  2. [36]
  3. [37]

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

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

Comments:


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

User:Stigmatella aurantiaca reported by User:DParlevliet (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Delayed choice quantum eraser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [41]
  2. [42]
  3. [43]
  4. makes clear that he will revert again and it concerns numerous edits over 2 months

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

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

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

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

Response by Stigmatella aurantiaca[edit]

First of all, thanks for protecting the page.

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

Diffs of DParlevliet's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

Response by DParlevliet[edit]

All comments above concerns the one disputed paragraph as I mentioned in my report. I have agreed to edit and improve this paragraph. A quick look into the article history [[45]] shows that until 2 February no edit was disputed nor reverted. Also after the blockage none of the editors above gave an accepted reason for deletion according Wiki rules. Therefore I propose to go back to the last not disputed version [[46]] and start editing from there. I have no problem in deleting the disputed paragraph until I have improved it DParlevliet (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:211.20.73.16 reported by User:NeilN (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
People's Liberation Army Navy Surface Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
211.20.73.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "tidy-up and minor restructure"
  2. 12:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "tidy-up and minor restructure"
  3. 14:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594979949 by NeilN (talk)"
  4. 14:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594980453 by NeilN (talk)"
  5. 14:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594980665 by Dan653 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on People's Liberation Army Navy Surface Force. using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 21:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Undid non consensus edits Feb 10 */"
Comments:

Likely sock of [47] who has been harassing Antiochus the Great for days. NeilN talk to me 14:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 days JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:SharpQuillPen reported by User:Ring Cinema (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: The English Patient (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SharpQuillPen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]
  5. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55] [56] [57]

Comments:

I have tried to work with this editor. Some of his arguments have been accepted just today. (See [58]). The particular difficulty has to do with content that no editor has questioned since its inclusion in 2010. When I warned about too much reverting, he responded, "Good!" --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This complaint has nothing to do with the "gasoline" issue, however it is instructive. When the evidence was presented, I agreed that it was correct to use the word 'gasoline'. That is good editing. There has been no further dispute on this content issue since the evidence was presented on the Talk page. That is not a problem.
Secondly, have I issued other 3RR warnings? Yes, it is true that I have issued such warnings when editors revert enough to receive a warning. There is nothing suspicious about that; neither is it germane to this complaint, as far as I know.
Regarding the matter of the heat in the desert, I would simply mention that the word 'scorching' has been used continuously in this article since May 2010. It was included in one of the first expansions of the plot summary beyond a stub. No other editor seems to have found it objectionable. I am open to an argument that the desert heat was not scorching as depicted in the film, but I don't see anything persuasive on offer there and it seems to be a longstanding consensus for more than three years. Absent a good reason, it seems more accurate to say it was "scorching" than not to say it, particularly since the heat has a disastrous effect on the main character. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Three accounts (User:LimeyCinema1960, User:WordWrightUSA, User:SharpQuillPen) all registered within three days of each other and all have spent an unholy amount of time editing/commenting at The English Patient (film). Here is the interaction between all three: [59]. This activity looks deeply suspicous to me and any admin who takes on this case should be aware of it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal

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


WordWrightUSA

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


LimeyCinema1960

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


SharpQuillPen

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

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

I would also note that none of these accounts use indentation on their posts, which is something most editors learn how to do early in their career. For a style comparison, let's try these examples: [60] --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. If you want to open an investigation as to the three accounts (see Betty's comment), WP:SPI is the place to go. BTW, Limey is the oldest of the three.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:MaxxFordham reported by User:Vsmith (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [62]
  2. [63]
  3. [64]
  4. [65]
  5. [66]
  6. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68] (previously blocked for edit warring )

Comments:
Editor previously blocked on 2 May 2010 for 48 hrs for edit warring.
Vsmith (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor first added the parenthetical comments on 16:22 10 Feb. [69] Vsmith (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:MaxxFordham reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MaxxFordham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "What alerted *you* to come along and act like anything parenthetical I add is supposedly "inappropriate"? Why is this on *your* radar too? Are you some kind of "boss" here?"
  2. 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Since when is the fact that nations and CONTINENTS *aren't* the same thing, and that some other nations have STATES too, which is common knowledge, supposedly "original research"?"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 13:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) to 13:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 13:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "THERE. Is *that* okay?"
    2. 13:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 13:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "THERE. Is *that* okay?"
  4. 13:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594971758 by Vsmith (talk) Reinserting important parenthetical phrases, because parenthetical phrases *are* legal in encyclopedias, AND because that's important for people to know."
  5. 12:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594962458 by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) But if it's only in the talk page, then--duh--the general public won't typically see it!"
  6. 10:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594858319 by Cadiomals (talk) No, they ARE relevant because it's important for people to know that even though something's common doesn't mean it's correct."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on United Stated. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Users summaries are also getting fairly WP:POINTy --Mdann52talk to me! 14:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Same as previous report. This one is more informative though, Vsmith (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Enigma9035 reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Bioresonance therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Enigma9035 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [70]
  2. [71]
  3. [72]
  4. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75] (opening the discussion)

Comments:
This case is a bit more complicated than usual. Enigma9035 (talk · contribs) tried to add information about scientific papers published in reputable journals supporting the use of bioresonance therapy in various applications. That edit was reverted, by WikiDan61 (talk · contribs) (me), based on the fact that the edit appeared to be an effort to advocate for bioresonance therapy. At the time, I did not take the time to inform Enigma of my reasons for reverting, and I'll take the 40 lashes for that. However, since the edit was reverted, it should not have been reintroduced without discussion (per WP:BRD). When it was reintroduced (by Cbagdatli (talk · contribs)), it was once again reverted, this time by Alexbrn (talk · contribs), after which the edit war ensued. I warned Cbagdatli about the edit warring concern, and no further edits came from this user. I then opened a discussion about the controversial edit, and invited all parties ([76], [77] and [78]) to join. Enigma responded with a series of reversions (listed above) to reintroduce the controversial material, with very antagonistic edit summaries indicating a general lack of interest in any discussion. So, here we are. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Since this is in the area of fringe theories, be aware that discretionary sanctions are also in place, 23:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected - fully protected by Mark Arsten. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Malbin210 reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: Article fully protected for 36 hours. Malbin210 blocked for 48 hours. Others will be warned.)[edit]

Page: Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malbin210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [79] (just take a look at the history page for the edit warring)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Albania#NPOV and article

Comments:

This is a report of edit warring on a Balkans-related article, not necessarily a 3RR violation (btw, are Balkans-related articles still subject to ArbComm discretionary sanctions? I haven't followed that case for a long time just noticed on the article talk page that the article is indeed under ArbComm probation). I first noticed [this yesterday and thinking it was a simple case of restoring a deleted, properly sourced, fact and left a message on User:Malbin210's page about claiming to revert "vandalism" in an edit summary that clearly wasn't vandalism. Today, after seeing the fact was removed once again I checked the page history and noticed that it was just a small piece of a larger on-going edit war. User:Malbin210 seems to be a SPA and, quite suspiciously, other SPA, single-edit IPs have jumped in.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This clearly is a very hypocritical act . I have already contacted an administrator ( JamesBwatson) , presenting the case way before you opening this . I have also given more than enough arguments in the talk page . Please do follow this link , to see the already opened case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson ( it is imperative that you do , because you will get a more clear picture and the reason for this whole situation )

Furthemore i need to point out that this user opened this case , after the implicated user ( Astarti34 ) asked for help from WilliamThweatt , as demonstrated here > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliamThweatt&diff=595062326&oldid=595040989 , in the talk page with the title \Help for Albania article/ , where he was asking from him to open a dispute on his behalf for me ! .
Clearly biased and unnecesary act , when an administrator has been already contacted , and users notified (Malbin210 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC))
This is a report of edit warring on an article subject to ArbComm sanctions which I noticed while doing vandalism patrol, all users involved have been notified, not only Malbin210. (btw, leaving a rambling message on another editor's talk page is not "opening a case" and nobody else was made aware of it)--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You are again lying , my last edit in the article about albania is saying > please do not edit , administrator has been contacted . Let us continue the discussion there , link > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&action=history

Furthemore , i did mention the name of the implicated user , and he got a message !

What i need to stress out that , you and astari know very well each other , as demonstrated by the fact that he asked help from you , after i did open a case with a an administrator .

Here is the proof where he asks help from you , to open a case against me , after he got the notice , fearing that he would loose his account because in fact he is the one vandalizing the article about albania ! Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliamThweatt&diff=595062326&oldid=594256153

Here is another link showing that you have participated mutliple times in war editing , supporting user Astarti34 . > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=594910468&oldid=594886667


Here is another link showing you reverting exactly the same thing , support user Astari and his sockpuppet account with the ip 77.49.58.129 >https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=595031369&oldid=595021278

It gives very clearly the connection that you , astari , and the sockuppet account with an ip of 77.49.58.129 , have together .

To get a more clear picture please do visit the article about Albania , and the talk page about Albania . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talkcontribs) 01:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Update > WilliamThweatt , has commented on the opened case , trying to persuade the administrator not to follow the matter any further by claiming ArbComm general sanctions. Clearly demonstrating his biased implication in this matter ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talkcontribs) 02:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

*sigh* Honestly, can we do something about the personal attacks and accusations? I simply notified JBW that I had brought the edit warring up for discussion here. FWIW, I really don't have an opinion regarding the content dispute, in general I just plain don't like nationalist motivated edit warring in WP, it's a distraction and highly detrimental to the project which, if I remember correctly, was part of the rationale for the ArbComm decision(s) regarding all Balkans related articles.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I am glad then , because we share the same value . I have never made a single edit for nationalistic purposes as demonstrated by my contributions history . I am only editing economical facts which are accurate and properly sourced . Having a degree and masters in economics i tend to focus to those matters . Best regards , John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talkcontribs) 02:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  • There is clearly a serious problem here. As a first step, I have fully protected the article for 36 hours. I am still investigating, to see what other steps are needed. The protection of the article is not an endorsement of the current version. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There have been several unsubstantiated accusations. The most absurd one of those has been the suggestion that an editor who opens an edit warring case on this page and then informs an administrator of the existence of the case is doing so in order to discourage investigation of the case.

I express no opinion on the merits of the two sides in the dispute on gdp, but I urge all parties to try to reach agreement, by discussion in a friendly and cooperative manner, without edit warring, and without taking a battleground approach to other editors. As for the dispute over "Albania remains one of the poorest countries in Europe", initially editors on one side were removing content which was to some extent supported by a source, and those on the other side were repeatedly restoring a version which did not entirely agree with the source. Both sides were at fault here, as the only proper way to deal with thsi was to check what tthe source said, and make the version in the article agree with the source. Eventually, however, this edit established a version that agreed with what the source says. After that, reverting to a version that did not agree with the cited source was unacceptable.

Malbin210 has been blocked for 48 hours for sockpuppetry. It is certain that he or she edited while not logged in to avoid the appearance of continuiong to edit war, and virtually certain that he or she also created the sockpuppet account Allenbond. I see no evidence to support other allegations of sockpuppetry, but if anyone else thinks that he or she does sse such evidence, then the thing to do is to take it to a sockpuppet investigation, not to throw out unsubstantiated accusations in edit summaries and on talk pages.

I shall post warnings to various user talk pages, warning editors about edit warring and about discretionary sanctions. I shall also encourage all concerned to read this message. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Jeffrd10 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Heart Attack (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595125650 by Pavanjandhyala (talk) that other pages are not using proper sources is not a valid reason , no consensus to do so here on talk"
  2. 14:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594979834 by Pavanjandhyala (talk) WP:PROVEIT that they are professionally acceptable critics in reliably publsihed sources"
  3. 13:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594978300 by Pavanjandhyala (talk) no they are not reliable sources or professional critics"
  4. 13:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "unsourced"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "/* edit warring */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Even after message asking the user to end waring the users continue to revert each others edit . Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Looks like there is discussion on the talk page which User:TheRedPenOfDoom is involved with so I've protected the page to encourage further discussion. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Wladthemlat reported by Norden1990 (talk) (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

  1. 13:53, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Rephrasing to eliminate the redundancy, while including the multi-ethnicity in the first sentence")
  2. 13:58, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Norden1990 (talk): Multilinugal != multiethnic. (TW)")
  3. 14:03, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Norden1990 (talk): It very well was multiethnic before 16th century (see e.g. privilegium pro slavis). (TW)")
  • Pictogram voting x.svg 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. John (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Norden1990 reported by Wladthemlat (talk) (Result: Blocked 31 h)[edit]

Page: Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

  1. 13:47, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595137495 by Wladthemlat (talk) already included")
  2. 13:56, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595140389 by Wladthemlat (talk) not true; KoH was not multi-lingual after 1920 and before the 16th century")
  3. 14:00, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595140916 by Wladthemlat (talk) back to stable version; so: KoH was not multiethnic after 1920 and before the 16th century")
  4. 14:07, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "80% are Hungarians... so today's Slovakia is also multiethnic country. First paragraph: short history, second: ethnicity, borders, third: feast, legacy")
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours John (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Batiste Igienice reported by User:TheSickBehemoth (Result: both blocked)[edit]

Page: Vader (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batiste Igienice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [81]
  2. [82]
  3. [83]
  4. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked John (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Правичност reported by User:Jingiby (Result: protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [88]
  2. [89]
  3. [90]
  4. [91]
  5. [92]
  6. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:
User Правичност behaves indecently and insults other editors who do not share her/his views as for example here and here. She/he keeps biased, overestimated data about the number of the Serbs worldwide, based on nationalist, unreliable sources. She/he also removed added by me tags, which impugned used by her/him sources here. She/he is edit-warring and does not respect the opinion of other editors and reliable references. Jingiby (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Jinglby came up with a new idea and new sources, pushing new reverts without agreeing with me or any other users on the talk page, this means he was pushing it and i was only reverting it to a previous stable version which was aprooved by me and a number of more users such as Adrian, Zoupan, Klačko, and others... who participated in previous discussions about the total figure of Serbs, coming up to a concensus about it. Total number of Serbs was also discussed in a special section in which Jinglby also hasnt participated (here: