Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive280

User:Winkelvi reported by User:MaranoFan (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: The edits were not vandalism, yet he goes on reverting them. The 3RR page suggests that reverts involving different content are blockable too. I think it applies here. He wants to get my articles unstable whenever I GA-nominate them. When I am editing them, he comes in and tries to get them unstable. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 16:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - 1) I wasn't notified of this report. 2) The filer 'thanked' me for my first edit in the list above. 3) The edits weren't reversions, but corrections of spelling and other grammatical errors. 4) There's no edit warring taking place, nor am I trying to sabotage anything, as the filer claims.  I'm invested in this article, too, and am only trying to improve it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) Diffs 63 and 64 are successive edits with no other editor in between and should be counted as one instance. The other edits are over grammar in different areas, this doesn’t appear to be edit warring. AlbinoFerret 17:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You see the bad faith though? The editor's only intent is to get the article unstable and the problem with the edits is that I made them. They have behaved this way at Meghan Trainor and this one doesn't come as a surprise. I want some action taken though. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with AlbinoFerret. There are only three sets of edits: the middle two are consecutive so only count as one. The first "revert" reverted your violation of WP:RETAIN and the second corrected a grammatical error. The final "revert" isn't really a revert at all: Winkelvi basically kept your edit as it is and just made a small correction to the grammar. I don't think there is a case for Winkelvi to answer to. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * How on earth can you say you're assuming good faith and accuse another editor of bad faith when you're blatantly reaching for a case in an attempt to have Winkelvi blocked for no good reason and you didn't even leave a notice of this discussion on his talk page (which is required)? Good grief. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They have banned me from their userspace. Good faith. All About That Bass (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 17:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOBAN says that "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to." This project page says that anyone who is reported here must be notified. If Winkelvi has a problem with it then he can revert it, but the notice is mandatory, and I highly doubt you failed to leave one out of respect for the "userspace ban," especially when you left this (bogus) edit warring warning after WV has asked you on numerous occasions not to post to his talk. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you making the case for Winkelvi, shouldn't he be doing it? Are you the same person? Good faith. <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 17:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the interactions you two have had, and this questionable filing, a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order. AlbinoFerret
 * If this still makes any sense to you, I am sorry. If o many people think I am wrong, maybe a boomerang is in order. Good faith. <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>)


 * I agree. The disruptive AfD nominations, bullshit AN3s, polemic userspace editing, etc. need to stop. A block, interaction ban, or both would really come in handy and stop the disruption from MF. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Lol. Yes, WV and I are clearly the same person. You should really edit "good faith" out of your signature, because it's apparent from your postings here (and much of your editing in general) that you have no idea what that is. For crying out loud, you assumed that the reason for his "edit warring" was a personal vendetta against you to sabotage your good article nominations. That is the worst possible faith ever. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Say what you will, Chase. I am here with good intentions. I am getting articles to good status and sometimes even getting barnstars. My only problem is with you and WV. Only an interaction ban is warranted. <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 17:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A clear case of a boomerang. Look out, (bad faith) MaranoFan! HandsomeFella (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . Seriously, move on. Kuru   (talk)  17:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:HeadCase320 reported by User:3family6 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: The Amon Amarth article has long been a target for edit warring, due to controversy over whether the band should be described as Viking metal, so this latest dispute is nothing new. A consensus developed previously to mention the band's labeling as a Viking metal group in both the lead and in a section discussing Amon Amarth's musical genre, but to keep "Viking metal" out of the infobox, since it is primarily the infobox that gets targeted in these disputes. In the latest dispute, which was between HeadCase320 and, I sided with TenaciousDio in preserving the consensus, though I disagreed with how TenaciousDio handled the situation. attempted a compromise where Viking metal is included in the lead but with a footnote explaining the controversy. However, TenaciousDio rejected this, and Mashaunix did not challenge this objection, but did insist on a hidden note being included in the infobox to inform future editors of the dispute and the consensus regarding it. Yet HeadCase320 continues to edit war on this issue, both removing the note and reinserting "Viking metal" into the infobox. I left a warning a few days ago but they have persisted. This also is not the first time this editor has gotten into an edit dispute, having previously been warned about edit warring on the War of Ages and Supreme Chaos articles, as Mashaunix and can testify.-- 3family6  ( Talk to me  &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I can confirm this is all true. I think HeadCase320 means well, but has repeatedly failed to engage in discussions to resolve conflicts, and usually doesn't explain edits in edit summaries either.-- MA SHAUN IX 18:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . Clearly edit warring against multiple editors; was warned. Kuru   (talk)  18:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Intermittentgardener reported by User:Chestmas (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vocativ&diff=660425962&oldid=660270434

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have seen this editor cleanse the page of anything unflattering and then try to OWN the page by erasing any improvement banners that notified users of this. In lieu of an edit war, I changed the tag to a dispute resolution tag, which they also removed, claiming that I was a sock. I have no common edits with any prior editors on this page, and have verified that my edits are not in line with any such previous behavior. I have no idea why I am being accused of such a thing, but either way, the user has claimed their suspicion of me and reason for ignoring my entries on the talk page on such suspicions. Although I suspect promotional editing, at this point all I am trying to do is talk about the lack of neutrality I see on the article, and the user refuses to do anything but revert me. I have seen other promotional edits on other pages that I initially attempted to flag, but at this point I know that they will simply be reverted. So I wish to curb all such co-editing and simply discuss it on the talk page. Regardless, the 3RR rule was broken, solely because of a lack of willingness to discuss with me on the talk page of Vocativ. Chestmas (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Chestmas, is a sock puppet attempting to get around a block. I am in the process of starting a sock puppet investigation and will post that later this day. It is SOP to to revert banned sock puppets trying to get around their blocks on Wikipedia and the 3RR policy even provides an explicit exemption for reverts made against sock puppets. This editor is going after the same content, using a newly created account yet shows an astounding knowledge of Wikipedia and its internal workings despite creating here account very recently, seems really only to care about Vocativ, and is now going after articles I edit in an attempt to provoke me into 3RR, obviously not knowing that 3RR does not apply if the reverter has a good faith belief they are reverting edits by a sock puppet. Intermittentgardener (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please show any evidence at all that shows I have gone after "content" that a prior editor has. I have added some improvement banners, you removed them. I have made ZERO edits to the Vocativ page other than that. Wikipedia is a pretty straightforward enterprise if you read about it for half an hour or so. Yes, I am here because I am concerned about the Vocativ page, and those were my first edits. You mention "good faith", but where is yours? All I want is a talk page discussion, and it seems progressively more concering to me that you won't have one. Chestmas (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to show any instance that I have disrupted Wikipedia. All I did was add two improvement banners, and then compromised to add a simple request for neutrality dispute resolution, which you brazenly removed with these accusations. Seriously, you can't just claim editors you disagree with are all socks. Even then, why are you so against discussing Vocativ's neutrality on the talk page? What harm does this cause you or Wikipedia? Chestmas (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we treat it like a duck. Your behavior is nearly identical to the numerous accounts already blocked for this nonsense that has been going on at Vocativ. See here:.


 * Chestmas, those reverts were made with edit summaries claiming exemption for reverting a "probable sockpuppet" and "a banned user getting around a block". I have to agree per WP:DUCK. As a "new" editor of less than five hours standing, who is so remarkably familiar with Wikipedia jargon and noticeboards, you have no credibility here. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that's some very loud quacking. I've checked out Sockpuppet investigations/Fatuouslemon/Archive and blocked Chestmas per WP:DUCK. Thank you, Intermittentgardener. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC).

== User:69.120.117.69 reported by 2602:306:8034:C990:AD8B:A980:757C:4001 (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC) (Result: ) ==

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff


 * 1) 4th diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [In edit summary]

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

Comments:

Obvious political campaigning.

2602:306:8034:C990:AD8B:A980:757C:4001 (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:68.117.94.3 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - user warned.
 * 1)  - user warned.
 * 1)  - user warned.
 * 1)  - user warned.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:68.117.94.3

Comments:

IP is trolling the talk page, posting to start fights instead of improving the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * and have also reverted him, so it's not just me who thinks he's trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * anything counter to the leftwing orthodoxy's verion of the truth is trolling on wikipedia. Hear-yea, hear-yea! The pathetic thing here is that you, "ian thomson", actually think this is the case, my own sarcasm notwithstanding.68.117.94.3 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * for edit-warring to use the talkpage as a soapbox for personal views.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Empress Mathilda reported by User:Hchc2009 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Apparently a new user, other users have tried unsuccessfully to engage here. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Bishonen &#124; talk 08:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC).

User:Gtadude00 reported by User:Snowager (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Overview */"
 * 2)  "/* Not Funny Omar */"
 * 3)  "/* Not Funny Omar */"
 * 4)  "/*Mama alet la2a */"
 * 5)  "/* Mama 2let la2a */"
 * 6)  "/* Not Funny Omar */"
 * 7)  "/* Not Funny Omar */"
 * 1)  "/* Not Funny Omar */"
 * 2)  "/* Not Funny Omar */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

An anon IP, 41.38.169.242, appears to be involved in edit warring as well. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.38.169.242 <em style='font-family:Tiger Rag LET;color:#0070FF'>The Snowager <em style="font-family:Tiger Rag LET;color:#6F00FF">-is awake  08:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Stevengreggory reported by User:Aronzak (Result: no action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Format Edit and Refernencing"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 659648480 by Karpes (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 659615889 by Karpes (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 659615889 by Karpes (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Conflict of interest. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Conspiracy theories */ new section"


 * Comments:

The principal of an Islamic school in Australia allegedly propagated the conspiracy theory that ISIL is funded by Israel. In response, a WP:NOTHERE single purpose editor is pushing POV statements into the article body, and adding conspiracy theory articles as references, with no talk page discussion despite warnings from three editors. The edits may fall afoul of General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant -- Aronzak (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . There's really nothing actionable here. Two reverts over three days. Not previously warned for edit warring, and not notified of potential general sanctions. I'll add the page to my watch list as his edits are clearly poor; hopefully he'll join the discussion you just started. Kuru   (talk)  17:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello,
 * Response:

I am sorry if I have posted anything out of line, however another person has been editing as well and the paragraphs have become distorted. Whilst I agree with removing certain aspects of my edit, and have no problem with removing sources such as the Isis link -which I posted to display articles written in retort to mainstream media. I find it useless in deleting all my well researched data on the school. For instance I have interviewed people and have gotten permission on the subject matter in order to edit this article. I did not accuse the Age of anything. I was merely pointing to the media prejudice fuelled culture that surrounds the school. As commonly known the media sensationalises many issues, I don't know how it is any less relevant due it being an Islamic school. However it is not wrong or irrelevant to the issue as it encompasses the ongoing community struggles. The paragraphs relating to xenophobia and ethnocentrism etc. were referring to issues raised within the community.

I would like to kindly ask the admins to revert majority of my changes as I have not posted anything against the Wikipedia rules of conduct or information. (I have referenced correctly with relevant links and sources ).

Thank you - --Stevengreggory--Stevengreggory (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Use the article's talk page to discuss your position. Kuru   (talk)  12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:Gouncbeatduke (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Originally headed as: Plot Spoiler's continued edit warring in the Iranian/Palestinian/Israeli conflict area and violations of WP:1RR

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 04:53, 2 May 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diff #1 at United Against Nuclear Iran (21:59 on 2 May)


 * Diff #2 at United Against Nuclear Iran (14:12 on 2 May)

I also ask Plot Spoiler to self revert on his talk page with the message You have violated the WP:1RR rule in the Iranian/Palestinian/Israeli conflict area, please self-revert., but he simply deleted the message.
 * See here:

Comments:


 * Obviously, there's not a 3RR problem, which is what you warned him for. What sanctions are you claiming are in place here?  Are you refering to WP:ARBPIA?  Kuru   (talk)  01:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not a 3RR issue, but rather a 1RR problem. He states that Plot Spolier has "violated the WP:1RR rule in the Iranian/Palestinian/Israeli conflict area". Though, I am unsure how this has anything to do with Iran. Neither Israel nor Palestine is mentioned anywhere in the article. AcidSnow (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gouncbeatduke didn't even do me the proper courtesy of informing me that he was filing a case involving me.
 * He is purposely misrepresenting the ARBPIA 1RR rules to somehow include Iran articles which have no connection to ARBPIA.
 * The user's limited activities are being used to WP:stalk my edits -- in just the past week, he's edited the following articles for the first time shortly after I made edits myself
 * Gouncbeatduke's reporting on these admin boards has already led to WP:boomerang blocks, based on his absurd personal attacks that users are engaged in some kind of "anti-Arab hatemongering" campaign . This situation is becoming intolerable. I have more constructive things to do than deal with this user's constant attempts to WP:GAME the system to his favor (Given his previous experience w/ this user, admin may have something to add). Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to WP:ARBPIA. I should probably mention the reason I would like to add the NPOV tags is because the article keeps getting cleaned of any reference to Israel and the Israeli anti-Iranian lobby. I believe the article should include information like:

Salon reported a former Obama administration official who worked closely on Middle East policy stated UANI and its allies “play the politics for the short-term but they don’t offer anything in terms of answers for the long-term” and “You get the sense that … they’re not really interested in ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. Iran bashing for pro-Israel groups is very common, but I’m concerned that they don’t understand that failure to address this issue will ensure that Iran gets the bomb or we’re headed toward war. And a war in this region at this time will look more like World War III than a ‘cakewalk.’”

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's irrelevant to this filing because you just added that information... if that even qualifies as now falling under ARBPIA anyway. Just WP:gaming the system. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding of "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted" was that in would include issues like Hamas and nuclear proliferation in Iran. I am not trying to game anything. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , how much more of this nonsense do I have to endure? Is some kind of interaction ban necessary? The deeper issue seems to be that Gouncbeatduke is simply unable to edit in a constructive, NPOV manner as a more or less single issue editor. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , and now Gouncbeatduke's implying that on the subject of Iran and nuclear proliferation, I'm engaged in "Islamophobic and POV-pushing editing". There has to be some kind of recourse for these gross personal attacks and lack of WP:AGF. This is exactly the kind of behavior that led to blocking him. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . While I realize that WP:ARBPIA is "broadly construed", that seems to be more than a little over the top and frankly disingenuous. There's no 1RR here. Kuru   (talk)  15:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Giano reported by User:BabelStone (Result:Blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (see edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Giano repeatedly adds in poorly-sourced and not neutral commentary on the Grant Shapps Wikipedia editing case, despite two editors considering it inapproriate. BabelStone (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I blocked Giano, since they have clearly crossed 3RR and, being an experienced user, should have known better. I did not really care whether they attacked WMF or not, and would have blocked them for any five reverts anyway. None of the opponents crossed the 3RR line. However, I am concerned by the fact that none of them made an effort to properly discuss the issue and the credibility of sources, There were two sources in the disputed piece, one of them clearly a RS. Please after the block expires engage into discussion (continue at the talk page or start a new topic), since the block does not mean that the piece is not appropriate and should nt be in the article. It just means that a user failed to follow standard dispute resolution avenues.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:GoPurpleNGold24 reported by User:nfitz (Result:Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_CONCACAF_Champions_League_Finals&diff=660683198&oldid=660501480]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_CONCACAF_Champions_League_Finals&diff=660566619&oldid=660501480]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_CONCACAF_Champions_League_Finals&diff=660635763&oldid=660607089]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_CONCACAF_Champions_League_Finals&diff=660665962&oldid=660665836]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_CONCACAF_Champions_League_Finals&diff=660683198&oldid=660671723]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoPurpleNGold24&diff=660684659&oldid=651845931]

Comments: Pretty straight forward. User has deleted the same reference 4 times in 14 hours. After the second time, I added numerous other references that said the same, that also proved the original reference was reliable. I should have raised it on talk after the 3rd time, however left questions (that are unanswered) in the edit history. Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What rule am I breaking again? Because I believe I only reverted twice. The first one this user is claiming, I did not revert anything, unless removing something is considered reverting. I did revert in the second and fourth one and I reverted my own edit in the third one. The User also never asked me to discuss it on the talk page. Instead of reverting my edit the third time why couldn't it have left me a message to discuss it. Instead the user wrote it on the Edit Summary knowing I possibly was going to revert it a fourth time (in the user's count). <font face="verdana" size="2"> GoPurple 'n  Gold24   01:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It?!?! Can someone clarify how deleting the exact same reference 4 times isn't a 3RR violation? (and another reference 4 times that I didn't document ...) Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems to be an edit war going on and no discussion has been had outside of the edit summaries. Please discuss the dispute on the article's talk page and come to consensus before the expiration expires.  only (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like overkill for such a trivial reference. I'm not so much worried that the reference is deleted, as it's now redundant. But the simple assumption that tweets from major news organizations carrying factual information aren't reliable, rather than evaluating the content of the tweet itself I find questionable. Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:184.145.137.152 reported by User:Agtx (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Beginning the article with an personal negative opinion of a single journalist is highly biased. The controversy section is riddled with the authors prejudices which have no sources.  Attempts to provide a more balanced sourced opinion have beed deleted"
 * 2)  "The introduction is a clearly biased and imbalance and the previous author keeps deleting additional information. It's clearly someone who has an agenda against the university and is writing a hit piece."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Megatrend University. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Megatrend University. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

As I told the anonymous user, I don't have an axe to grind here, but removing whole sections isn't appropriate. Agtx (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Quantanew reported by User:GliderMaven (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is putting unreliable WP:CRYSTAL ball speculation about the results of research into the article. The research is backed only by non peer-reviewed primary source research; but according to the user's edits we will be flying to Jupiter, any day now. I tried to prune it back a bit, but he revert warred past the 4RR limit. The user is not engaging in OR, but is putting non reliably sourced material into Wikipedia, persistently, and exceeded the 3RR limit, even after being made aware of it.GliderMaven (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The user User:GliderMaven doesn't allow for consensus to be reached the discussion is been made on the talk page. This is my first experience with this issue and I'm a long contributor to wikipedia.Quantanew (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I'm quite happy to discuss it on the talk page, or elsewhere, but Quantanew has deliberately gone 4RR to defend his non reliably source contributions.GliderMaven (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The user claims my sources are unreliable but the whole article has the same types of sources. This user can not be picky to choose what he doesn't like.

This article is already in the category of fringe physics and hypothetical technology and with that in mind I just enumerate the potential applications of the technology, all of this cited by the current team a NASA JSC Eagleworks working on the device.

And the user Glidermaven is incurring in three reverts right now on the same rule.Quantanew (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I've established the same article state 3 times, while you have done this 4 times. You are over the bright line. And I repeatedly explained why in the subject lines and on your talk page, my talk page, the article talk page, and now on the physics talk page. I also asked you to self revert, after having pointed you to the relevant 3RR rule before you went to 4 reverts, and you still didn't listen. We're only really here because of your behavior.


 * And your edits include: "If WarpStar-I concept vehicle or a similar vehicle were equipped with an EM Drive, it could enable travel from the surface of Earth to the surface of the moon within four hours carrying two to six passengers and luggage," when the device hasn't even flown, not even a millimetre. That's classic WP:CRYSTAL. If you had had reliable sources, fair enough, but you didn't have them, and you still don't; and they don't exist.GliderMaven (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Again the whole article is based on your unreliables resources. We are here because your behavior of choosing not to like the editions I added. It you were so true to your unreliable sources you has to judge the whole article as such, not just the pieces that you don't like.Quantanew (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

70.74.238.17/Harari234 reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Indeffed/ blocked 48 hours two weeks)
Page: Page: Page: Page: User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred versions for Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad, the Adal Sultanate, the Sultanate of Harar, and the Sultanate of Ifat

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad:
 * 1) Revision as of 00:22, 3 May 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 00:34, 3 May 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 05:34, 3 May 2015
 * 4) Latest revision as of 17:33, 3 May 2015

On the Adal Sultanate:
 * 1) Revision as of 00:20, 3 May 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 00:30, 3 May 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 05:32, 3 May 2015
 * 4) Latest revision as of 17:32, 3 May 2015

On the Sultanate of Harar:
 * 1) Revision as of 00:27, 3 May 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 05:34, 3 May 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 17:35, 3 May 2015

On the Sultanate of Ifat:
 * 1) Revision as of 00:20, 3 May 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 00:31, 3 May 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 05:33, 3 May 2015
 * 4) Latest revision as of 17:33, 3 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning (for the main account, see here:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page discussion

Comments:

Even after I gave him an addition warning he still chose to deliberately break 3RR. Not only has this individual been editing warring on multiple pages (as shown above) they are also a sock of Harari234. The sock and master account not only edit the same exact pages (see here and here) the IP has constantly been editing the comments of the master account (see here for an example). The sock has even foolishly signed using the master accounts signature (see here: ). When I requested that the IP/Master to stop, they replied with this: You clearly have a problem Acidsnow, so live this page alone. Making PERSONALATTACKs didn't help his case even the slightest. Though I am not sure as to why they have chosen to sock. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the master account has already been blocked twice for the same exact disruptive behavior? AcidSnow (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock is obvious. Harari234 indeffed, the IP blocked for 48 hours, Bishonen &#124; talk 00:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance! AcidSnow (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, while the IP is dynamic, it has obviously been used by one individual for several months, so it can be blocked for longer. Blocked for two weeks.. Ping User:AcidSnow. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Ok. AcidSnow (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Krull The Eternal reported by User:Stickee (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 21:23, 28 April 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:41, 2 May 2015
 * 2) 09:22, 3 May 2015‎
 * 3) 17:26, 4 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Blocked 48hrs

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 01:53, 3 May 2015

Comments:

Was blocked 5 days ago for warring on this article. Immediately resumed warring upon expiration of block. Request made under WP:EW, not WP:3RR. Stickee (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Elindiord reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Philip J Fry (talk): If there is a reason for revert all Jencarlos Canela's template. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Philip J Fry (talk). (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Jencarlos Canela */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Jencarlos Canela */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The user reverted my edit without giving me a good explanation of the because it does, I have clearly explained it, but you don't want to get any agreement it seems. <font face="Myriad Web"> Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 02:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This User also reverted my edits on the voice actors that have been involved in Anime and reverted them for no apparent reason.--73.166.187.154 (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Elindiord has an extensive history of unexplained mass-reverts using Twinkle. They've been warned multiple times on their talk page and were blocked for two days, but apparently have resumed the behavior. <span style="color:forestgreen;font-family:Georgia,serif">Conifer (<span style="color:forestgreen;font-family:Georgia,serif">talk ) 03:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . The message concerning Twinkle abuse clearly isn't getting through. Philg88 ♦talk 06:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Hijiri88 reported by User:CurtisNaito (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  - partial revert (this time the user deleted just the source for some reason, turning the sourced into an unsourced statement)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

We were in the process of discussing the issue, but there was clearly no consensus to delete the material in question, which was reliably sourced and verified.[].

Comments:

This user was warned before making the fourth revert, and it's hard for me to see what justification there was for violating the three-revert rule by continuing to delete reliably sourced text. I should add furthermore that many of the user's reverts contain inappropriate comments. In one revert he describes user TH1980 as a "POV-pushing sock". There is not one shred of evidence that that user is either a POV pusher or a sock. In the same post he describes me as "one user with a history of edit-warring because he doesn't like me." I have no ill will against Hijiri and have never been banned for edit-warring. These personal attacks are not adequate justifications for violating the three-revert rule. Incidentally, it looks like this same user has been warned about edit warring without seeking consensus two times in the recent past, see here and here. Note also that Hijiri has issued threats to continue edit warring, see "I will revert any counter-consensus attempt you make to edit the article. I will not continue to dance to your tune, Pied Piper."CurtisNaito (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC) For the record, the original source said, "Another significant literary accomplishment of this period was the compilation of the Manyoshu... The Korean influence is also present in the anthology. One of the three main poets of the Manyoshu, Yamanoe Okura, it is now believed, was a Korean immigrant in Japan."CurtisNaito (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The content in question was already discussed extensively on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura and Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture. Yesterday,, who is obviously a sockpuppet of one of the users who didn't get their way in the previous discussion, suddenly showed up and reinserted text that had been removed from the article months before he/she ever edited it. I reverted, and pointed out how the material had been removed in accordance with consensus and so per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN it should stay out until it has been discussed. The user ignored me and started an edit war. Then a little while ago CurtisNaito, who has a history of edit-warring over dubiously sourced material suddenly templates my talk page alone, even though TH1980 has reverted several more times in the last 24 hours alone. User:Ubikwit, User:Nishidani User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Shii were involved in the previous discussions and will I'm sure back me up on all or most of these points.

Given that the user with whom I have been edit-warring is a sock account and my edits were supported by clear consensus, it seems pretty obvious that Curtis is reporting me because he knows that if the page is protected and discussion takes pkace on the talk page I will be the one whose edits are vindicated, something Curtis doesn't want for personal reasons relating to our previous interactions.

Could someone revert to the last stable version of the page and protect it, so discussion can take place on the talk page?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from Hijiri I didn't see one single person on the talk page who opposed complete deletion of references to Yamanoe Okura. Including the material seems to me to be an improvement to the article, and although discussion was on-going, there was clearly no agreement that it should be deleted. Furthermore, it's inappropriate that Hijiri keeps on calling TH1980 a sockpuppet. It looks to me like TH1980 has been a user in good standing for a long time, so there is no reason whatsoever to make this accusation.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I felt like I was being pushed around by a bully. Hijiri had no rational reason for deleting a valid, fully sourced addition, nor did he provide any reason at all for why he kept reverting my edits.  Finally, his personal attacks on me is nothing short of deplorable (though they do reveal that Hijiri has tendencies towards Internet bullying).TH1980 (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @TH1980: You made two edits, one about gugyeol/katakana, and one about the Okura-toraijin-ron. Neither of these was properly sourced: the former was wrongly (and deliberately) attributed to the wrong author, in order to give the false impression that that author's view is held by more than one person; the latter was a blatant expansion of what one vague, tertiary source says into something no reliable source says. Only the latter is under discussion here as (following User:Ubikwit's revert) you appear to have given up on the former. It's not clear what "personal attacks" and "bullying" you are talking about: I referred to your false characterization of the former source as a "lie", but that is something most others would likely agree with. If you're referring to my accusing you of sockpuppetry: either I'm right, in which case it's not a personal attack but an accurate observation on your very suspicious actions, or I'm wrong, in which case I apologize. But you have to admit your constantly dodging the question and refusal to directly denying engaging in sockpuppetry is not a good way to allay my suspicions... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you're referring to my description of your edit as "historically anachronistic and borderline racist" ... what can I say other than to ask you to stop making borderline racist edits and I'll stop calling your edits borderline racist. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, don't protect the page. Now that I've done TH1980 and CurtisNaito's job for them by fixing their edit myself, I say hit me with a trout for technically violating 3RR, formally warn CurtisNaito that if he violates WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND again he will be blocked, and hit TH1980 with a warning for knowingly violating consensus and edit-warring (I'm going to keep searching for evidence on that sockpuppetry thing -- it's only at about 60% now).

Problem solved. Edit war over.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I never violated WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. If we want to talk about violations of WP:POINT, how about inserting directly into the article that the source was "twisted to say what the Korean ultranationalists who still seem to be running this page wanted it to say."CurtisNaito (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, per WP:V (why do I have to keep explaining Wikipedia's core policies to you, Curtis?) I'm not allowed reinsert the Hane source, which doesn't directly support the material I added, but also doesn't support the claims you attributed to it. I don't directly have access at the moment to a single source that backs up all the information I added, but it has been discussed extensively at Talk:Yamanoue no Okura and is all easily verifiable. Given the page's history, though, it's extremely problematic to be adding "unsourced" material, so I left a note in the form of a comment explaining the background of the edit, and with a date stamp so other users could go back and check what happened. This is not the same as "inserting [text] directly into the article", and I don't appreciate your presenting it in such a way.
 * As for your own violation of POINT and BATTLEGROUND: the edit summary on your first revert indicated that you knew the material was a misrepresentation of the source, but you re-added it, left a warning on my talk page, but not the one who has made at least one more revert than me so far, and then brought it here. This one-sided action indicates that you are not interested in preventing an edit-war, but in getting back at me for all the other times I have argued with you over your failure to understand our core content policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Your refusal to make the changes that you yourself acknowledged were necessary was clearly meant as yet another attempt to make the result of this conflict be a sanction against me, rather than page protection (the normal course of action where two users have a content dispute and one is reverting while refusing to discuss on the talk page).
 * Admins: This failure to understand V and NOR, and wikilawyering in a manner contrary to normal dispute resolution, are recurring problems with this user, as indicated on the pages linked above, and as User:Nishidani (who has dealt with the problem before) can attest to. Please help ensure this does not happen again.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I warned you in the hopes that by doing so you would not violate the three revert rule. I never said that the text in question was a misrepresentation. I said the opposite. I said it was NOT a misrepresentation. By the time I got there the source was already quoted in full in the talk page and there did not seem to be any misrepresentation. You haven't managed to provide any evidence that I failed to understand any Wikipedia policies, though it's not relevant to the issue at hand anyway.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you warned me so that you could come here and say that you warned me. Rather than preparing this whole big report on me, it would have been so much easier for you to just fix the edit yourself. Why didn't you? Could it be that you wanted this "edit war" to come here? Why are you only reporting on me and not TH1980? Why did you not leave a warning on their talk page even though they had already violated 3RR? It can't just be that you agreed with TH1980 and disagreed with me -- you explicitly stated that you knew TH1980's edit was problematic when you first restored it. This is wikilawyering at its worst. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The latest version you inserted into the article is worse because it has no citation and it includes an inappropriate comment. All I said was that the previous version could be improved, not necessarily by changing the text itself, but by adding additional text after it. Not once did I say it was "problematic". Actually it was accurate and reliably sourced. I said there was room to discuss it because I wanted to discuss it. There was no reason to violate consensus by continuing to revert.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you seriously think the previous edit was not a gross expansion of what the source says into something that no source says, then we are back to discussing you competence issues regarding your strange interpretations of V and NOR, aren't we? The previous statement was unsourced, because the source cited didn't back up its claim; my revised edit is "unsourced" in that there is no inline citation, but "Okura was a prominent Man'you 2-ki poet", "the theory that Okura was the son of a Kudaran physician is accepted by a large number of scholars", "the theory developed in the latter half of the 20th century" and "the theory was spearheaded by Nakanishi Susumu" are all easily verifiable facts. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hane clearly cited Yamanoe Okura as an example of "Korean influence" on a piece of Japanese literature. Hane was not being ambiguous about what he meant and his views were accurately reflected in the article. In fact I checked the source that Hane cited and it confirms that Hane did actually mean what he explicitly said. The source Hane cites for his statement, an article by Miller, spends several paragraphs discussing "the seminal contributions of Korean immigrants, and of Korean literary culture as brought to Japan by the early Korean diaspora". In this context, Miller's article notes that Yamanoe Okura's poetic style was directly influenced by Korean poetry. Therefore, there can be no question that the statement was both accurate and reliably sourced. There was no reason to delete a reliable source in this manner.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hane only said something resembling "Okura was a Korean living in Japan" because he apparently didn't fully understand the theory. The Miller article is a good one and I like it, but only because nowhere does he state that Okura was "a Korean living in Japan" (his title seems like it's making such a claim, but he admits that Okura's age combined with the date of the fall of Baekje make it extremely difficult to say he grew up somewhere other than Japan); and Miller (like all good scholars) knew that it was anachronistic to talk about modern nation-states like "Japan" and "Korea" for the period of time in question -- he used them as handy shorthand, because he was writing for a scholarly audience who knew what he meant (which is apparently more than can be said for you or TH1980). I would like to see the page number where Miller says Okura's poetic style was directly influenced by Korean poetry -- the essay itself devotes about 90% of its word-count to how Okura's style was directly influenced by the Chinese translation of a certain (Indian?) Buddhist sutra, so any discussion of Korean poetry is peripheral at best. Additionally -- exactly what Korean poetry could Okura have been influenced by? His native language (in Miller's opinion and the opinion of most scholars who hold to the Okura Toraijin Theory) was Old Paekche, a language with next to no extant attestation; if you mean "Classical Chinese poetry written by people from the Korean Peninsula", then we can't say "Korean poetry" without elaborating what we mean.
 * But none of this addresses the core issue that what was there before (or rather, what TH1980 unilaterally added) was bad, and what's there now is better. Why are you continuing to oppose my version?
 * And why, when this "edit war" was started by TH1980, and he was the one who made the greater number of reverts, and he is the one who has been refusing to engage me in discussion on the talk page, did you choose to "report" me alone? Could it be that you are wikilawering in an attempt to get me blocked for a content dispute in which I was the lesser of the several offenders, a content dispute that is already resolved?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Miller says that Yamanoe Okura was of "Korean... immigrant origin"(p.776), which is what Hane says as well. If someone is a Korean of immigrant origin living in Japan, then it's fine to describe them as "a Korean living in Japan". Of course that's not the only way one can describe it, but no one can say that it's a misrepresentation to describe a Korean of immigrant origin living in Japan as "a Korean living in Japan". On the same page Miller also notes that, "Nakanishi identifies specific text parallels between poems by Okura and poems from the Old Korean hyangga corpus". The text that was in the article was an accurate reflection of both Hane and Miller's views.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tell me Curtis: how is saying that Okura was "of Korean immigrant origin" the same as saying he was "a Korean living in Japan"? Let alone that the adjectival use of "Korean" can easily mean (i.e., does mean, in this case) "originating in the Korean Peninsula". Calling him "a Korean living in Japan" has anachronistic (and borderline racist) implications of the modern notion of nationality. It's not really appropriate, but consider the fact that Okura is in Nakanishi-sensei's theory called a kika-jin; in modern Japanese, this refers to a naturalized Japanese citizen (I know it didn't then, but still); if you called Debito Arudou or Donald Keene "Americans living in Japan" you would be guilty of borderline racism because you would be denying their Japanese citizenship. They are two modern examples; as for Okura, he lived at a time when there was no such thing as "Korean citizenship" (there wasn't even a unified Korean state -- or any such thing as "Baekjean citizenship" for that matter) so saying that he never formally naturalized would also be ridiculous. Also, saying that there are parallels is problematic here: was Nakanishi talking about parallels between Okura's 8th-century Japanese poetry and later Korean poetry, and speculating that Okura may have been influenced by the (hypothetical/no longer extant) predecessors to these later Korean poems?
 * Therefore, the text was not an accurate reflection of Miller's views. I don't know if it was an accurate reflection of Hane's views, since I can't parse the latter's views from the brief quote provided, but I would be willing to guess that Hane was just parroting what he read in Miller, since he mirrored Miller's very rare orthography "Yamanoe Okura".
 * Anyway, I seem to have misunderstood you when you said "Miller": I had assumed you were talking about his excellent monograph "Yamanoe Okura, a Korean Poet in Eighth Century Japan", previously cited in the article; but it seems you were talking about his review of Kato, Chibett and Dore, "Plus Ça Change". His coverage of the Okura Toraijin Theory in this review article is minimal, and if Hane really got everything he knew from such a book review then he is not so much a tertiary source as a quaternary source. Taking extremely vague wording in tertiary and quaternary sources and expanding on it to say what a few Wikipedia editors want it to is an abuse of sources, and if you keep it up because you still really don't get why you're not not allowed do that you will be blocked.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mikiso Hane's book is indisputably a secondary source, not a tertiary source. The reason why Yamanoe no Okura was called Korean is because that is how both Hane and Miller describe him. The idea that calling him Korean is racist is purely your personal opinion. Surely Hane and Miller would not have called him Korean if they thought that was racist. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia merely following along with the scholarly convention. The text in question was an accurate reflection of Miller's views because Miller does clearly say that Yamanoe no Okura was Korean and Miller does clearly indicate that his poetry represents a Korean influence on Japan. It's possible that the text did not accurately reflect Hijiri's personal opinions, but it did accurately reflect both Hane and Miller.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mikiso Hane's book is indisputably a secondary source, not a tertiary source. I think you don't know what "primary", "secondary" and "tertiary" mean. A primary source would be one of Okura's poems; a secondary source is a scholarly article or book written by someone who has read Okura's poetry, like Nakanishi's articles "Okura Toraijin-ron" and "Okura Kikajin-ron" and his book Yamanoue no Okura; a tertiary source is a source discussing Nakanishi's work on Okura, like Miller's book review (the fact that Miller has also read Okura's poetry and wrote other works that qualify as secondary sources is irrelevant to this problem). Mikiso Hane's book, if he gets his information from Miller's book review, is what I like to call a "quaternary source". Hane is not a literary scholar, and as far as I am aware he is unknown in the community of Man'yōshū scholars; your placing him above Donald Keene, until his 2011 retirement the dean of western study of Japanese literature, is laughable.
 * The reason why Yamanoe no Okura was called Korean is because that is how both Hane and Miller describe him. You are ignoring me -- I said that the sources described him as "a Korean poet" (i.e., an adjective describing a poet who originated in the Korean Peninsula) but your text described him as "a Korean living in Japan" (i.e., a noun describing someone who had Korean, not Japanese, "citizenship" [sic] and resided in Japan). Your now going back and saying "he was called Korean" is a gross misunderstanding of the concern I expressed, that he was called a Korean.
 * The idea that calling him Korean is racist is purely your personal opinion. Curtis, if "Curtis Naito" is your real name (I can't think of any famous fictional character or the like you would borrow it from), then is it safe to assume you are an American/English/Australian or some other Anglosphere nationality of Japanese ancestry? "Curtis" is an almost non-existent given name in Japan, and "Naito" is a Japanese surname, so I would guess you are at least nisei. Most English-speaking countries (i.e., countries where "Curtis" is a common given name) have some form of jus soli nationality law, meaning you would possess the citizenship of that country in which you were born, not the country from which your ancestors emigrated. For the purpose of this analogy, I will assume you are a second-generation Japanese-American, meaning that your father and mother were born in Japan but you were born in the United States. Now, if I were to insist that you are "a Japanese living in America" based on your name, physical appearance or ancestry, calling me "borderline racist" would be mild. What you and TH1980 have been doing to Okura is no different.
 * Surely Hane and Miller would not have called him Korean if they thought that was racist. I have already told you that when Miller uses this language he is using scholarly shorthand. Per WP:NOTJOURNAL we are not supposed to use academic shorthand that will be misunderstood by our non-specialist readers. As for Hane -- I don't want to talk to you about him anymore. He is an obscure quaternary source who was apparently being misrepresented on the article, and we have dozens of much better sources already quoted on the talk page and on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura. I don't know what Hane thought was racist, or what he thought about the Okura Toraijin Theory; from what you have told me, he got what he knew of it from Miller's very brief coverage of it in his review of a different book.
 * There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia merely following along with the scholarly convention. Again, see above: if scholars use scholarly shorthand, and explain (in the cited works or elsewhere in their writings) that this is scholarly shorthand and means something different from when normal folks use these words, then per WP:NOTJOURNAL we are supposed to translate what those scholars say into everyday English. When you say "merely following along with the scholarly convention", you appear to mean "cherry-pick and expand on quotes from scholars to make points that they themselves never did". This is most certainly not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * The text in question was an accurate reflection of Miller's views because Miller does clearly say that Yamanoe no Okura was Korean and Miller does clearly indicate that his poetry represents a Korean influence on Japan. Again: quotes and page numbers, please! I have read Miller's excellent monograph "Yamanoe Okura, a Korean Poet in Eighth Century Japan" from start to finish, and I don't think he said that Okura's poetry represents a "Korean influence on Japan". I forget if he makes the (obvious, well-established) point that Okura was forgotten for most of history before being rediscovered in the twentieth century, though. You are taking another, shorter essay in which Miller (diligently performing his duty as a book reviewer) discussed a few of the good points of Kato's book, the problems with Kato's book (of which his coverage of Okura is one) and the problems with the translation, and twisting it to say what you want it to when the same author has been much clearer and more thorough elsewhere.
 * It's possible that the text did not accurately reflect Hijiri's personal opinions, but it did accurately reflect both Hane and Miller. Please stop talking about Hane. As for Miller -- it did not.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you still haven't provided any actual evidence that Miller used the word "Korean" as "scholarly shorthand". Miller doesn't say that and there is no evidence for it. I don't think it's useful to make such speculations about what might have been going on in Miller's mind. When Miller uses the word "Korean" there is no reason why we can't also. We need to focus on what Miller actually wrote, not on what he didn't write, and the text being inserted into the article did accurately represent what Miller wrote. Like Miller says on page 776, "Japanese scholars have made important progress in identifying the seminal contributions of Korean immigrants, and of Korean literary culture as brought to Japan by the early Korean diaspora from the Old Korean kingdoms, to the formative stages of early Japanese poetic art, in particular to the Manyoshu. In this connection, the reevaluation of the oeuvre of Yamanoe Okura, now generally believed by many Japanese literary scholars to have been of Korean, and specifically of Paekche, immigrant origin, is especially important..." Hane's book, which is a secondary source, concurs with this.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went back and re-read the first six or seven pages of Miller 1984, and couldn't find the discussion of the problematic nature of using modern country names to refer to collections of independent kingdoms and/or chiefdoms in the distant past that happened shared some kind of cultural/linguistic/ethnic identity with each other and (debatably) with the modern countries that use those names. If I was misattributing this statement to Miller I apologize, but we certainly don't need sources that independently testify to this fact -- it is common scholarly sense. Miller never said once in the six or seven pages I reread that Okura was "a Korean who lived in Japan" -- he never in fact once used the word "Korean" as a noun to refer to a person, only to the language. And then, why are you bringing Miller into this in the first place? Miller was never cited in the article? Also, I reread the first few pages of Ledyard 1975 -- the main source for the Covells, on whose work the original draft of our still-pretty-horrendous article was based -- he quotes (220, note 9) a different review by Miller of Egami's original horserider theory book in which Miller compares the theory to the Ancient Aliens hypothesis; and (226, note 20) he says some interesting things about the Gwanggaeto Stele that I'm sure would cause our Korean ultranationalist Wikipedian friends to burn him in effigy.
 * Anyway, can this thread be closed now? The page doesn't need protecting. I need a fish thrown at me for violating 3RR. You and TH1980 need to be warned that you cannot edit war to include unsourced claims and/or OR in the mainspace. Nishidani needs a pat on the back for his insightful comment below. 'Nuff said.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I brought Miller into it because you kept on claiming that the Hane source was being misrepresented. However, the Miller source which Hane cites confirms in greater detail everything which was put into the article. Although it never at any time seemed likely that the Hane source was being misrepresented, comparing it with the Miller source leaves no doubt that it was not being misrepresented in any way. Even now you are still falsely claiming that TH1980 and I were including "unsourced claims" in the article. TH1980 and I were both using reliable sources to make accurate statements. You, however, not only edit warred in order to remove reliably sourced information, but you then proceeded to delete the reliably sourced information in favor of a completely and entirely unsourced statement.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it is not at all clear that Miller uses the word "Korean" only to refer to a language. He mentions "the seminal contributions of Korean immigrants, and of Korean literary culture as brought to Japan by the early Korean diaspora from the Old Korean kingdoms, to the formative stages of early Japanese poetic art, in particular to the Manyoshu. In this connection, the reevaluation of the oeuvre of Yamanoe Okura, now generally believed by many Japanese literary scholars to have been of Korean, and specifically of Paekche, immigrant origin, is especially important". In the last case especially, "Paekche" is not a language so here he is definitely not using the word "Korean" to refer exclusively to a language.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Curtis, learn to speak frickin' English. I said the noun "Korean" refers only to the language when Miller uses it to refer to the eighth century. I don't know why you haven't been blocked for these CIR issues yet. And Hane was the source -- just because you checked Hane and found out what source he used, doesn't change the fact that the source being cited in the article (and the source you keep trying to argue is an important, critical source on the history of early Japanese literature) was a general historical survey by Hane. You and TH1980 have been abusing generally reliable sources (a tertiary historical review that says almost nothing about the topic and a scholarly book review that says almost as little) in order to make them say what you want them to say. I have pointed out (about a dozen times by now) that what you want the article to say is not what your "sources" say, and therefore your claims are unsourced and I am free to remove them from the article per WP:BURDEN. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You both are confusing the function of this page. Please desist. Hijiri edit warred, as did Curtis Naito, the latter with a particularly incompetent, indeed, stupid revert in support of another indifferent editor's original proposal.
 * The original edit, and
 * the same author's subsequent revivals of it here and here of Hijiri's removal were dumb, reflecting the editor's ignorance.


 * Curtis Naito waited, and stepped in to approve of the initial error, when Hijiri had made three reverts. Hijiri made his 4th revert, and
 * Curtis reverted him again, restoring a patently dopey statement.
 * So Hijiri broke the 3R rule, while TH1980 and CurtisNaito provocatively edited in 5 times - by the looks of it Curtis Naito taggteamed to push Hijiri - a nonsensical nationalistic statement which distorts the sources used.
 * Yamanoue no Okura was not 'a Korean who lived in Japan'. He was the descendent of a Kudara refugee who fled to Yamato after that country was destroyed in a conflict involving Yamato, Kudara, Silla, and T'ang Dynasty China (source Nakanishi). Yamanoue grew up, from age 3, in Yamato. To call him a 'Korean living in Japan' is conceptually as stupid as calling Gary Shteyngart a 'Russian who lives in the United States', or Raul Hilberg an Austrian who lived in the United States, or Vladimir Nabokov ' a Russian who lived in the United States', or Saul Bellow a 'Canadian who lived in the United States'. Hijiri knows that, as it is commonsense. Neither TH1980 nor CurtisNaito understand the obvious. They kept within the 3R limit, but while sanctioning Hijiri, and admin should take severe action against the other two, esp. CurtisNaito who has a reputation for being impossible to reason with. He certainly shouldn't be editing articles on ancient Japan. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Nishidani: Just a little nitpick -- technically, I went a little further over 3RR than you think, and TH1980 violated it too (though not as much as me). If we include my last edit (a borderline "revert") then I reverted five times in a 24-hour period, and TH1980 four (you seem to only be thinking of the Okura reverts, but there were also the gugyeol reverts before that). CurtisNaito only reverted twice but his actions (tagging and reporting me and not TH1980 when, at the time, the latter had violated 3RR and I had not) and the obvious wikilawyering (baiting me into violating 3RR when I had not done so already, when TH1980 already had done so, and the fact that it took him three minutes just to inform me that this thread was open but it only took him seventeen to put together a very complex EW report implies he was already preparing this one-sided EW report before I had even done so) are a problem. Both TH1980 and CurtisNaito have made talk page discussion difficult (TH1980 over the past two days, CurtisNaito I just know from past experience will make talk page discussion difficult). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I doubt anyone is reading this, because it has the appearance of a dog's fleafight over a disputed patch of galactic milk in Ïhātobu:) There's almost nothing to discuss: you broke 3R, User:TH1980 broke 3R, and CurtisNaito, the chief mischief maker, since he helped a 3R reverter while not reporting him, to corner you, so that he could report you, is trying to game the system to get rid of an editor. As I said, his presence is a disaster on all articles on ancient Japan where I have noted him. But that doesn't excuse your own error. CurtiusNaito is in his rights to make this report. But by doing so, given the evidence, he has no grounds to protest if an admin takes a WP:Boomerang reading of his own execrable judgement here (and elsewhere: I avoid him like the plague after Talk:Soga–Mononobe conflict and a few other pages (Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture where I showed he consistently cites sources he either hasn't read, or can't construe correctly; and here where it was almost impossible without inhuman degrees of scholarly commitment to get him to see the obvious).Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Maurice Flesier reported by User:Anastan (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 660621833 by Anastan (talk) No concensus yet!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 660619347 by Zoupan (talk) No any concensus!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 660612708 by Zoupan (talk) As İ said dozens of times,  its not a criteria."
 * 4)  "There is no any result or decision on WP:NPV!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * here
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * here
 * Comments:

User was already warned on his talkpage <font face="Perpetua" size="3"><font color="#1E90FF">Ąnαșταη (<font color="#1E90FF">ταlκ )  19:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maurice Flesier was previously known as User:Maurice07. Whoever closes this might also look at
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive148
 * There is also an entry for Maurice07 in WP:RESTRICT. If a block is the right course of action here, perhaps it should be indefinite, given the wording of the note at WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's looking like a long (if not indefinite) block would be appropriate, but I'd like to see what Maurice says first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I know at least one instance where Maurice had been forgiven for making 4 reverts.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – I've gone ahead with the block as proposed above since there has been no response from User:Maurice Flesier in the time available. This is a clear 3RR violation on an article lead with the apparent goal of promoting the importance of the Turkish name for this town. There is no clear answer on who is right, but his reverts are consistent with the Turkish nationalism that was evident in the AE complaints listed above, especially the one in Archive128. If he does return later and want to answer the complaint he can do so on his talk page, using the unblock template to get attention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Hernando1620 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Updated corporate management information as of 2015 as well as updated description of company.  Please don't revert back to the 2005 information as it is no longer relevant."
 * 2)  "Updated corporate management information as of 2015 as well as updated description of company.  Please don't revert back to the 2005 information as it is no longer relevant."
 * 3)  "this page was updated to reflect the current as of 2015.  Both the CEO / CFO and Chairman of the Board are updated as well as the description of the company.  The previous information was outdated (2005) and doesn't reflect the current state of company."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Neurocrine Biosciences. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Neurocrine Biosciences. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Neurocrine Biosciences. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

This user is replacing sourced content with unsourced, promotional text, despite multiple warnings. Whilst some of the information is probably factual (but unsourced), the actual main text is clearly promotional. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:91.148.76.220 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kosovo War. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Edit warring across articles <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . Tiptoety  talk 18:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to inform that another IP, in similar range is making almost identical reverts across the same articles, this IP was temp blocked on 28th April .Pincrete (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:SageRad and User:Jytdog reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: dif

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Not going to list difs here. Per the Glyphosate history SageRad started editing there May 4 and added a bunch of unsourced/badly sourced content.  I have been edit warring with him. We have both gone over 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link


 * Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Glyphosate
 * Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on user talk page: diff

Comments:

New editor to the topic, has been attempting to add badly sourced content about glyphosate and gut bacteria to Monsanto and glyphosate articles, and other badly or unsourced content to glyphosate article, per his contribs. Is possibly related to matters discussed here at Science-Based Medicine about rumors swirling in the internet about glyphosate causing autism by messing with gut bacteria, but that has not surfaced yet. Am just asking for the article to protected while we try to resolve sourcing and content issues. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC) (striking Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC))


 * Comment - not listing difs suggests there is more going on here - this is not a clear revert war. SageRad is using peer-reviewed sources, engaging on the talk page, and has modified his additions as he learns more about WP. Speculation about possible unstated motivation is uncalled for and does not assume good faith. Dialectric (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * it is obvious at a glance that both SageRad and I have surpassed 3RR. There is no point listing it. you are right about speculation about motivation. have struck that. thanks for pointing that out. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, i would disagree with this assessment [by Jytdog above, as i posted at same time as new comment by Dialectric, and thank you for this comment]. Subtle things happened, and i do not think there was a case of more than two reversions on any single point. There is serious discussion going on in the talk section. The quality of my sourcing is varied and i am learning guidelines about this, but i think that some of the allegations by Jytdog are not accurate or fair. The allegation by some weak form of association to the Science-Based Medicine website in the previous comment here is out of line and ridiculous. I am seeking to have the page on glyphosate represent the basic science about glyphosate accurately. That is all. I am passionate about truth, and i think there is more to the story than is reported on the page, but i am not there with an agenda except that of reflecting truth as best we know it, based on sources that are reliable. I will be holding off and moving more slowly and getting further understanding about Wikipedia process, but i do have a sense that there is a sort of opposition to simple factual edits that is not quite unbiased here. That's my gut speaking. But i'm going to hold off, and use sources as solid as i can find in any future edits, and take more time. I do want to feel that transparency and unbiased seeking for truth is the basis of the page. SageRad (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SageRad sorry about speculating about your motivation but your insistence on adding unsourced and badly sourced content about this is... weird. As I have asked you before, please slow down.  Let's talk about things on the talk page instead of yanking the article around. OK?  and you have to start citing sources. You cannot keep doing this and then restoring the unsourced content. even if you leave long notes on a talk page about it like this. We are not about TruthTM here, we are about verifiability. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted and thanks. The first edit you show there is 8 April, and i had totally forgotten ever making that change. I came across the article again and noticed that there was the claim that the shikimic acid pathway is not in animals, and i again edited it in the same way as the first time on 8 April, but not remembering that i had even done that the first time. So, these are separate incidents. I also take exception if you are claiming that all my sources have been bad. I am slowed down, if you haven't noticed. I'm on the talk boards but not making edits at this point. SageRad (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mostly bad, not all bad. and much unsourced. and if you brought the same assumptions about editing in Wikipedia to the shikimate pathway article the 2nd time as you did the 1st time, it means you still are not taking WP:VERIFY] and WP:OR seriously.  You need to.  Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is some mighty patience by Jytdog on display at User talk:SageRad, but it's not clear that the message about how to use sources for biohealth content is registering with SageRad (or Dialectric). I hope that protecting the article will be enough to allow time for SageRad to digest sourcing guidelines.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I read a message to the effect that medical claims are subject to a stricter standard than other claims about the natural sciences, but i disagree that general ecological facts about glyphosate are within the medical field. The title of the page to which you link is "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)". SageRad (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – Three days. On a topic like this you would assume there are huge numbers of primary sources. There needs to be some discussion as to which ones are important enough to merit inclusion, and on whether WP:MEDRS applies. Anything involving Monsanto on Wikipedia risks turning into a large-scale edit war unless the parties use good judgment. I don't think either SageRad or Jytdog were setting a good example here on how to edit a hot topic. Although it's cute that Jytdog reports himself for 3RR it does seem close to gaming. The purpose seems to be to incriminate the other person. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Revised my comment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * hell no. i edit warred right next to him. if he got blocked i should have too. i wanted page protection and that is all i asked for. i'm unhappy about your statement to the point where i am asking you to strike it. would you please?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "See i have trying to talk with you and have been reverting your (policy-violating) edits - and thus edit warrring myself, which is why i filed the case against both of us.''
 * This suggests that your own reverts might have been intended to encourage the other party to go over the 3RR limit and thus expose themself to sanctions. The option of staying within 3RR was open to you, but you didn't take it. The alternative to my full protection would have been to block both you and SageRad. SageRad has the excuse of being new, but your excuse is not evident. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Revised my comment. EdJohnston (talk)
 * Actually examining the discussions, it's pretty clear Jytdog was trying to work with SageRad. Considering this is a new editor, would the better option to have been to immediately report SageRad here once they crossed the 3RR line? I don't think so as it would be awfully bitey for someone who was at least talking and trying to learn the ropes rather than back and forth edit warring only. That's why I didn't report them after I left the template on their page.


 * When a new editor is edit warring and not following 3RR, you either have the option of stopping your edits and letting the new editor make whatever edits they want or continuing to work through with them if it seems they are learning if you want to avoid admin action to give the new editor some space to learn. Right around the time 3RR was passed, that seemed to be the better approach since it wasn't apparent the edit warring would continue to that degree, but the new editor continued having problems later on. For those who don't read the conversation in context at each given moment in time, hindsight bias can be an issue here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , again, would you please reconsider the claims you have made about me? Thanks. sorry to push on this but i have too many haters saying too many nasty things about me, to not respond to this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:306:3644:13A0:FCCE:7B75:495D:D057 reported by User:MrX (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "corrected inaccurate information"
 * 2)  "remove politically biased statements"
 * 3)  "remove opinionated (non-factual) and biased material"
 * 4)  "remove opinionated material from politically biased sources"
 * 5)  "remove opinionated, non-factual material from politically biased sources"
 * 6)  "correct false information and remove opinionated material from biased sources"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The wikipedia entry on Pamela Geller contains opinionated material supported by politically biased sources (SPLC and Huffington Post). Judicious edits were made to remove the opinionated (non-factual) material.
 * Comments:

This user continues to revert the edits instead of discussing on the talk page. He or she does not appear to be interested in reaching a consensus. Agtx (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected three weeks by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:182.228.196.32 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Edit-warring advisory, please discuss at the appropriate Talk page instead of reverting"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Meaningless Sentence */ removed"


 * Comments:
 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks. An IP is warring to add incomprehensible text to the article: "That extra shooting people 2,000 this movie and the 1800 cars has completed shooting in two days of shooting on the highway that has not been opened were mobilized." EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Classical_library reported by User:Afterwriting (Result: blocked for 72 hours for edit warring)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This editor has been constantly removing information and / or edit warring (with some highly offensive comments about "gay agendas" and false accusations of vandalism) with myself and a number of other editors in the past two weeks over the issue of Seraphim Rose's alleged homosexuality as a young man as contained in a book written by his niece Cathy Scott and cited on a university website. This matter has been discussed on the talk page and there has been no consensus for removing this information, merely assertions by "Classical library" that the information is both false and improperly sourced.

Please Note: This editor has previously been using the IP addresses User:69.123.166.90 and User:96.246.94.117 but is now editing with the user name User:Classical_library. The same kind of incivil comments can be found on the IP talk pages as well as the user name talk page and the article talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please be advised that this user and two others, "Anglicanus" and "Ecjmartin" have blatantly pursued an unethical pattern of aggressive activity in attempting to impose their personal ideological views on the content of said article Seraphim Rose, which include repeated acts of malicious edit warring, gratuitous reverts (note several instances of his reverting back to an obviously inferior photo which obscures half the subject's face), as well as leaving multiple harassing, threatening, and otherwise uncivil personal messages at talk pages, all while eschewing proper consensus through discussion and mediation. In this way, they continually abuse WP by frivolously and disingenuously invoking protocol to enforce their own narrow agenda, and by lodging user complaint without pursuing proper redress via discussion of the clearly substantive issues raised in talk, which these users have dismissed with insults and hand-waiving rhetoric and innuendo, as is clearly evident from a perusal of the remarks published by Anglicanus to date in connection with this dispute. Additionally, user makes false allegations regarding multiple IP addresses in an attempt to subvert concuss and discussion vis-à-vis the disputed passages by prejudicing WP admins. There was one IP address change and it was due to the fact that my internet service was recently switched from Optimum to Verizon, subsequently causing an automatic change in IP address, which could not have been avoided and is no evidence of any untoward editorial activity or intent. I further submit that reverting obvious attempts at unjustified edit warring by Anglicanus and Afterwriting in violation of WP:NPOV, such as was done in this case, constitutes an valid exemption of the 3R rule. By no means have I employed any other IP addresses in performing edits to the article in question than the ones I specifically disclosed in my previous comment, and then only due to the unavoidable change in service. There is nothing malicious afoot on my part. Anglicanus and Afterwriting are egregiously pursuing a literal "holy war" to impose their own views on the content of this article in the teeth of the complete and conspicuous absence of any rhyme or reason to do so, as is evident in the frivolous and harassing comments left at my user page and at the talk page for the article. Observe in one place how Anglicanus responds to the catalogue of meticulously articulated concerns regarding the disputed material posted for the purpose of conducting a substantive discussion at the talk page:


 * Please desist from your constant sinful words and actions. Anglicanus (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC


 * At his own talk page, moreover, user "Afterwriting" openly acknowledges his personal commitment to the malicious campaign of complaints and repeated edits he's pursued in connection with the present editing conflict, irrespective of any critical considerations which might militate against his position regarding the disputed material, which he summarily dismisses without any hint of rebuttal or discussion in preference to his ideological predilections, unilaterally imposed in violation of WP protocol.


 * In this vein, he writes:


 * ''I perfectly understand, Ecjmartin. Editing Wikipedia can be a considerably stressful activity at times. One of the principal reasons I edit Wikipedia is in response to its misuse by editors such as our IP friend who are actually driven by their own personal agendas. I will on keep reverting any attempted removal or censorship of the disputed allegations / information. I will also disengage from any further attempts at "discussion" with the IP as it is totally pointless with such people. I will, however, instead just report the IP for edit warring and incivility if this continues (which I expect it will). All the best to you and to your wife. Afterwriting (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * At his talk page, Ecjmartin makes the following remarks:


 * Thanks. I've been busy with other projects, and haven't had as much time to "keep watch" on this page as I used to! I appreciate your bringing this to my attention, and also the efforts which you made yourself to keep that page neutral. I left a comment on the talk page for that article, and I'll be paying more attention to it in future. As a former Orthodox Christian who was once just like the person involved in this dispute (and just btw: many if not most Orthodox aren't like this person at all!), I know very intimately where that person is coming from—and I will do everything I can to fight his/her approach, in this or any article. Again, thanks for your efforts, and for letting me know about this. Cheers!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do these comments sound to anyone like the words of those seeking to exercise a conscientiously neutral editing approach grounded in a robust commitment to objectivity and a zealous compliance with standards set forth under WP:COI and WP:NPOV? Afterwriting, Ecjmartin, and Anglicanus clearly have an axe to grind.


 * To date, I have invoked nothing but critical arguments based on the universally accepted canon of logic and evidence in support of the current revision. In stark contrast, he three aforementioned users pursuing blatant edit-war in violation of WP protocal (Anglicanus, Afterwriting, and Ecjmartin) have conspicuously failed (refused rather) to address in a substantive way any of the multiple concerns enumerated in talk disputing previous revisions of the article. Classical library (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is that the passage in dispute does not entail straightforward facts about the subject's life, is of an obviously salacious and sensationalistic nature, is novel, lacks topical relevancy to all but those few readers who might approve of its apparent ideological or propaganda value, and perhaps most troubling of all, cannot be independently corroborated and lacks support from any other credible source, while being at odds with the acknowledged major biographical work on the subject, one which eminent religious scholar and Professor emeritus Houston Smith once called "one of the most important books of the last quarter century"


 * ref:(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0938635522?ie=UTF8&isInIframe=1&n=283155&redirect=true&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#iframe-wrapper Classical library (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyone reading the so-called "discussion" by Classical library on the article talk page (as well as the edit summaries) will clearly see that this is very obviously the same editor as the two IPs. At least four editors in the past two weeks have restored a version of the material which is being removed, not just me and Anglicanus. Afterwriting (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There were two IP's used in total because there was a sudden unexpected change in internet service, from Optimum to Verizon. In addition, I am a relatively untutored WP user and have consequently experienced some confusion in creating an account and properly signing talk posts.  Users are pursuing ideology driven agenda to publish spurious assertions of conspicuously dubious relevancy under the guise of straightforward established facts.  To this end they have eschewed reasoned discussion toward possible consensus and pursued a strategy of vilification and abuse, issuing in harassing messages, blatant malicious edit warring, and frivolous user complaints based on false allegations and other statements deliberately intended to obfuscate and otherwise suppress critical issues under discussion in Talk.Classical library (talk)
 * Please discuss things without resorting to rantings, accusations and incivility. Everything you accuse others of more accurately describes your own editing behaviour. But at least you now admit that the two IP addresses were actually used by you (something you have been denying elsewhere). Afterwriting (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I have never attempted to conceal any kind of illicit activity, and have also never deliberately engaged in the same. You on the contrary have refused to address any of the multiple concerns I've raised in connection with the spurious assertions included in the subject article, while pursuing an aggressive edit war in an attempt to unilaterally and zealously impose your personal bias on a matter of substantial controversy by fiat and outside the aegis of WP consensus. By "ranting" I suppose you mean to refer to the act of enumerating arguments and evidence which, for entirely illegitimate reasons unrelated to soundness and cogency, you don't care to take into consideration in prosecuting your editorial preferences.Classical library (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can explain to us how this edit summary comment, in which you claim that "Allegations of homosexuality have been drawn from questionable sources, have never been adequately substantiated, and constitute a deplorable act of slander against a holy personage. The gay fascist wiki editor patrolling here needs to get a life!" does not constitute ranting, personal bias and considerable incivility? Afterwriting (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC


 * This is a obviously a heated dispute involving a long history of multiple parties attempting to commandeer control of the narrative through dishonest means, including yourself. That there should be occasional lapses of civility in such affairs, while unfortunate and ought not to be condoned, is nevertheless rightly to be expected. In this connection, the author can at least retain the distinction of making an honest attempt to suppress personal feelings in subsequent exchanges to pursue the question in a rational and formal manner, setting aside any such personal feelings in deference to the recognized canons of honest thought and inquiry and the imperatives of WP protocol. This is in stark contrast to both yourself and user Anglicanus (and to a lesser extent user Ecjmartin), who by the strict evidence of the record have thus far engaged in a uniform and consistent campaign to assert authority over the contents of the article independently of discussion and in a spirit of personal antagonism, as expressed in the complete lack of engagement with the substantive issues of the dispute as presented in Talk coupled with the posting of contentious user reports (and threats of the same), and various Talk messages of a harassing, unproductive, and brazenly frivolous nature.  In the notable absence of any compelling argument to support inclusion of said material in accordance with your established editorial preference, you and others have resorted to edit-warring and petty squabbling over peripheral matters bearing no remote relevance to the resolution of the stated dispute, and this, in a clear attempt at suppression and censorship which flies in the face of the most basic ideals of the free expression and exchange of thought and ideas embodied by Wikipedia itself.  Clearly, such cannot--and should not-- be permitted to stand.

Classical library (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your "gay fascist" comment was not made in response to any provocation from me or any of the other two editors you want to accuse. They were made in response to two reversions of your removal of the information about the homosexuality allegations by I dream of horses after you had first removed the information with the following edit summaries:
 * 1. "Cleaned up typos and other minor errors."
 * 2. "Cleaned up small errors.'"
 * Please explain how your removal of the disputed information is only a matter of "typos and other minor errors". Afterwriting (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to do that, just as soon as you can explain precisely how you propose to justify persisting in a contentious edit-war over demonstrably spurious content whose inclusion has been duly disputed in accordance with WP rules (with clearly articulated grounds carefully elaborated along several independent lines), while refusing to address any of the multiple critical issues raised in Talk and pursuing a frivolous user complaint intended to suppress and censor views that don't jibe with your ideological commitments.Classical library (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How about you explain your dishonest edit summaries without avoiding the issue by making further accusations? Anyone who is interested in comparing your comments with others involved in this dispute only has to visit the article's talk page in order to see who is most at fault in not following Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. Afterwriting (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your most recent post is merely the latest iteration of your ongoing attempt to obfuscate the real issue at hand by bogging the entire conversation down in quibbles and other forms of misdirection. Are you suggesting that the edit summaries you cite somehow furnish adequate grounds for the blatant edit-warring you subsequently engaged in while misusing the talk page to harass and intimidate those striving to undertake the serious critical discussion which you've so far studiously ignored, rejecting WP's established policy of editing through discussion and consensus in preference to the fascist totalitarian tactics of quick and dirty suppression and censorship?  The material in question is based on a source which is demonstrably problematic (unless one takes the inane position that everything which appears in a published form must ipso facto be well founded, credible, true, or worthy of being critically regarded as such on its own singular weight), besides lacking relevance or any meaningful connection with subject matter as a whole.  In view of these, and other facts outlined in the talk section of the article, insistence on its continued inclusion can scarcely be defended on any but ideological grounds.
 * Congratulations on managing to find yet another way of accusing other editors of being "fascist". I note, however, that there is only one editor involved in this dispute whose tactics involve "blatant edit-warring" and "quick and dirty suppression and censorship" and it is not me or the others you keep being grossly uncivil about. Other editors will also be easily able to see who has actually been involved in seeking consensus on the talk page and who has not. Afterwriting (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are confused and sorely mistaken. Reversing edits undertaken exclusively for the purpose of subverting a particular revision that has been furnished extensive critical support at Talk, or in the pursuit of some other patently abusive or vandalous end in the complete absence of any additional discussion of a substantiating nature, is neither "edit-warring" nor "censorship".  It's called responsible editing and protecting a public source of information from the depredations of brazen totalitarian ideologues masquerading as honest critics and intellectual curators.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical library (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this some kind of attempt at ironic humour? All you are doing is being hoisted by your own petard. You repeatedly accuse other editors of exactly what you are doing yourself. This is beyond absurd. Afterwriting (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For someone who is very fond of accusing other editors of conflict of interest editing, perhaps you can also explain this comment which you have made on the article's talk page:


 * "Indeed, we can not say that Eugene Rose was a homosexual and I am here sitting at the Hermitage computer to prove it and tell you all this is so. Will the next step be to proclaim Blessed Seraphim the Patron Saint of Gays? I'm sorry folks - this book just doesn't work."


 * Please explain to us how this comment is not a declaration of your own conflict of interest in editing this article and why you should not be blocked from editing it. Afterwriting (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an utterly false and baseless charge. The preceding isn't my comment all, a fact was made crystal clear in the body of the message, which has been deliberately italicized to separate it out from the surrounding section, and which included all headers and source info demonstrating provenance of the message. The link to the website where it has been published and where it clearly appears under another name was also clearly provided.

This was a quotation taken from one of a number of online forum posts by a person named Lawrence Williams (formerly of Etna, CA, now deceased), who knew Seraphim Rose directly, and whose comments and personal knowledge of the subject are directly relevant to the the matter under dispute.

The COI tag attached to this article by Afterwriting reflects an obvious error and should therefore be removed immediatelyClassical library (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I now realise that in my most recent comments above that I incorrectly thought that "Classical library" had made the quoted comments. This is not too surprising, however, considering that he is frequently making substantial changes to comments which he originally made a week or more ago. I read the quoted comment in a recent diff of one of these edits to an older edit which made it appear that it was actually made by him. The COI tag is still valid and is not being removed. Afterwriting (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The comment in question can be verified as belonging to a deceased person, Fr. Lawrence Williams of Etna, CA, who's website called "Fr. Seraphim Hermitage" and previously linked as a source in a previous revision of the WP article on Fr. Seraphim, appeared at http://www.sisqtel.net/~williams/

Furthermore, there was a link provided to the comment in question which shows that it was posted under the name of the preceding in 2003. This COI tag should have been removed yesterday. Please make the necessary revision forthwithClassical library (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:Classical library has made enough reverts to justify a block for WP:3RR, when we include edits made by their IP. The might avoid a block if they will promise to make no further reverts until they get consensus on the talk page. Since the article subject died 40 years ago the rules of WP:BLP don't apply, though WP:V still does. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:V does not provide for the gratuitous publishing of any and all outlandish assertions made in connection with a particular person, whether living or dead. Encyclopedic articles which serve as public sources of information to be constrained by due concern for proper relevancy and sourcing of content, and a reliance on straightforward verifiable facts, not innuendo or salacious and sensationalistic rumors and assertions which preclude public authentication. Reverts were made in good faith after pursuing proper redress through Talk, which has been studiously ignored by several users there (Anglicanus, Afterwriting, and Ecjmartin) who are engaging in a one sided edit-war in violation of WP:NPOV, and who have worked to block consensus by attempting to impose their own editorial preferences on the article without first providing any reasonable critical basis to do so in talk. Please be advised as to the true nature of the situation, thereforeClassical library (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any unbiased editor reading the talk page should be able to quickly see that your comments are untrue. The only person blatantly ignoring an appropriate discussion process is yourself. Afterwriting (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:GageSkidmore reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "FYI, WP:3RR requires 4 reversions within 24 hours, revert once more and you have violated 3RR. also feel free to point to any policy against your claim of self promotion"
 * 2)  "also seems to be a violation of WP:HOUNDING"
 * 3)  "not when it's a better photo, will take to WP:3RR"
 * 4)  "are you serious?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on John Popper. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Images */ Images"
 * 2)   "/* May 2015 */ BRD"


 * Comments:

Gage has been edit warring over the infobox image - He's been reuploading images and been adding his name to the end of them which is as far as I'm aware a violation of WP:SELFPROMOTION, I've attempted to discuss the issues and even made him aware of BRD but he's refusued to talk so here we are, – Davey 2010 Talk 00:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging, , who have all had issues with his uploads. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 3RR requires reversion of four or more edits within 24 hours, this does not exist. Discussion exists on the talk page for the article, reporter did not engage in that discussion. Clear violation of WP:HOUNDING, in which the user deliberately went through and reverted about 20 edits, this being the only one I took issue with because the image is clearly better. User claims I am violating Wikipedia policy by "self promoting," I have asked the user to point to this policy, but since it does not exist they have not done so. WP:SELFPROMOTION makes no mention of this. Also seems to have some serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Gage (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope it doesn't - Just reverting twice is edit warring - Exactly it exists on your talkpage yet you have failed to even bother replying which clearly indicates you have far better things to do like edit war than have a civilised convo over it, I reverted 20 or so because I believed you were and still are violating selfpromo but that's not hounding you in the slightest, "OWNERSHIP issues" is just bs. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is WP:3RR, I did not violate 3RR. Still have not received answer regarding what policy I am violating by your claim of "self promotion." WP:HOUNDING seems to clearly describe your recent editing behavior, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I stand by WP:OWNERSHIP claim as well. Gage (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3RR as MrX has said is a brightline but doesn't mean you should reach it, I explained the selfpromo above, I reverted 20 or so of the images and since then have not followed you anywhere so no I maintain I wasn't HOUNDING you at all, The OWNERSHIP issues is crap and I think you're looking for excuses now ..... – Davey 2010 Talk 01:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Awaiting policy statement regarding self promotion. Rejection of wrongdoing on your part is very childish of you. Gage (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look right above you, Oh dear petty insults!, See this is the part where I usually get frustrated and write some expletives but meh you're not even worth it, I sharn't be replying unless you have something sensible to say!. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like your reason for reverting 20+ articles and violating WP:HOUNDING does not exist. Gage (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your last edit summary strongly suggests that you are trying to WP:GAME the system by staying just this side of the bright line. Although not within the purview of this board, you need to learn to cooperate with other editors and that includes consistently using edit summaries.- MrX 01:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned this board is for edit warring, not just 3R violations, so edit warring, if that's what's been happening, is certainly actionable following a report here. I can't follow up on it right now, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would argue that Davey2010 is the one that is edit warring. Gage (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see my discussion with editor Stemoc, in which I make my argument that his edits relative to 's edits were WP:HOUNDING. As far as I'm concerned,  continued the same activity after  at least temporarily withdrew from it.  Whether or not Gage's re-uploading and re-linking of his images with different names was advisable, it was not vandalism, did not violate any policy I've been able to find and should not have been reverted en masse as both editors seemed to be doing vigorously. Stemoc in particular seemed to have nothing but contempt for the established process for addressing this kind of dispute. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"><font color="#006633">Dwpaul  <font color="#000666">Talk   01:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I, nor Davey2010, nor MrX are belligerents in edit warring. I completely agree with Davey2010's insinuation: Perhaps you aren't breaking the letter of the regulations here, but you are violating the spirit of them. He doesn't cooperate with other editors, he doesn't respond to talk page posts, requests, etc. His edits, especially with self-promoting pictures, do not add to the quality of the articles. He removes sections, he has done that before. He doesn't use discussion, seek consensus, or describe his edits. How do I know why he did an edit without it? Its not like he's new, its not like he hasn't been politely asked. I know he reads the talk page, because for Carly Fiorina presidential campaign, 2016, I told him he should make transparent his version of her campaign logo, and guess what? It happened. Even if no rules are being explicitly broken, it games the system, and frustrates other editors who follow protocol, style, and gentlemanly cooperation.  Spartan 7W   §  02:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally don't believe I was hounding but if others believe I was than I apologize for that - I never once said this was vandalism tho?, I said it was selfpromoting which I still believe it is. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether it is true or not, there is no policy against self promotion. You linked a completely unrelated policy. Gage (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also we better go through and remove every photo with "by David Shankbone" in the title. Gage (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If your name is in the description box and the link goes to the image then why selfpromote?, There's no need too ...., Yeah lets do that shall we. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Lack of necessity of their edits (in your opinion) is not valid grounds for mass reversion of another editor. If it was, there'd be a whole lot more of it. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"><font color="#006633">Dwpaul  <font color="#000666">Talk   02:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You clearly missed my point in mentioning vandalism. Obvious vandalism is the only circumstance in which an editor should summarily and instantly revert multiple of another editor's edits on sight.  You did not say Gage's edits were vandalism, but you behaved as if you thought they were (when they were not). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"><font color="#006633">Dwpaul  <font color="#000666">Talk   02:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also please see my discussion at the Wikimedia Commons with the Commons admin that Stemoc mentioned to me in our discussion. If I could summarize her comments, she doesn't approve of Gage's re-uploading/re-naming activity, but neither does she think that following him around and reverting all of his edits over this issue is an appropriate use of Wikipedia editors' time. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"><font color="#006633">Dwpaul  <font color="#000666">Talk   02:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The user in question is already given "attribution" on commons just like everyone else who provide their images free-of-charge to wikimedia but he also gets his own category because he has provided a lot of images but this user has a habit of thinking he OWNS pages and thus only his version which has his name should be use in article even though images from the same event with better cropping done by more experienced users such as Lady Lotus and myself are removed and replaced by his image with his added name in the image title...how exactly is that NOT SELF-PROMOTION? he previously used to add his name to the image caption on infoboxes too. I did not withdrew from his "vandalism" reverts (yes that is what they are, he is literally "spamming" wikiMedia to promote himself, in general cases we ban users who do that but he gets a lifeline cause of his contribution to commons it seems), I stopped to avoid the 3RR rule....he is also not responsive and rarely uses edit summaries to justify his edits (if there is any justification). I agree with Davey2010 on this and yes Gage, we will happily replace all of David Shankbone's images if it can be replaced by  better and/or more recent images. If we allow one user such as you this chance, all we will be left with will be people requesting that their name be attributed to the title or refuse to release their images, we do NOT want to set a precedent.. You are more than welcome to change the license of your images on flickr to a non-free one and we will no longer allow uploads from it if you are so determined to propagate your own personal interests ahead of the principles of Wikimedia... -- Stemoc 06:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stemoc and Davey. I have no problem when uploading an image by Gage to include his name in the file name but for him to go and completely upload the same exact image and everything JUST to have his name in it and on the article, I don't see that as anything other than self-promotion and unnecessary. He is given the right attribution on every file, so I see no reason to edit war over this if it's just to add his name. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 14:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Umm this could be completely unrelated here but judging by this discussion another editor here was arb-blocked for the exact same reason so If one editor was blocked for it why shouldn't this one be too ? (All for I know there could've been more issues with that user and he may of even been blocked for something totally different but thought it was worth mentioning). – Davey 2010 Talk 11:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed these comments by Commons administrator Green Giant in that very same discussion (emphasis added): "I'm not sure there is anything preventing filename changes as long as the other aspects of attribution are met, within reason. It could be argued that it is met by WPPilot's name being kept in the author line. However, I do note that there are some files where the authors name is included and it has never been questioned... So my conclusion for the first issue is that there appears to be nothing in [Commons] policies or the licenses that prevents an authors name being included in the filename." <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"><font color="#006633">Dwpaul <font color="#000666">Talk   13:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope I read his comment, Reading both discussions despite his comments there looks like there's some confusion with it all, I dunno I just thought it was worth mentioning anyway, – Davey 2010 Talk 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This complaint raises the question whether User:GageSkidmore has engaged in self-promotion by reverting to add his own photos to articles. If that's all it was, it would certainly cause concern. I read the Commons discussion that someone linked, including what User:Ellin Beltz said (in their role as a Commons administrator). The question whether the photographer's name should be in the file name is certainly one that we can leave to Commons. What we can address here is if someone is trying to force a specific result when it's evident they don't have consensus. I notice five reverts over three days by User:GageSkidmore at the John Popper article. This is, in fact, enough to bring down a verdict of edit warring. I'm leaving a note for User:GageSkidmore to see if he will agree to make no further reverts regarding the photo on that article. If so this complaint might be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the user tried to rename an image from his flickr which I uploaded last year with his name on the end which i declined. The current name of the image indicated the location where it was taken and the year and his request didn't even have a valid reason..and then he tried to replace a better image (not his) of a known actor with a pic of his which was of a poor angle..the user is intentionally trying to "enforce" his images throughout this wiki, generally we will accept it if its good but to "intentionally" upload the same image just to add their name to the image title for self-promotion is indeed not allowed on commons, as i said above and on my talk page, this is a commons issue but since its been brought here, it may as well be solved here...The MAIN problem apart from the image name issue is the user's lack of understanding or possibly intentional habit of not using the edit summary to guise his edits as most users look at edit summaries to know what change was made..The user has a high edit count and nearly 6 years on the wiki so i doubt its the lack of understanding of our rules..-- Stemoc 03:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: User:GageSkidmore is warned that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if they continue the pattern of edits documented in this complaint. In particular, any warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others can be sanctioned. Continuing to revert regarding a picture where it's evident that you don't have consensus may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph A. Spadaro reported by User:12.193.233.52 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661196117 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661197079 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661196035 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661193882

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Many many more reverts than these 4, I just don't have time to add all examples
 * 1) removed: The report of the investigation was released in May 2015.  The report of the investigation was released in May 2015.

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

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

Comments:

This user has hijacked this page and it is filled with many inaccuracies. When people try to add information or edit inaccuracies, he deletes the correct information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.233.52 (talk • contribs)


 * A simple glance at the article history shows that the diffs presented are a major misrepresentation of the situation, either out of bad faith or incompetence. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out that the reporter didn't inform Joseph A. Spadaro, as they are obliged to- I informed them instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's that too. I'm getting tempted to just non-admin close this and leave a warning on the OP's talk page.  There's nothing actionable (even WP:boomerang-able), and the report was filed for the wrong reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm going to do just that, even if there's not a policy supporting it. Save the admins some work. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: (non-admin closure) No action needed. Individuals reported and reporting did not approach 3rr, report appears to be a mistake. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:M.srihari reported by User:Nick Thorne (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Nick Thorne <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  13:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Update regarding Bob Duff (Result: Article semiprotected)
Could someone look into recent activity on this case please.

2602:306:8034:C990:9832:C377:9DBE:70B2 (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: An IP had been warring to include a negative description of Bob Duff's sponsorship of a bill called SB-1. Duff is a member of the Connecticut State Senate. I semiprotected Bob Duff for two months per WP:BLP on a version of the article which doesn't contain the slanted description of this work. Editors on the talk page should try to agree on a more neutral description of SB-1 if they think it is important enough to include. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:85.211.109.208 reported by User:Yobol (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "nope, it's wrong to dismiss the entire fructose controversy and evidences of fructose's harm with a single sentence in the lead, even with A Citation (your opinion+individual citations ≠ scientic consensus)"
 * 2)  "the material is valid and supported by citations, so please don't attack it"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 661163554 by Yobol (talk) to dismiss all the studies cited in the article that do show greater harm from hfcs, with a single unnuanced sentence, makes a mockery of the article and of NPOV"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 661163403 by Yobol (talk) studies about AGEs don't need to mention hcfs; these citations are preceded by proof that hfcs has dicarbonyls, which lead to AGEs"
 * 5)  "fructose is the subject of many of the studies on this page; it is the reason so many scientists and dieticians are interested in HFCS in the first place - they certainly think it's relevant"
 * 1)  "fructose is the subject of many of the studies on this page; it is the reason so many scientists and dieticians are interested in HFCS in the first place - they certainly think it's relevant"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* HFCS no more dangerous than sucrose */ r"

Saw this all pop up on my watchlist and tried to restore most of the article to the status quo version. It looks like this IP user is still edit warring. By my count, that's at least 8 total reverts in a 24 hour period even after being warned about 3RR with additional reverts: Looks like a quick block is more warranted at this point to keep the user from reinserting content while they fail to go to the talk page to get consensus for any edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * – 48 hours. The IP wants to be sure that fructose is appropriately criticized but has never used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:MugenDarkness reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Started edit-warring immediately after release of 60-hr block and after using IP socks to continue edit-warring during the block. Please see notice on his/her block log. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 15:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Continued warring about the "15 million" claim at TVXQ. Two previous edit warring blocks since May 1. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ed for your hard work as an admin. Take care. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Biancacunha92‎ reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * 1) "Undid revision 661171965 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 2)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 3)  "←Replaced content with ' {{Infobox biography | name        = Rodrigo B'"
 * 4) {{diff2|661131092|17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "←Replaced content with ' {{Infobox football biography | name        = Rodrigo B'"
 * 5) {{diff2|661130987|17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "←Blanked the page"
 * 6) {{diff2|661130761|17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "←Blanked the page"
 * 7) {{diff2|661130655|17:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
 * 1) {{diff2|661130655|17:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""


 * Warnings


 * 1)  {{diff2|661131068|17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Rodrigo Branco. (TW)"
 * 2)  {{diff2|661131195|17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Rodrigo Branco. (TW)"
 * 3)  {{diff2|661135730|18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Talk:Rodrigo Branco. (TW)"
 * 4)  {{diff2|661172270|23:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Rodrigo Branco. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 1)  {{diff2|661135659|18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by Biancacunha92 (talk) to last revision by Fortdj33.


 * Comments:

The user is attempting to get this page deleted, for reasons that aren't entirely clear, since they kept removing their comments from my talkpage. Repeated blanking of the page, and now repeatedly adding inappropriate PRODs, despite the fact I've contested them. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * {{AN3|b| 48 hours}}. Many reverts; other problematic editing. Kuru   (talk)  02:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Thewatchfulobserver reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Someone keeps deleting accurate information"
 * 2)  "Updated Occupation"
 * 3)  "Many areas were missing from before, updated"
 * 4)
 * 1)  "Many areas were missing from before, updated"
 * 2)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "reply"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on David B. Samadi. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on David B. Samadi. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

This user keeps adding unsourced, promotional spam. After agreeing to source their edits, they still continued to add content with too few reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: There are no reverts in the last 24 hours, and there is a reasonable discussion on the user's talk page. User:Thewatchfulobserver is warned they may be blocked the next time they add unsourced material or promotional language to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:71.178.130.74 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and User_talk:71.178.130.74 "Discussions" took place primarilly on IP's talk page.

Comments:

User is repeatedly adding unsourced content. I had warned the IP about copyright violation, but it turned out to be copy/pasted from a Wikipedia mirror. The copy/pasted information was unsourced. Jim1138 (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . Clear reverts; was warned prior. Kuru   (talk)  02:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cubancigar11 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Feminism */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 661098089 by Roscelese (talk) Reinstating WP:NPOV view before this is settled. Lets discuss on talk page and not wage revert war."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 661298069 by Roscelese (talk) - Stop personally attacking me, which appears to be your 'single purpose'."
 * 4)  "Added source and expanded section. Removed personal opinion of serial abusers. Go to talk page, this is not your friend's personal blog and everyone else is not your slave forced to promote to promote your opinions."
 * 5)  "/* Feminism */ Ooh it is so much fun to quote the journals of encyclopedia. Little people won't understand the meaning of authoritative. I guess the professors and authors of book are also having only personal opinions."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Equality before the law. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)


 * Comments:
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   03:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:HENDAWG229 reported by User:herr_chagall (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Special:Diff/661017607


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:


 * Comments:

User repeatedly reverted edits on Straight Outta Compton (2015 film) by deleting verified information without substantial or convincing reasoning other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT - Special:Diff/660942955. He further pasted copyrighted material to the article, which is in violation of WP:COPYVIO - Special:Diff/661017607.

User was already warned on his talkpage but has ignored the points brought forward and responded by planning to report in turn, should the case be pursued. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I continue to revert edits made by talk because the only reference the user can give for their edits is IMDb. User is confusing this film's page (Straight Outta Compton (2015 film)), with the artist this film is about page (N.W.A). I tried to explained that the life of the artists is not being portrayed in this biopic as the life of the artist played out in real life, as the references I have provided to this user shows them. User doesn't understand that filmmakers use creativity when producing a biopic and can put in or "leave out" certain elements of an artists life. As the references I have included in the article and pointed out to this user clearly show, the sixth member of this group that they continue to try to add to the pages intro, has been significantly left out by producers of this film. I challenge this user to find one webpage or source that shows this members involvement in this film and they couldn't. As you can see on their contribution's page, it's hard for this user to take no for an answer... even when they have been proven wrong. For background on the artists depicted in this biopic, WP users can visit their WP page (N.W.A). For information about the film that dramatizes their life, their life after the sixth member left the group, WP users can visit the Straight Outta Compton (2015 film) page. And, yes, I added a quote I saw in article about the film that accurately tells the film synopsis but I thought press releases were released to the public.HENDAWG229 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User talk:HENDAWG229


 * I believe that the case is sufficiently clear, as HENDAWG229 has both admitted to deleting information in order to shape the article to his liking and to pasting copyrighted material into a WP article. He fails to understand that verified information is not affected by interpretations of facts -- in this case a biopic. To illustrate the case in point, it says in the introductory paragraph: The film revolves around the rise and fall of the Compton, California rap group N.W.A, whose members include Eazy-E, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, MC Ren and DJ Yella. The member in question, Arabian Prince, was a founding member of the group, regardless of which artistic interpretation of the band's history the movie itself pursues. Following this, he must not be left out, because it cannot be expected from a reader to check if information provided in different articles is contradictory and/or false. This was consensus among editors, if I may add. My suggestion to instead elaborate which members the film focuses on and add it to the main section of the article was declined by HENDAWG229. I am under the impression that he either hasn't fully grasped how WP editing is supposed to work, further indicated by the comments left on his talk page, or that he simply doesn't care. Another aspect to keep in mind is that the movie hasn't been released yet, so his claims are based on pure conjecture. For these reasons alone, POV pushing and information deletion is unacceptable, together with the aforementioned copyright violations, which he restored in lieu of the neutral synopsis I had written. There might even be a case of WP:SOCK, judging from the co-edits by other accounts. He remains adamant about these violations. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My information is sourced. The information this user is trying to add isn't sourced for this film. This page is about the film not the group. For example, Avengers (comics) list up to 50 past members. The film about this comic (The Avengers (2012 film)) only include the characters that are portrayed in the film. And the intro on the film's page only list the starring characters... not every member of the group being portrayed in the film. The sources to my claims that Arabian Prince is not an important fixture in this film is the film's official website, the film's official trailers, the film's official facebook page, and the fact that there is not one article on the internet, the whole internet, that states that Arabian Prince is being portrayed in this film. Just an uncredited mention on IMDb, which this WP user must not understand is not a reliable source by itself. By viewing this user's talk and contribution's pages, I can see they think they are the see all, know all about N.W.A but as they have stated themselves, the film hasn't been release yet so all we can go on is the sourced information with references about the film... not background information about the group... which is a separate entity from the the film.HENDAWG229 (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – Not enough reverts to break 3RR. I encourage all parties to use the article Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He has copied an entire paragraph of third-party content unaltered into the WP article, how is this not a violation of WP rules? Thanks. -esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:91.148.76.220 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Resumption of Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive280 <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . If this continues a sock case may eventually be needed, just to keep track of the IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Realamigaman / User:AmigaOne reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: /

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * As Realamigaman
 * 1. "updating to the facts"
 * 2. no edit summary
 * As AmigaOne
 * 3. "Undid revision 661384989 by Pavlor"
 * 4. no edit summary
 * 5. no edit summary

Soapbox pushing of some bizarre factual changes to Amiga. Even without knowing Amiga history in detail, some of these just don't make sense when compared to the outside world (such as the Amiga being introduced in 1979, before its 68000 microprocessor was available). Reverted by four separate editors.

Some fairly obvious socking to push it further to 5RR.


 * I completely agree, all the edits changed start/end dates without sources, and seem to riddle the article with contradictions. Obvious edit warring with additional sockpuppetry. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also this talkpage comment seems really weird too, since if they know the person, they'd know that their edits made no sense and introduced obvious contradictions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He (they??) is probably only fellow disturbed mind from Amiga community (however, most of us are more sane). Sure, he knew Jay and his real name is Mitchy... To be more serious, his similar edits in other articles:, (as Trueamigaman).Pavlor (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Amiga article semiprotected one month. Both of the probable socks were created on 8 May so this will slow them down a little. User:Trueamigaman only made one edit back in March. The user may never log into the same account twice. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Nick Thorne reported by User:Skyring (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  09:29, 7 May 2015
 * 2)  19:43, 7 May 2015
 * 3)  20:07, 7 May 2015
 * 4)  20:40, 7 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] There seems to have been zero discussion on the talk page about the edit-warring by both sides. I note one paragraph about the content, nothing at all about the escalating conflict.

Comments:

Nick Thorne reported his opponent for 3RR breach, but in the process reverted four times within twelve hours. Looks like both editors got a little hot under the collar. I'd like to see more discussion and less reversion. Thorne seems to have been in the right, content-wise, but this doesn't excuse the breach of 3RR. --Pete (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The original edit in this sequence was not a revert but the removal of incited and/or incorrectly cited material inserted some days earlier with a number of intermediate edits to the effect that a ship INS Vishal is under construction when at best it will be started in 2017 or 2018 and is currently in the planning phase with the design not even finalized. I was unaware of who inserted that info as i did not look at the time, I was just removing incorrect info. Since that edit i have found out that this editor had been edit warring over this and relayed matters with other editors as well. In short I made an edit and then was reverted 4 times, i only reverted 3 times and stopped so add to avoid 3RR,but i note that the other editor reverted a further 2 times and was reverted by other editors. I do not believe I have a case to answer.  -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  03:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You removed the same material four times in twelve hours, Nick. That's four reverts. You and the other guy were two sides of the same coin on this. Nor did you do anything to resolve the conflict on the discussion page. It looks like you had backup from your fellow editors on this - why not simply pass the baton to one of the others? You were in the right on the content, so it's not as if you were going to come out short of support. Heck, I woulda helped you out if you'd asked. --Pete (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Adsitionally,the other editor had been warned about inserting the incorrect info by others, his insistence on reinserting it in the supercarrier page amounted to vandalism - his refusal to discuss on the talk page bears witness to this. Reverting vandalism is not subject to 3RR. In any case I do not agree with your reading of events. - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  04:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On reviewing your edit summaries and sole contribution to the discussion, I find no mention of "vandalism". No warnings, no discussion, no mentions at all. No mention in your reporting of him for edit-warring above. You reverted this guy four times, the last three within an hour, your first appearance on his talk page was to tell him of the discussion here, and even if we accept your interpretation above, you deliberately pushed him over the 3RR limit and reported him here. You've been around a while, Nick, you know better than this. --Pete (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Though User:Nick Thorne broke 3RR, he may have got carried away when responding to User:M.srihari who made a lot more reverts, and seemed to be editing robotically with no attention to feedback. I don't think a block is necessary but Nick Thorne should use caution in the future. The fact that there are no sources to show the Indian carrier is actually under construction makes the edits of M.srihari hard to take seriously. The source he was using says the INS Vishal is "still only a concept". Our own Wikipedia article on INS Vishal says it is "currently in its design phase." Still, Nick Thorne should pay attention to using the term vandalism correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Advice noted, I'll be more careful on future. - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  22:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:89.197.13.252 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I'm not sure that this is yet a technical violation of the 3RR, but it is clear that the IP editor has no intention of discussing this on the article talk page, and keeps reverting the removal of material that isn't sourced to a reliable source.


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Adding a citation to a blogspot site when asked for a reference isn't persuasive. See WP:UGC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:77.132.137.184 reported by User:Samak (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Plz see vandalism 77.132.137.184 IP in West Azerbaijan Province article, for example see history this article.
 * Reason:
 * 1)Profanity → donkey....--2)False writing word of Azerbaijani language.--3):Change the entries and numbers.--4):Insist on writing wrong model name of Urmia see 1 to ..4--5):put the youtube, Blog and ... for Ethnic claims--<font size="+1"  face="phalls Khodkar, B Fantezy, B Ferdosi" color="#9966FF">SaməkTalk 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected. The IP is reverting the lead and changing ethnic terminology with no communication on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:203.190.222.222 reported by User:GideonF (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: There is an ongoing disagreement, not confined to this Anon IP, about whether Scottish people's nationality should be described as "Scottish" or "British". There is no site-wide consensus in favour of either, so the current practice is in effect to let whatever was there first stay since a change would require consensus. This anon IP has been changing the nationalities of Scottish National Party MP's from Scottish to British en masse without attempting to seek consensus on talk pages, and in the case of Mhairi Black has violated the 3RR.

Anon IP has also broken the 3RR on Nicola Sturgeon:

    

Making the same unconstructive edit, against talk page consensus:

GideonF (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Bashahikgt reported by User:VagaboundWind (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 661415608 by VagaboundWind (talk)Wikipedia is not a promotional media, you can promote mohanlal in facebook"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 661389259 by VagaboundWind (talk)fan boy"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on [[Mohanlal]]. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on Mohanlal. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Mohanlal, Loham. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Fanboy VagaboundWind (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject of this complaint, User:Bashahikgt, made only two reverts, while the submitter made four. According to this evidence we should block the submitter, User:VagaboundWind. Perhaps Vagabound will make an offer to wait for a consensus on the talk page before editing the article again. VagaboundWind's edits appear to be promotional, while Bahsahkigt is attempting to trim them down. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that i didn't added any promotional content, i just protected the contents vandalising by User:Bashahikgt, if you investigate you will know the facts. This user is a fanboy of actor Mammootty, and is vandalising his rivalry actor Mohanlals biography and film articles. Also he had made highly promotional edits about his favourite actor like a facebook page. I just found it and protected the contents. Just look at his contributions, and you will know everything. Note that i also suspect he is a sock puppet. VagaboundWind (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Bashahikgt has been indefinitely blocked by User:Ponyo. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Bashahikgt reported by User:VagaboundWind (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 661348116 by Malayala Sahityam (talk)removing sourced content pure vandal"
 * 2)  "removing sourced content"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 661231637 by Malayala Sahityam (talk)anjali menon did't says that nazriya is the lead"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 661052919 by Malayala Sahityam (talk)as per lead the audience have to decide who is lead"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 661052919 by Malayala Sahityam (talk)as per lead the audience have to decide who is lead"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 661052919 by Malayala Sahityam (talk)as per lead the audience have to decide who is lead"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on [[Mohanlal]]. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

His account is made for vandalism and promotion of his favourite star Mammootty. A hardcore fan. VagaboundWind (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – By User:Ponyo. This is a complaint about the same editor on a different article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Delibzr reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: Both warned)
<--- Primary (I initially put this here, however, this was removed by Delibzr, however I have re-added it, see )
 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

For the first article:

The user also seems to be stalking my contributions and has reverted changes that took me a long-time and were sources. Here are the diffs for his revisions on other articles I contributed on:

<I spent a long time removing the biased material on this article. The reasons may be found in the edit summaries. Before I came it neglected almost entirely the victories of the Mughals, Nawabs and others against the Marathas. I cited a variety of academic sources and gave my reasons, however User:Delibzr reverted it and did not provide adequate reasoing. I told him to take up any issues with me on the talk page, however he refuses to do so, rather he suggests I deserve to have my sourced edits removed. He says: You are violating BLPs, that means you can be reverted many more times. He does not provide any proof as to what I have violated and he does not provide legitimate critics, sources, and academic discourse to talk about my changes.

<---I also worked hard on this article to remove biased language and provided my details in the edit summaries. He claims it is revert POV editing without providing any justification for this accusation.

<---Heavily biased article with no references was largely removed by me. He reverted it. He did not provide adequate reasoning. He has not once tried to settle this or any issue on the talk page(s).

, ,
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Warnings


 * Comments:


 * He is violating biographies of living people at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, see this:- he is using rumor sites for claiming those people to have been converted to Islam who never converted to Islam. On other articles, he is just whitewashing the history and misrepresenting references. He is also making disruptive page moves. Delibzr (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not once mentioned any of this on the talk page. That sources was used for Dharmendra and his wife. Here is another source for Dharmendra and his wife from the Milli Gazette . This is however off-topic, since you should have brought this up on the talk page rather than edit war. I am not whitewashing the history. Once again you failed to adequately talk about it. The only source that says it was a Maratha victory (that I have come across) was about.com, which is not reliable. Other, more academic sources treat it as a Guerilla war that continued long after 1707. Also, according to the quote on Wikipedia supposedly by a professor named Stanley,


 * "the conquest of the Deccan, to which, Aurangzeb devoted the last 26 years of his life, was in many ways a Pyrrhic victory, costing an estimated hundred thousand lives a year during its last decade of futile chess game warfare. The expense in gold and rupees can hardly be accurately estimated. Aurangzeb's encampment was like a moving capital – a city of tents 30 miles in circumference, with some 250 bazaars, with a 1⁄2 million camp followers, 50,000 camels and 30,000 elephants, all of whom had to be fed, stripped the Deccan of any and all of its surplus grain and wealth ... Not only famine but bubonic plague arose ... Even Aurangzeb, had ceased to understand the purpose of it all by the time he was nearing 90 ... "I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing," the dying old man confessed to his son, Azam, in February 1707"


 * If we look at this, Aurangzeb DID conquer the Deccan territory, so the claim that the Marathas had dominion over the Deccan NEEDS REFERENCING. Once again, we may talk about it on the talk page, however you did not do that. I did not misrepresent the reference. Show me where in the reference it said escape. Read my edit summaries.


 * Your accusations are baseless, you refuse to talk about it, you revert without proper examination, you neglect my hard-work, etc. This shows bad-behavior. Xtremedood (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Both parties are warned that they may be blocked if they continue to revert at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism without either getting consensus on Talk, or filing at WP:BLPN if you sincerely believe there is a BLP issue. If you want to complain about the other articles, see the instructions at top of page about how to create a proper AN3 report with diffs. Discussions on whether Aurangzeb conquered the Deccan territory don't belong here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Joseph Prasad (Result: Advice regarding the link to Title (EP))
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Joseph Prasad (talk): WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument or a reason to revert - please discuss on talk page."
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Interlude65 (talk): "generally" indicates not always - please discuss on talk page per WP:BRD."
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by MaranoFan (talk): Please follow BRD at the article talk page, do jot edit war."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1)   "→‎Including Title (EP): new section"

Reverted three times on Trainor's page, telling others to discuss on the talk, then refusing to do it himself, and reverts whoever reverts his revert. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR says an editor cannot perform more than three reverts, i.e. four or more is the violation. You've only provided three reverts. Considering that and the fact that this is now fairly stale, I don't think any action should be taken at this time. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I never said anything about 3RR, I said edit warring. Which can happen without 3RR. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: There has been a revert war on whether to include a See also link to Title (EP) in the main article on the singer Meghan Trainor. A related discussion is happening at Articles for deletion/Title (EP). If anyone here continues to add or revert the See also link before consensus is reached, the person doing so is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To avoid the risk of any participants continuing the edit war while being logged out, I have semiprotected Meghan Trainor for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)