Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Hanswar32 reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

User being reported: Hanswar32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hanswar32's edit-warring spans a large number of BLP articles, and his entire time editing. His second edit ever [1] is a revert, the beginning of a long-running edit war with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) that has continued over the entire span of his editing (most recently [2] [3] [4][5][6]).

After he'd edit-warred with multiple editors, an ANI discussion was started: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Repeated_spamming_of_utterly_non-notable_awards_on_porn_star_biographies

He's had over a year to resolve this problem, and his solution appears to be to edit-war despite his unblock request where he wrote, "I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me." Despite this he never did seek to resolve the dispute in other manners, and started edit-warring a month later: [7] [8] [9] [10]

As he very rarely uses edit summaries, so it's difficult to tell exactly how much of his editing is edit-warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] (After receiving the warning, he reverted it then reverted a tag on an article [12]).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: His entire talk page is nothing but editors trying to resolve this dispute with him. Most recently, I tried to do so here as well as at Talk:Brandi_Love#Awards , Alexis Texas and Bobbi Starr - all articles where he's continued to edit-war.

I've made the mistake of trying to remove the poorly sourced content from these BLPs, which he (eg [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]) and Scalhotrod (talk · contribs) (eg [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]) simply revert.

I want to point out in his defense that he might be changing his habits somewhat, given his cleanup [25] after that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz [26], instead of the normal edit-warring. He may realize now that non-notable awards shouldn't be listed, but he's yet to say so and I'm not going to remove any of his additions again, despite their being BLP violations requiring consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

From the comments below, it seems that perhaps Hanswar32 didn't notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's cleanup and so didn't revert them. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's ironic how you're usually clueless about me by your own various admissions yet are so eager to report me. Let me once again fill you in (fyi: it would be more prudent to simply ask these questions on my talkpage if you genuinely cared/wanted to know): I did not revert (as you correctly pointed out) nor would I revert Hullaballoo's edits above because I agree with him and would have made those same edits myself. If you read my last paragraph below, you'd know why I agree with him. And had I disagreed with him, evidence points to me not engaging in an edit-war over it because my dispute with Hullaballoo has died down 3 weeks ago. You're 3 weeks too late, and some of the evidence you point to are months old. Hullaballoo and I have been getting along without incidence for the past 3 weeks and like I mentioned below, we always end up working out an informal truce that lasts even much longer usually after a discussion. That's hardly edit-warring. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Firstly, as a casual Wikipedia editor, I'd like to acknowledge that respecting and adapting to community etiquette and guidelines is necessary for the success of the project, and if one were to disagree with certain policies, seeking consensus over time will likely create positive change that is acceptable to all. I recognize Ronz's earnestness in his attempts to be a vigilant defender/applier of policy, but what he fails to realize is that his interpretation of policy does not necessarily equate to policy in terms of its intended meaning nor its correct application. It reminds of another user, SqueakBox, who has been blocked indefinitely on multiple occasions [27] for his similarly extremely controversial interpretation of policy. I'd also like to note that Ronz is a bit sloppy when it comes to collecting facts or making accusations and he's even rescinded a previous claim he made against me on my own talkpage.

With that being said, I'd like to specifically address what has been said above. The edit he cites as my second edit ever, while true as "Hanswar32", is in fact not my second edit ever, as I was previously editing briefly as an IP user before I created this account in order to reap the benefits that a Wikipedia account provides a user. I invite any community member to review the ANI discussion above and its ultimate outcome as it was surely in my favor with me gaining the support of multiple editors by the end of it. Note that the ANI was started days after creating my account and I've never had to deal nor have been in conflict whatsoever with the editor who began that discussion as he simply disappeared afterwards from all articles that I'm involved in editing. In addition, and contrary to Ronz' false portrayal of me being involved in edit wars for over a year afterwards, I'd like to cite this talkpage [28] in addition to my own talkpage [29] as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there." The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four 15-month old examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was stated in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out numerously and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding.

Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree. To counter Ronz claim, I've been editing for a year and a half productively on the same articles with the following users whom I bet are willing to vouch for me Scalhotrod, Erpert, Rebecca1990, Gene93k, Guy1890, Morbidthoughts and Dismas among others.

Although I appreciate Ronz' attempt to mention something in my defense, it's just another incorrectly deduced assumption he's made. My stance on including sourced award wins did not and has not changed. The cleanup he mentions was simply me doing what I enjoy doing, which is improve the quality of information presented in these articles by adding what is missing and removing what should not be there. I did a similar cleanup to Stormy Daniel's article by removing 11 awards. In both cases, the awards I removed were not won by the subject directly, but were awards presented to the films themselves that the subject was involved with in someway, and previous consensus states that awards of this nature in such cases should not be included. Hanswar32 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Although I'm sure I have edited some of the same articles that Hanswar32 has edited, I am not invested enough in this situation to really offer an opinion, so I instead request that my name be left out of it (in addition, the discussion here has already ventured into WP:TLDR territory). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Erpert: Your input wasn't necessarily explicitly requested and you were free to comment or not comment at your discretion. My mention of you in addition to the others was simply a statement expressing my confidence that I have been editing the same articles as them without conflict. And judging by existing discussions at ANI and generally elsewhere on Wikipedia, I believe the length was appropriate considering the circumstances. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hanswar32 continues to edit war [30] --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• You do realize that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well? The evidence you cite above points to your edit-warring behavior and continuous revert of my edits. Two highly credible and experienced editors (Morbidthoughts & Nymf) both disagree with your inappropriate tag on the article's talkpage [31]. You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages [32] with not a single editor who agrees with you or your interpretations. I hope you stop your disruptive behavior, and I for one don't plan on edit-warring with you and am content to let the discussion take its course on the talkpage and gladly have any of the other experienced editors eventually remove your inappropriate tag. If you want to continue edit-warring and revert my edits, that's your prerogative. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• It didn't take very long for another impartial editor to remove your tag [33]. Hanswar32 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - There have been various conversations on article Talk pages as well as on the Porn Project Talk page along with related Project Talk pages and Noticeboards such as the Film Project, DRN, and NPOV. So far it seems acceptable that significant awards like the AVN Award and XRCO (wins and nominations) are OK to list. This leaves the main applicable policy to be that of Notability with regard to content in that it states that it does not apply to content. In other words, listing a win for a non-Notable award is OK as long as its sourced. Furthermore, if analysis or anything past a basic statistic like a {{win}} or {{nom}}, must be sourced by a secondary source. This is just basic application of existing Policy.

The problem here is squarely on the unilateral interpretation of these Policies in much the same way that another User did last year[34]. This instance does not seem to have the tendentiousness that the previous issue did, but it has similarity. One example is this discussion at Talk:Brandi_Love#AVN_has_a_conflict_of_interest where the Accuser claims that the main industry trade publication has a conflict of interest because it is supportive of the subject's non-profit activities and is trying to call into question any of its reporting on the BLP subject. I highly doubt anyone would make that claim (at least a believable one) of the San Francisco Chronicle or the Boston Herald with regards to programs they support and people associated with those programs. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Clarifying and summarizing Hanswar32 was blocked for edit-warring three days after he started editing with his current account. That block was removed based on his promise to stop edit-warring and learn and follow our dispute resolution approaches. He's failed his part of that promise by continuing to edit-war extensively and to use reverts as his main tool for addressing disputes. After being given a formal edit-warring notice for his latest round ([35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]) of edit-warring, his response was to revert. After this discussion was started, his response was to revert. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• What "formal edit-warring notice" you're referring to (dif please)? As for the difs you provided, all I see is the addition of sourced and fairly basic content, an award win. Are you "clarifying and summarizing" that you don't like this? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" above. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your last comment Ronz neither clarified nor summarized anything except your own delusional beliefs built on falsehood instead of facts. All the evidence I presented and everything I wrote above proves that I indeed have kept my promise. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  I've provided diffs for everything. Are you contesting that you were blocked, or that you wrote what you did to lift the block, or that you made the many reverts since? --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this a troll attempt Ronz? Because I find it hard to believe that someone could lack this amount of comprehension after I've made myself abundantly clear. I'm not going to dignify your questions with a response except to point out that you've had a history of being blocked for edit-warring [41]. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Boy, that's a dishonest response by Hanswar. Ronz may not be a perfect editor, but his only block for edit warring came in 2007. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Kindly point out where I have been dishonest? That's right, you can't! And your claim is in and of itself dishonest. The one thing you got right though is "Ronz may not be a perfect editor". My only block was a year and a half ago within 3 days of creating my account, so I'd say Ronz and I have a similar history and that was exactly my point. Next time try harder, thanks. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Wolfo is right about one thing, there's are dishonest statements here, but IMO its Ronz trying to claim that a previous incident is somehow evidence that current edits they do not like amount to Edit warring rather than just focusing on the issue at hand, whatever that is. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems Hanswar32 is unable or unwilling to answer simple questions to clarify his aspersions. Seems he would rather attack others or editwar than follow our dispute processes. That's why we're here. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually Ronz, I've answered everything sufficiently and you lacking basic comprehension or trolling is not of my concern. I'd like to see you answer to your transgressions and take responsibility for your false claims and disruptive behavior. Hanswar32 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hanswar32, I've a suggestion that might help. Please just tell us whether or not you will from now on follow your promise to learn and follow our dispute resolution process rather than reverting. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since I've never broken my promise to begin with, your suggestion seems kind of redundant, doesn't it? I have a suggestion of my own though: tell us whether or not you will refrain from making false accusations in the future and that you have learned your lesson from this miserably failed attempt of silencing those who disagree with you. Hanswar32 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note that the edit-warring has continued by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ([42] [43]) and Scalhotrod ([44] [45]). Seems that Wolfowitz considers the statements by Hanswar32 and Scalhotrod as reason to go ahead and remove the disputed content once again ([46] [47] [48] [49] [50]). If nothing else, it clearly shows that Hanswar32 has certainly not resolved the dispute with Wolfowitz nor for which Hanswar32 was blocked. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• There's so much wrong with your comment that I don't know where to even begin. Let me start off by declaring that continuously referencing a 1.5 year-old block that occurred within 3 days of account creation and lasted for only 2 hours due to it being immediately lifted after the admin accepted my appeal request is not only irrelevant for the reasons stated, but a despicable sign of desperation to win a losing argument by grasping at straws. You on the other hand had to serve the entire duration of your block for edit-warring after an admin refused your appeal request [51]. What your comment does clearly demonstrate though is Hullaballoo's insistence on edit-warring/reverting by ignoring what I and many other editor's have established and agreed upon in numerous talkpages. After such discussions take place, Hullaballoo goes into hibernation mode for weeks to months and suddenly develops amnesia or plays dumb (I'm not sure which one) by doing massive reverts across a large number of articles as if discussions never took place. Scalhotrod and I, along with various other editor's have done our part by discussing the issue, coming to an agreement/consensus, and applying appropriate edits to the articles based off this consensus with Hullaballoo all of a sudden waking up from hibernation and having to repeat the cycle once again by reminding him and rediscussing the issue over with the same results. How you were able to conclude that I am blameworthy for allegedly failing to resolve a dispute with someone who exhibits such behavior as Hullaballoo through your observation that Scalhotrod justifiably reverted a single page from among 6 pages Hullaballoo decided to impose his fallacious views on despite documented overwhelming opposition to them is beyond me. If you're so eager on finding a resolution to something which is clearly only bothering you, go ahead and report the source of the problem which is Hullaballoo and leave those who engage in discussions over the matter and come to an agreement over it alone. I'm sure you were also aware that this discussion was about to be archived and so to keep it active you decided to post a frivolous comment with information two days old that you were fully aware of the entire time. Is it fun being Ronz? Stop embarrassing yourself and let it go. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hanswar32 now continues edit-warring directly against his promises to stop: [52] --Ronz (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Ronz: Is this another pathetic troll attempt? Or just a desperate attempt to prevent this discussion from being archived? As a liar, I'm not expecting you to answer those questions since you've already ignored/failed to address anything previously mentioned above. And since you are a liar, I'm sure you already know what I'm going to say regarding the diff you cited, so don't read into this as me feeding the troll, I'm merely mentioning for anyone who happens to read this without checking the diff for themselves that the edit cited is completely benign and void of any warring (it involves no other editors, it's not an undo/revert and not even a restoration of disputed material taken off the article by an opposing editor) and Ronz, the troll/liar, knows this but is harassing me. I've gone ahead and formally warned you on your talkpage to stop your disruptive behavior/harassment. Keep it up, and you'll probably add on to your already multiple block history. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

So no explanation for the continued edit-warring then? --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Take a look at this troll, will you. Asides from the amusement, how do you suggest I proceed to ward off this minor annoyance/harassment? Hanswar32 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most of the sections on the article talk pages are efforts to resolve the underlying issues. Specific discussions of removing the tag are at Talk:Southern strategy#Neutrality Dispute. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Continuation of Souther Strategy Neutrality Dispute.

Comments:
The editor is engaging in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. User also posts as an IP and two of the reverts above were by the IP. This diff [59] is an acknowledgement by the IP that he is also GetOverPops. Note that the 3RR warning issued mentioned specifically the use of IPs. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

North Shoreman is being dishonest in this complaint. He is correct that both IP reverts were mine (I had to find my password again). However, he is wrong about the edit war. He is trying to simply prevent edits he doesn't like. Last time he claimed something similar and was found to be wrong. The backdrop is there is an neutrality dispute associated with the article. I was away for a bit and an editor removed the tag even though the neutrality dispute had not been closed. I readded the tag today. It was removed again so I added it again with a statement that the neutrality dispute was not closed. The neutrality dispute had been archived so I will concede there was some merit to the previous removals. However, I have since reopened it and it is now on the current dispute page THUS it is an active dispute and thus the tag is correct (I did change the date). I resent that NS is attempting to use the rules to avoid a discussion of the article flaws. Regardless, so long as the neutrality dispute is active the tag SHOULD be there so my addition should not be seen as an edit issue.

NS has NOT tried to resolve the issue with the dispute tag on the talk page. This is not an edit war and wasn't the last time NS claimed as such. I would ask that because the Neutrality tag SHOULD be there while a neutrality discussion is in progress no action is taken against me for simply returning the tag. Thank you.Getoverpops (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of dishonesty are in bad faith and the evidence is clear that Getoverpops violated the 3RR rule and has returned to edit warring. He also admitted here that this was his IP. [60]Scoobydunk (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I admitted the IP address was mine in the paragraph above. Why are you acting like I'm trying to hide it? You improperly removed the tag after I restarted the neutrality dispute. The other editors would be right to say I let the dispute laps and thus the tag should be removed. However once I restarted the dispute on the dispute page it was 100% proper to add the tag again. You were wrong to remove it. Restoring it was the correct thing to do. My accusations against NS are valid. Previously he incorrectly claimed an edit dispute after just 3 edits (he falsely claimed a 4th which was the removal of obvious vandalism). Given that why shouldn't I believe he is doing this in bad faith?Getoverpops (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You were not cleared -- the referral went stale. As the referral makes clear, your edit warring as an IP had caused the article page to be semi-protected and in a separate issue your IP received a 24 hour block. I never claimed more than 3 reverts -- edit warring can occur w/o a violation of 3RR. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Stale) for details. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

NS, Let's get your story straight. First, do you agree that the article is CURRENTLY the subject of a neutrality dispute, the one you linked to above? If yes, then why are we even here?

For the record, the dispute tag was removed while I was off line for a bit (personal reasons). The dispute itself was never resolved but initially I didn't know the dispute had been archived. So when I saw the tag had been removed I added it. Someone removed it. I added it again with a note that the dispute was not closed. After that I saw that the dispute had been archived. At that point I reopened the dispute and, since the dispute was now open again (and is currently on going) I added the dispute tag back to the article. Are you claiming that an article that is the subject of a neutrality dispute should not have a tag? So I added the dispute tag back because the article was now the subject of an active dispute. Scoobydunk removed the tag for a 3rd time despite the fact that at the time he removed it the dispute was reopened and I had posted this in the article talk section. I would argue that adding it the 4th time was undoing vandalism as much as anything. So unless you think the tag currently does not belong on the article, why are we here?Getoverpops (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

We're here because you were edit warring which is a violation of WP policy and were warring to the extent of violating the 3RR rule which you've been warned about before.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Long-term edit warring at Southern strategy. User:Getoverpops and his IP have been at AN3 before on the subject of this article. He tenaciously keeps restoring the POV tag while making little effort to advance the talk page discussion toward resolution. See:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive275#User:129.59.79.123 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Semi-protection)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Stale)

His IP has been blocked in the past for personal attacks. He first added the POV tag in March. It sounds like he intends to keep the POV tag there until the article is changed to a version that he favors. Tags, like any other article content, need consensus. If your concern is still not addressed, open an RFC on some well-defined question, and leave it up to the consensus as to whether a POV tag is merited. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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#Basic_science_about_glyphosate diff
• 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)

Dialectric 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 Truth^TM 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. SandyGeorgia (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)

Page protected – 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)

EdJohnston 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)

EdJohnston, 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

Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2602:306:3644:13A0:FCCE:7B75:495D:D057 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "corrected inaccurate information"
2. 21:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "remove politically biased statements"
3. 21:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "remove opinionated (non-factual) and biased material"
4. 21:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "remove opinionated material from politically biased sources"
5. 21:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "remove opinionated, non-factual material from politically biased sources"
6. 22:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "correct false information and remove opinionated material from biased sources"
7. 22:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [61]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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.

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

Page

John Popper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "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. 00:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "also seems to be a violation of WP:HOUNDING"
3. 00:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "not when it's a better photo, will take to WP:3RR"
4. 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "are you serious?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on John Popper. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Images */ Images"
2. 00:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "/* 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, –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinging MrX, Spartan7W, Lady Lotus who have all had issues with his uploads. –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment 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. –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment 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 ..... –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Comment 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!. –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
            • Comment 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)

• Comment I would argue that Davey2010 is the one that is edit warring. Gage (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Please see my discussion with editor Stemoc, in which I make my argument that his edits relative to GageSkidmore's edits were WP:HOUNDING. As far as I'm concerned, Davey2010 continued the same activity after Stemoc 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. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment 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. Spartan7W § 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. –Davey2010^Talk 02:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment 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. –Davey2010^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. Dwpaul ^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). Dwpaul ^Talk 02:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment 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. Dwpaul ^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. LADY LOTUS • 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). –Davey2010^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." Dwpaul ^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, –Davey2010^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:Classical_library reported by User:Afterwriting (Result: blocked for 72 hours for edit warring)

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

Previous version reverted to: [62]

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

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)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Page

Deep Impact (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[69]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 14:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 11:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "Edit-warring advisory, please discuss at the appropriate Talk page instead of reverting"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "/* 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:MugenDarkness reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ""

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. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 month 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. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "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. 04:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Interlude65 (talk): "generally" indicates not always - please discuss on talk page per WP:BRD."
3. 10:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "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:

1. 00:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "→‎Including Title (EP): new section"

Comments:

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)

Chasewc91, 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 Wikipedia: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)

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

Page

Straight Outta Compton (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

HENDAWG229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Special:Diff/661017607

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page

[70]

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#Straight Outta Compton (2015_film)

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. [71] 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)

No violation – 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:Biancacunha92‎ reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Rodrigo Branco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Biancacunha92‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 23:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661171965 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
2. 23:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 18:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
4. 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "←Replaced content with ' {{Infobox biography | name = Rodrigo B'"
5. 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "←Replaced content with ' {{Infobox football biography | name = Rodrigo B'"
6. 17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
7. 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
8. 17:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Warnings

1. 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Rodrigo Branco. (TW)"
2. 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Rodrigo Branco. (TW)"
3. 18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Talk:Rodrigo Branco. (TW)"
4. 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. 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)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Many reverts; other problematic editing. Kuru (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Page

David B. Samadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 23:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Someone keeps deleting accurate information"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC) to 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Updated Occupation"
   2. 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Many areas were missing from before, updated"
4. [72]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "reply"
2. 23:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on David B. Samadi. (TW)"
3. 23:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "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:Delibzr reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: )

Page

List of converts to Islam from Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) <--- Primary (I initially put this here, however, this was removed by Delibzr, however I have re-added it, see [73])

Mughal–Maratha Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Battle of Pavan Khind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Battles involving the Maratha Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

For the first article: [74] [75] [76]

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:

[77]<----I spent a long time removing the biased material on this article. The reasons may be found in the edit summaries.[78] 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.[79] 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.

[80]<---I also worked hard on this article to remove biased language and provided my details in the edit summaries.[81] He claims it is revert POV editing without providing any justification for this accusation.

[82] <---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

[83], [84], [85]

Warnings

[86]

Comments:

• He is violating biographies of living people at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, see this:- [87] he is using rumor sites[88][89] for claiming those people to have been converted to Islam who never converted to Islam. On other articles, he is just whitewashing the history[90][91] and misrepresenting references.[92] He is also making disruptive page moves.[93] 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 [94]. 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. [95]

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)

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

Page

High fructose corn syrup and health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC) to 21:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "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. 21:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "the material is valid and supported by citations, so please don't attack it"
2. 22:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "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"
3. 23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "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"
4. 02:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "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

[96]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "/* HFCS no more dangerous than sucrose */ r"

Comments:

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:

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]
4. [100]

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)

Blocked – 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:77.132.137.184 reported by User:Samak (Result: )

Page

West Azerbaijan Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Reason

Plz see vandalism 77.132.137.184 IP in West Azerbaijan Province article, for example see history this article.

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 [101] youtube, Blog and ... for Ethnic claims--Samək^Talk 05:26, 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:M.srihari reported by User:Nick Thorne (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Supercarrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M.srihari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Comments:

Nick Thorne ^talk 13:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Page: Deflategate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseph A. Spadaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

Not multiple diffs, just the text from the same two diffs repeated. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Many many more reverts than these 4, I just don't have time to add all examples 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:71.178.130.74 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: East Coast hip hop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.178.130.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [110]
2. [111]
3. [112]
4. [113]
5. [114]
6. [115]
7. [116]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118] 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)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts; was warned prior. Kuru (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Page

Equality before the law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cubancigar11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Feminism */"
2. 08:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "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. 20:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661298069 by Roscelese (talk) - Stop personally attacking me, which appears to be your 'single purpose'."
4. 02:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "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. 03:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "/* 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. 02:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Equality before the law. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [119]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [120]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [121] 09:29, 7 May 2015
2. [122] 19:43, 7 May 2015
3. [123] 20:07, 7 May 2015
4. [124] 20:40, 7 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]

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 ^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 ^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 ^talk 22:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Wintertanager reported by User:DissidentAggressor (Result: )

Page

Mark Ghuneim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]
4. [129]
5. [130]
6. [131]
7. [132]
8. [133]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mark Ghuneim. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [134]
2. [135]
3. [136]

Comments:

Note these span more than 24 hours, but persistent, protracted EW is clear. The Dissident Aggressor 04:02, 8 May 2015‎

Also note that 79.97.226.247 (talk · contribs) is not me. The Dissident Aggressor 04:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Would welcome other eyes on this page - have documented every edit very transparently on talk page. Wintertanager (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Having never in my history on this WP been flagged in this way (which is disconcerting to me) would like also to defend myself by pointing out the edit history of the editor whose tags I reverted. 79.97.226.247 talk page. I did not instigate, addressed every edit in talk page, and am pretty sure I followed the rules.Wintertanager (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[As I have already pointed out to you], wikipedia is not a forum for the PR that you have inserted at Hugo Barra, Matt Williams (Internet entrepreneur), Rick Schwartz, and M. T. Carney. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And therein we disagree, as I do not believe those are 'PR' pages at all, but rather well sourced, neutral and encyclopedic BLPs absolutely meeting notoriety. I am allowed to write or contribute to those, have adhered closely the WPs rules, commented in talk regarding my edits, and expressed enthusiasm for other well reasoned edits towards an improved page. For a few of those pages (some of which I haven't touched for years) I have made stern edits in line with NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Your blanket, cursory sweep of simply tagging pages I have worked on or contributed to is exactly what I reverted. Wintertanager (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I believe a block is in order - it's clear you believe you are entitled to continue removing these tags. The Dissident Aggressor 20:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Page

Bangalore Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661348116 by Malayala Sahityam (talk)removing sourced content pure vandal"
2. 18:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "removing sourced content"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC) to 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661231637 by Malayala Sahityam (talk)anjali menon did't says that nazriya is the lead"
   2. 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 06:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "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. 09:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "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)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661415608 by VagaboundWind (talk)Wikipedia is not a promotional media, you can promote mohanlal in facebook"
2. 10:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661389259 by VagaboundWind (talk)fan boy"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on [[Mohanlal]]. (TW)"
2. 09:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
3. 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Mohanlal. (TW)"
4. 15:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "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)

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

Page

Battle of Košare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 14:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resumption of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive280#User:91.148.76.220 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours ) NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. 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: Amiga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Realamigaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / AmigaOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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: [137], [138] (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:89.197.13.252 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: )

Page: MigrationWatch UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.197.13.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [139]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [140]
2. [141]
3. [142]
4. [143]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [145]

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.