Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive280

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Winkelvi reported by User:MaranoFan (Result: no action)[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

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

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

(non admin observation) Diffs 63 and 64 are successive edits with no other editor in between and should be counted as one instance. The other edits are over grammar in different areas, this doesn’t appear to be edit warring. AlbinoFerret 17:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You see the bad faith though? The editor's only intent is to get the article unstable and the problem with the edits is that I made them. They have behaved this way at Meghan Trainor and this one doesn't come as a surprise. I want some action taken though. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with AlbinoFerret. There are only three sets of edits: the middle two are consecutive so only count as one. The first "revert" reverted your violation of WP:RETAIN and the second corrected a grammatical error. The final "revert" isn't really a revert at all: Winkelvi basically kept your edit as it is and just made a small correction to the grammar. I don't think there is a case for Winkelvi to answer to. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • How on earth can you say you're assuming good faith and accuse another editor of bad faith when you're blatantly reaching for a case in an attempt to have Winkelvi blocked for no good reason and you didn't even leave a notice of this discussion on his talk page (which is required)? Good grief. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
They have banned me from their userspace. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOBAN says that "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to." This project page says that anyone who is reported here must be notified. If Winkelvi has a problem with it then he can revert it, but the notice is mandatory, and I highly doubt you failed to leave one out of respect for the "userspace ban," especially when you left this (bogus) edit warring warning after WV has asked you on numerous occasions not to post to his talk. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are you making the case for Winkelvi, shouldn't he be doing it? Are you the same person? Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Given the interactions you two have had, and this questionable filing, a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order. AlbinoFerret
If this still makes any sense to you, I am sorry. If o many people think I am wrong, maybe a boomerang is in order. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...)
I agree. The disruptive AfD nominations, bullshit AN3s, polemic userspace editing, etc. need to stop. A block, interaction ban, or both would really come in handy and stop the disruption from MF. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Lol. Yes, WV and I are clearly the same person. You should really edit "good faith" out of your signature, because it's apparent from your postings here (and much of your editing in general) that you have no idea what that is. For crying out loud, you assumed that the reason for his "edit warring" was a personal vendetta against you to sabotage your good article nominations. That is the worst possible faith ever. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Say what you will, Chase. I am here with good intentions. I am getting articles to good status and sometimes even getting barnstars. My only problem is with you and WV. Only an interaction ban is warranted. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
A clear case of a boomerang. Look out, (bad faith) MaranoFan! HandsomeFella (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Seriously, move on. Kuru (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:HeadCase320 reported by User:3family6 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Amon Amarth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HeadCase320 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [6]
  2. [7]
  3. [8]
  4. [9]


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


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

I can confirm this is all true. I think HeadCase320 means well, but has repeatedly failed to engage in discussions to resolve conflicts, and usually doesn't explain edits in edit summaries either.--MASHAUNIX 18:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clearly edit warring against multiple editors; was warned. Kuru (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Intermittentgardener reported by User:Chestmas (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:

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

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

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

Page: Bob Duff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.120.117.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  1. 4th diff

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

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

Comments:

Obvious political campaigning.

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

User:68.117.94.3 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.117.94.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22] - user warned.
  5. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

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

Comments:
IP is trolling the talk page, posting to start fights instead of improving the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Edgeweyes: and @Dustin V. S.: have also reverted him, so it's not just me who thinks he's trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
anything counter to the leftwing orthodoxy's verion of the truth is trolling on wikipedia. Hear-yea, hear-yea! The pathetic thing here is that you, "ian thomson", actually think this is the case, my own sarcasm notwithstanding.68.117.94.3 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring to use the talkpage as a soapbox for personal views. Acroterion (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Empress Mathilda reported by User:Hchc2009 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]
  5. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

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

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | talk 08:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC).

User:Gtadude00 reported by User:Snowager (Result: indef)[edit]

Page
Microsoft Publisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Gtadude00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Overview */"
  2. 08:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Not Funny Omar */"
  3. 08:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Not Funny Omar */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 08:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC) to 08:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    1. 08:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/*Mama alet la2a */"
    2. 08:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Mama 2let la2a */"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 08:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC) to 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    1. 08:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Not Funny Omar */"
    2. 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Not Funny Omar */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


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

An anon IP, 41.38.169.242, appears to be involved in edit warring as well. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.38.169.242 The Snowager-is awake 08:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Stevengreggory reported by User:Aronzak (Result: no action)[edit]

Page
The Islamic Schools of Victoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Stevengreggory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC) "Format Edit and Refernencing"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    1. 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659648480 by Karpes (talk)"
    2. 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659615889 by Karpes (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 11:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Conspiracy theories */ new section"
Comments:

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

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. There's really nothing actionable here. Two reverts over three days. Not previously warned for edit warring, and not notified of potential general sanctions. I'll add the page to my watch list as his edits are clearly poor; hopefully he'll join the discussion you just started. Kuru (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Response:

Hello,

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

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

Thank you - --Stevengreggory--Stevengreggory (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Use the article's talk page to discuss your position. Kuru (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:Gouncbeatduke (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: United Against Nuclear Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

See here: [32]

Comments:

Obviously, there's not a 3RR problem, which is what you warned him for. What sanctions are you claiming are in place here? Are you refering to WP:ARBPIA? Kuru (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Its not a 3RR issue, but rather a 1RR problem. He states that Plot Spolier has "violated the WP:1RR rule in the Iranian/Palestinian/Israeli conflict area". Though, I am unsure how this has anything to do with Iran. Neither Israel nor Palestine is mentioned anywhere in the article. AcidSnow (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. Gouncbeatduke didn't even do me the proper courtesy of informing me that he was filing a case involving me.
  2. He is purposely misrepresenting the ARBPIA 1RR rules to somehow include Iran articles which have no connection to ARBPIA.
  3. The user's limited activities are being used to WP:stalk my edits -- in just the past week, he's edited the following articles for the first time shortly after I made edits myself [33][34]
  4. Gouncbeatduke's reporting on these admin boards has already led to WP:boomerang blocks, based on his absurd personal attacks that users are engaged in some kind of "anti-Arab hatemongering" campaign [35]. This situation is becoming intolerable. I have more constructive things to do than deal with this user's constant attempts to WP:GAME the system to his favor (Given his previous experience w/ this user, admin @Bishonen: may have something to add). Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Salon reported a former Obama administration official who worked closely on Middle East policy stated UANI and its allies “play the politics for the short-term but they don’t offer anything in terms of answers for the long-term” and “You get the sense that … they’re not really interested in ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. Iran bashing for pro-Israel groups is very common, but I’m concerned that they don’t understand that failure to address this issue will ensure that Iran gets the bomb or we’re headed toward war. And a war in this region at this time will look more like World War III than a ‘cakewalk.’”[1]

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

And it's irrelevant to this filing because you just added that information... if that even qualifies as now falling under ARBPIA anyway. Just WP:gaming the system. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
My understanding of "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted" was that in would include issues like Hamas and nuclear proliferation in Iran. I am not trying to game anything. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kuru:, how much more of this nonsense do I have to endure? Is some kind of interaction ban necessary? The deeper issue seems to be that Gouncbeatduke is simply unable to edit in a constructive, NPOV manner as a more or less single issue editor. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kuru:, and now Gouncbeatduke's implying that on the subject of Iran and nuclear proliferation, I'm engaged in "Islamophobic and POV-pushing editing"[36]. There has to be some kind of recourse for these gross personal attacks and lack of WP:AGF. This is exactly the kind of behavior that led to @Bishonen: blocking him[37]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. While I realize that WP:ARBPIA is "broadly construed", that seems to be more than a little over the top and frankly disingenuous. There's no 1RR here. Kuru (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ CLIFTON, ELI (11 August 2014). "Billionaire's sketchy Middle East gamble: Meet the man betting on war with Iran". www.salon.com. Retrieved 1 May 2015.

User:Giano reported by User:BabelStone (Result:Blocked 48h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [42]
  5. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44] (see edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

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

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours I blocked Giano, since they have clearly crossed 3RR and, being an experienced user, should have known better. I did not really care whether they attacked WMF or not, and would have blocked them for any five reverts anyway. None of the opponents crossed the 3RR line. However, I am concerned by the fact that none of them made an effort to properly discuss the issue and the credibility of sources, There were two sources in the disputed piece, one of them clearly a RS. Please after the block expires engage into discussion (continue at the talk page or start a new topic), since the block does not mean that the piece is not appropriate and should nt be in the article. It just means that a user failed to follow standard dispute resolution avenues.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:GoPurpleNGold24 reported by User:nfitz (Result:Page protected)[edit]

Page: 2015 CONCACAF Champions League Finals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GoPurpleNGold24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [47]
  2. [48]
  3. [49]
  4. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]


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

What rule am I breaking again? Because I believe I only reverted twice. The first one this user is claiming, I did not revert anything, unless removing something is considered reverting. I did revert in the second and fourth one and I reverted my own edit in the third one. The User also never asked me to discuss it on the talk page. Instead of reverting my edit the third time why couldn't it have left me a message to discuss it. Instead the user wrote it on the Edit Summary knowing I possibly was going to revert it a fourth time (in the user's count). GoPurple'nGold24 01:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It?!?! Can someone clarify how deleting the exact same reference 4 times isn't a 3RR violation? (and another reference 4 times that I didn't document ...) Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Seems to be an edit war going on and no discussion has been had outside of the edit summaries. Please discuss the dispute on the article's talk page and come to consensus before the expiration expires. only (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That seems like overkill for such a trivial reference. I'm not so much worried that the reference is deleted, as it's now redundant. But the simple assumption that tweets from major news organizations carrying factual information aren't reliable, rather than evaluating the content of the tweet itself I find questionable. Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:184.145.137.152 reported by User:Agtx (Result: )[edit]

Page
Megatrend University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
184.145.137.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Beginning the article with an personal negative opinion of a single journalist is highly biased. The controversy section is riddled with the authors prejudices which have no sources. Attempts to provide a more balanced sourced opinion have beed deleted"
  2. 02:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "The introduction is a clearly biased and imbalance and the previous author keeps deleting additional information. It's clearly someone who has an agenda against the university and is writing a hit piece."
  3. 02:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Megatrend University. (TW)"
  2. 02:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Megatrend University. (TW)"
  3. 02:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

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

User:Quantanew reported by User:GliderMaven (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

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


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

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

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

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

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

No, I've established the same article state 3 times, while you have done this 4 times. You are over the bright line. And I repeatedly explained why in the subject lines and on your talk page, my talk page, the article talk page, and now on the physics talk page. I also asked you to self revert, after having pointed you to the relevant 3RR rule before you went to 4 reverts, and you still didn't listen. We're only really here because of your behavior.
And your edits include: "If WarpStar-I concept vehicle or a similar vehicle were equipped with an EM Drive, it could enable travel from the surface of Earth to the surface of the moon within four hours carrying two to six passengers and luggage," when the device hasn't even flown, not even a millimetre. That's classic WP:CRYSTAL. If you had had reliable sources, fair enough, but you didn't have them, and you still don't; and they don't exist.GliderMaven (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

70.74.238.17/Harari234 reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Indeffed/ blocked 48 hours two weeks)[edit]

Page:Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:Sultanate of Harar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:Sultanate of Ifat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harari234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 70.74.238.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad:

  1. Revision as of 00:22, 3 May 2015
  2. Revision as of 00:34, 3 May 2015
  3. Revision as of 05:34, 3 May 2015
  4. Latest revision as of 17:33, 3 May 2015

On the Adal Sultanate:

  1. Revision as of 00:20, 3 May 2015
  2. Revision as of 00:30, 3 May 2015
  3. Revision as of 05:32, 3 May 2015
  4. Latest revision as of 17:32, 3 May 2015

On the Sultanate of Harar:

  1. Revision as of 00:27, 3 May 2015
  2. Revision as of 05:34, 3 May 2015
  3. Revision as of 17:35, 3 May 2015

On the Sultanate of Ifat:

  1. Revision as of 00:20, 3 May 2015
  2. Revision as of 00:31, 3 May 2015
  3. Revision as of 05:33, 3 May 2015
  4. Latest revision as of 17:33, 3 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning (for the main account, see here: [59]

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

Comments:

Even after I gave him an addition warning he still chose to deliberately break 3RR. Not only has this individual been editing warring on multiple pages (as shown above) they are also a sock of Harari234. The sock and master account not only edit the same exact pages (see here and here) the IP has constantly been editing the comments of the master account (see here for an example). The sock has even foolishly signed using the master accounts signature (see here: [60]). When I requested that the IP/Master to stop, they replied with this: You clearly have a problem Acidsnow, so live this page alone. Making PERSONALATTACKs didn't help his case even the slightest. Though I am not sure as to why they have chosen to sock. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the master account has already been blocked twice for the same exact disruptive behavior? AcidSnow (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Obvious sock is obvious. Harari234 indeffed, the IP blocked for 48 hours, Bishonen | talk 00:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance! AcidSnow (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • On second thoughts, while the IP is dynamic, it has obviously been used by one individual for several months, so it can be blocked for longer. Blocked for two weeks.. Ping User:AcidSnow. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC).
Ok. AcidSnow (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Krull The Eternal reported by User:Stickee (Result: )[edit]

Page: Economy of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krull The Eternal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:41, 2 May 2015
  2. 09:22, 3 May 2015‎
  3. 17:26, 4 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61] Blocked 48hrs

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

Comments:

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

User:Elindiord reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )[edit]

Page
Jencarlos Canela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Elindiord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Philip J Fry (talk): If there is a reason for revert all Jencarlos Canela's template. (TW)"
  2. 01:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Philip J Fry (talk). (TW)"
  3. 01:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Jencarlos Canela */ new section"
  2. 02:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Jencarlos Canela */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

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

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

Elindiord has an extensive history of unexplained mass-reverts using Twinkle. They've been warned multiple times on their talk page and were blocked for two days, but apparently have resumed the behavior. Conifer (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week. The message concerning Twinkle abuse clearly isn't getting through.  Philg88 talk 06:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Hijiri88 reported by User:CurtisNaito (Result: )[edit]

Page: Korean influence on Japanese culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [63]
  2. [64]
  3. [65]
  4. [66]
  5. [67] - partial revert (this time the user deleted just the source for some reason, turning the sourced into an unsourced statement)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

We were in the process of discussing the issue, but there was clearly no consensus to delete the material in question, which was reliably sourced and verified.[[69]].

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



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

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

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

Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Problem solved. Edit war over.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I never violated WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. If we want to talk about violations of WP:POINT, how about inserting directly into the article that the source was "twisted to say what the Korean ultranationalists who still seem to be running this page wanted it to say."CurtisNaito (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, per WP:V (why do I have to keep explaining Wikipedia's core policies to you, Curtis?) I'm not allowed reinsert the Hane source, which doesn't directly support the material I added, but also doesn't support the claims you attributed to it. I don't directly have access at the moment to a single source that backs up all the information I added, but it has been discussed extensively at Talk:Yamanoue no Okura and is all easily verifiable. Given the page's history, though, it's extremely problematic to be adding "unsourced" material, so I left a note in the form of a comment explaining the background of the edit, and with a date stamp so other users could go back and check what happened. This is not the same as "inserting [text] directly into the article", and I don't appreciate your presenting it in such a way.
As for your own violation of POINT and BATTLEGROUND: the edit summary on your first revert indicated that you knew the material was a misrepresentation of the source, but you re-added it, left a warning on my talk page, but not the one who has made at least one more revert than me so far, and then brought it here. This one-sided action indicates that you are not interested in preventing an edit-war, but in getting back at me for all the other times I have argued with you over your failure to understand our core content policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Your refusal to make the changes that you yourself acknowledged were necessary was clearly meant as yet another attempt to make the result of this conflict be a sanction against me, rather than page protection (the normal course of action where two users have a content dispute and one is reverting while refusing to discuss on the talk page).
Admins: This failure to understand V and NOR, and wikilawyering in a manner contrary to normal dispute resolution, are recurring problems with this user, as indicated on the pages linked above, and as User:Nishidani (who has dealt with the problem before) can attest to. Please help ensure this does not happen again.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I warned you in the hopes that by doing so you would not violate the three revert rule. I never said that the text in question was a misrepresentation. I said the opposite. I said it was NOT a misrepresentation. By the time I got there the source was already quoted in full in the talk page and there did not seem to be any misrepresentation. You haven't managed to provide any evidence that I failed to understand any Wikipedia policies, though it's not relevant to the issue at hand anyway.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you warned me so that you could come here and say that you warned me. Rather than preparing this whole big report on me, it would have been so much easier for you to just fix the edit yourself. Why didn't you? Could it be that you wanted this "edit war" to come here? Why are you only reporting on me and not TH1980? Why did you not leave a warning on their talk page even though they had already violated 3RR? It can't just be that you agreed with TH1980 and disagreed with me -- you explicitly stated that you knew TH1980's edit was problematic when you first restored it. This is wikilawyering at its worst. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The latest version you inserted into the article is worse because it has no citation and it includes an inappropriate comment. All I said was that the previous version could be improved, not necessarily by changing the text itself, but by adding additional text after it. Not once did I say it was "problematic". Actually it was accurate and reliably sourced. I said there was room to discuss it because I wanted to discuss it. There was no reason to violate consensus by continuing to revert.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you seriously think the previous edit was not a gross expansion of what the source says into something that no source says, then we are back to discussing you competence issues regarding your strange interpretations of V and NOR, aren't we? The previous statement was unsourced, because the source cited didn't back up its claim; my revised edit is "unsourced" in that there is no inline citation, but "Okura was a prominent Man'you 2-ki poet", "the theory that Okura was the son of a Kudaran physician is accepted by a large number of scholars", "the theory developed in the latter half of the 20th century" and "the theory was spearheaded by Nakanishi Susumu" are all easily verifiable facts. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hane clearly cited Yamanoe Okura as an example of "Korean influence" on a piece of Japanese literature. Hane was not being ambiguous about what he meant and his views were accurately reflected in the article. In fact I checked the source that Hane cited and it confirms that Hane did actually mean what he explicitly said. The source Hane cites for his statement, an article by Miller, spends several paragraphs discussing "the seminal contributions of Korean immigrants, and of Korean literary culture as brought to Japan by the early Korean diaspora". In this context, Miller's article notes that Yamanoe Okura's poetic style was directly influenced by Korean poetry. Therefore, there can be no question that the statement was both accurate and reliably sourced. There was no reason to delete a reliable source in this manner.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hane only said something resembling "Okura was a Korean living in Japan" because he apparently didn't fully understand the theory. The Miller article is a good one and I like it, but only because nowhere does he state that Okura was "a Korean living in Japan" (his title seems like it's making such a claim, but he admits that Okura's age combined with the date of the fall of Baekje make it extremely difficult to say he grew up somewhere other than Japan); and Miller (like all good scholars) knew that it was anachronistic to talk about modern nation-states like "Japan" and "Korea" for the period of time in question -- he used them as handy shorthand, because he was writing for a scholarly audience who knew what he meant (which is apparently more than can be said for you or TH1980). I would like to see the page number where Miller says Okura's poetic style was directly influenced by Korean poetry -- the essay itself devotes about 90% of its word-count to how Okura's style was directly influenced by the Chinese translation of a certain (Indian?) Buddhist sutra, so any discussion of Korean poetry is peripheral at best. Additionally -- exactly what Korean poetry could Okura have been influenced by? His native language (in Miller's opinion and the opinion of most scholars who hold to the Okura Toraijin Theory) was Old Paekche, a language with next to no extant attestation; if you mean "Classical Chinese poetry written by people from the Korean Peninsula", then we can't say "Korean poetry" without elaborating what we mean.
But none of this addresses the core issue that what was there before (or rather, what TH1980 unilaterally added) was bad, and what's there now is better. Why are you continuing to oppose my version?
And why, when this "edit war" was started by TH1980, and he was the one who made the greater number of reverts, and he is the one who has been refusing to engage me in discussion on the talk page, did you choose to "report" me alone? Could it be that you are wikilawering in an attempt to get me blocked for a content dispute in which I was the lesser of the several offenders, a content dispute that is already resolved?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Miller says that Yamanoe Okura was of "Korean... immigrant origin"(p.776), which is what Hane says as well. If someone is a Korean of immigrant origin living in Japan, then it's fine to describe them as "a Korean living in Japan". Of course that's not the only way one can describe it, but no one can say that it's a misrepresentation to describe a Korean of immigrant origin living in Japan as "a Korean living in Japan". On the same page Miller also notes that, "Nakanishi identifies specific text parallels between poems by Okura and poems from the Old Korean hyangga corpus". The text that was in the article was an accurate reflection of both Hane and Miller's views.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Tell me Curtis: how is saying that Okura was "of Korean immigrant origin" the same as saying he was "a Korean living in Japan"? Let alone that the adjectival use of "Korean" can easily mean (i.e., does mean, in this case) "originating in the Korean Peninsula". Calling him "a Korean living in Japan" has anachronistic (and borderline racist) implications of the modern notion of nationality. It's not really appropriate, but consider the fact that Okura is in Nakanishi-sensei's theory called a kika-jin; in modern Japanese, this refers to a naturalized Japanese citizen (I know it didn't then, but still); if you called Debito Arudou or Donald Keene "Americans living in Japan" you would be guilty of borderline racism because you would be denying their Japanese citizenship. They are two modern examples; as for Okura, he lived at a time when there was no such thing as "Korean citizenship" (there wasn't even a unified Korean state -- or any such thing as "Baekjean citizenship" for that matter) so saying that he never formally naturalized would also be ridiculous. Also, saying that there are parallels is problematic here: was Nakanishi talking about parallels between Okura's 8th-century Japanese poetry and later Korean poetry, and speculating that Okura may have been influenced by the (hypothetical/no longer extant) predecessors to these later Korean poems?
Therefore, the text was not an accurate reflection of Miller's views. I don't know if it was an accurate reflection of Hane's views, since I can't parse the latter's views from the brief quote provided, but I would be willing to guess that Hane was just parroting what he read in Miller, since he mirrored Miller's very rare orthography "Yamanoe Okura".
Anyway, I seem to have misunderstood you when you said "Miller": I had assumed you were talking about his excellent monograph "Yamanoe Okura, a Korean Poet in Eighth Century Japan", previously cited in the article; but it seems you were talking about his review of Kato, Chibett and Dore, "Plus Ça Change". His coverage of the Okura Toraijin Theory in this review article is minimal, and if Hane really got everything he knew from such a book review then he is not so much a tertiary source as a quaternary source. Taking extremely vague wording in tertiary and quaternary sources and expanding on it to say what a few Wikipedia editors want it to is an abuse of sources, and if you keep it up because you still really don't get why you're not not allowed do that you will be blocked.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Mikiso Hane's book is indisputably a secondary source, not a tertiary source. The reason why Yamanoe no Okura was called Korean is because that is how both Hane and Miller describe him. The idea that calling him Korean is racist is purely your personal opinion. Surely Hane and Miller would not have called him Korean if they thought that was racist. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia merely following along with the scholarly convention. The text in question was an accurate reflection of Miller's views because Miller does clearly say that Yamanoe no Okura was Korean and Miller does clearly indicate that his poetry represents a Korean influence on Japan. It's possible that the text did not accurately reflect Hijiri's personal opinions, but it did accurately reflect both Hane and Miller.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Mikiso Hane's book is indisputably a secondary source, not a tertiary source. I think you don't know what "primary", "secondary" and "tertiary" mean. A primary source would be one of Okura's poems; a secondary source is a scholarly article or book written by someone who has read Okura's poetry, like Nakanishi's articles "Okura Toraijin-ron" and "Okura Kikajin-ron" and his book Yamanoue no Okura; a tertiary source is a source discussing Nakanishi's work on Okura, like Miller's book review (the fact that Miller has also read Okura's poetry and wrote other works that qualify as secondary sources is irrelevant to this problem). Mikiso Hane's book, if he gets his information from Miller's book review, is what I like to call a "quaternary source". Hane is not a literary scholar, and as far as I am aware he is unknown in the community of Man'yōshū scholars; your placing him above Donald Keene, until his 2011 retirement the dean of western study of Japanese literature, is laughable.
The reason why Yamanoe no Okura was called Korean is because that is how both Hane and Miller describe him. You are ignoring me -- I said that the sources described him as "a Korean poet" (i.e., an adjective describing a poet who originated in the Korean Peninsula) but your text described him as "a Korean living in Japan" (i.e., a noun describing someone who had Korean, not Japanese, "citizenship" [sic] and resided in Japan). Your now going back and saying "he was called Korean" is a gross misunderstanding of the concern I expressed, that he was called a Korean.
The idea that calling him Korean is racist is purely your personal opinion. Curtis, if "Curtis Naito" is your real name (I can't think of any famous fictional character or the like you would borrow it from), then is it safe to assume you are an American/English/Australian or some other Anglosphere nationality of Japanese ancestry? "Curtis" is an almost non-existent given name in Japan, and "Naito" is a Japanese surname, so I would guess you are at least nisei. Most English-speaking countries (i.e., countries where "Curtis" is a common given name) have some form of jus soli nationality law, meaning you would possess the citizenship of that country in which you were born, not the country from which your ancestors emigrated. For the purpose of this analogy, I will assume you are a second-generation Japanese-American, meaning that your father and mother were born in Japan but you were born in the United States. Now, if I were to insist that you are "a Japanese living in America" based on your name, physical appearance or ancestry, calling me "borderline racist" would be mild. What you and TH1980 have been doing to Okura is no different.
Surely Hane and Miller would not have called him Korean if they thought that was racist. I have already told you that when Miller uses this language he is using scholarly shorthand. Per WP:NOTJOURNAL we are not supposed to use academic shorthand that will be misunderstood by our non-specialist readers. As for Hane -- I don't want to talk to you about him anymore. He is an obscure quaternary source who was apparently being misrepresented on the article, and we have dozens of much better sources already quoted on the talk page and on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura. I don't know what Hane thought was racist, or what he thought about the Okura Toraijin Theory; from what you have told me, he got what he knew of it from Miller's very brief coverage of it in his review of a different book.
There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia merely following along with the scholarly convention. Again, see above: if scholars use scholarly shorthand, and explain (in the cited works or elsewhere in their writings) that this is scholarly shorthand and means something different from when normal folks use these words, then per WP:NOTJOURNAL we are supposed to translate what those scholars say into everyday English. When you say "merely following along with the scholarly convention", you appear to mean "cherry-pick and expand on quotes from scholars to make points that they themselves never did". This is most certainly not allowed on Wikipedia.
The text in question was an accurate reflection of Miller's views because Miller does clearly say that Yamanoe no Okura was Korean and Miller does clearly indicate that his poetry represents a Korean influence on Japan. Again: quotes and page numbers, please! I have read Miller's excellent monograph "Yamanoe Okura, a Korean Poet in Eighth Century Japan" from start to finish, and I don't think he said that Okura's poetry represents a "Korean influence on Japan". I forget if he makes the (obvious, well-established) point that Okura was forgotten for most of history before being rediscovered in the twentieth century, though. You are taking another, shorter essay in which Miller (diligently performing his duty as a book reviewer) discussed a few of the good points of Kato's book, the problems with Kato's book (of which his coverage of Okura is one) and the problems with the translation, and twisting it to say what you want it to when the same author has been much clearer and more thorough elsewhere.
It's possible that the text did not accurately reflect Hijiri's personal opinions, but it did accurately reflect both Hane and Miller. Please stop talking about Hane. As for Miller -- it did not.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, you still haven't provided any actual evidence that Miller used the word "Korean" as "scholarly shorthand". Miller doesn't say that and there is no evidence for it. I don't think it's useful to make such speculations about what might have been going on in Miller's mind. When Miller uses the word "Korean" there is no reason why we can't also. We need to focus on what Miller actually wrote, not on what he didn't write, and the text being inserted into the article did accurately represent what Miller wrote. Like Miller says on page 776, "Japanese scholars have made important progress in identifying the seminal contributions of Korean immigrants, and of Korean literary culture as brought to Japan by the early Korean diaspora from the Old Korean kingdoms, to the formative stages of early Japanese poetic art, in particular to the Manyoshu. In this connection, the reevaluation of the oeuvre of Yamanoe Okura, now generally believed by many Japanese literary scholars to have been of Korean, and specifically of Paekche, immigrant origin, is especially important..." Hane's book, which is a secondary source, concurs with this.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I went back and re-read the first six or seven pages of Miller 1984, and couldn't find the discussion of the problematic nature of using modern country names to refer to collections of independent kingdoms and/or chiefdoms in the distant past that happened shared some kind of cultural/linguistic/ethnic identity with each other and (debatably) with the modern countries that use those names. If I was misattributing this statement to Miller I apologize, but we certainly don't need sources that independently testify to this fact -- it is common scholarly sense. Miller never said once in the six or seven pages I reread that Okura was "a Korean who lived in Japan" -- he never in fact once used the word "Korean" as a noun to refer to a person, only to the language. And then, why are you bringing Miller into this in the first place? Miller was never cited in the article? Also, I reread the first few pages of Ledyard 1975 -- the main source for the Covells, on whose work the original draft of our still-pretty-horrendous article was based -- he quotes (220, note 9) a different review by Miller of Egami's original horserider theory book in which Miller compares the theory to the Ancient Aliens hypothesis; and (226, note 20) he says some interesting things about the Gwanggaeto Stele that I'm sure would cause our Korean ultranationalist Wikipedian friends to burn him in effigy.
Anyway, can this thread be closed now? The page doesn't need protecting. I need a fish thrown at me for violating 3RR. You and TH1980 need to be warned that you cannot edit war to include unsourced claims and/or OR in the mainspace. Nishidani needs a pat on the back for his insightful comment below. 'Nuff said.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I brought Miller into it because you kept on claiming that the Hane source was being misrepresented. However, the Miller source which Hane cites confirms in greater detail everything which was put into the article. Although it never at any time seemed likely that the Hane source was being misrepresented, comparing it with the Miller source leaves no doubt that it was not being misrepresented in any way. Even now you are still falsely claiming that TH1980 and I were including "unsourced claims" in the article. TH1980 and I were both using reliable sources to make accurate statements. You, however, not only edit warred in order to remove reliably sourced information, but you then proceeded to delete the reliably sourced information in favor of a completely and entirely unsourced statement.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, it is not at all clear that Miller uses the word "Korean" only to refer to a language. He mentions "the seminal contributions of Korean immigrants, and of Korean literary culture as brought to Japan by the early Korean diaspora from the Old Korean kingdoms, to the formative stages of early Japanese poetic art, in particular to the Manyoshu. In this connection, the reevaluation of the oeuvre of Yamanoe Okura, now generally believed by many Japanese literary scholars to have been of Korean, and specifically of Paekche, immigrant origin, is especially important". In the last case especially, "Paekche" is not a language so here he is definitely not using the word "Korean" to refer exclusively to a language.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Curtis, learn to speak frickin' English. I said the noun "Korean" refers only to the language when Miller uses it to refer to the eighth century. I don't know why you haven't been blocked for these CIR issues yet. And Hane was the source -- just because you checked Hane and found out what source he used, doesn't change the fact that the source being cited in the article (and the source you keep trying to argue is an important, critical source on the history of early Japanese literature) was a general historical survey by Hane. You and TH1980 have been abusing generally reliable sources (a tertiary historical review that says almost nothing about the topic and a scholarly book review that says almost as little) in order to make them say what you want them to say. I have pointed out (about a dozen times by now) that what you want the article to say is not what your "sources" say, and therefore your claims are unsourced and I am free to remove them from the article per WP:BURDEN. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You both are confusing the function of this page. Please desist. Hijiri edit warred, as did Curtis Naito, the latter with a particularly incompetent, indeed, stupid revert in support of another indifferent editor's original proposal.
  • The original edit, and
  • the same author's subsequent revivals of it here and here of Hijiri's removal were dumb, reflecting the editor's ignorance.
So Hijiri broke the 3R rule, while TH1980 and CurtisNaito provocatively edited in 5 times - by the looks of it Curtis Naito taggteamed to push Hijiri - a nonsensical nationalistic statement which distorts the sources used.
Yamanoue no Okura was not 'a Korean who lived in Japan'. He was the descendent of a Kudara refugee who fled to Yamato after that country was destroyed in a conflict involving Yamato, Kudara, Silla, and T'ang Dynasty China (source Nakanishi). Yamanoue grew up, from age 3, in Yamato. To call him a 'Korean living in Japan' is conceptually as stupid as calling Gary Shteyngart a 'Russian who lives in the United States', or Raul Hilberg an Austrian who lived in the United States, or Vladimir Nabokov ' a Russian who lived in the United States', or Saul Bellow a 'Canadian who lived in the United States'. Hijiri knows that, as it is commonsense. Neither TH1980 nor CurtisNaito understand the obvious. They kept within the 3R limit, but while sanctioning Hijiri, and admin should take severe action against the other two, esp. CurtisNaito who has a reputation for being impossible to reason with. He certainly shouldn't be editing articles on ancient Japan. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Just a little nitpick -- technically, I went a little further over 3RR than you think, and TH1980 violated it too (though not as much as me). If we include my last edit (a borderline "revert") then I reverted five times[70][71][72][73][74] in a 24-hour period, and TH1980 four[75][76][77][78] (you seem to only be thinking of the Okura reverts, but there were also the gugyeol reverts before that). CurtisNaito only reverted twice[79][80] but his actions (tagging[81] and reporting[82] me and not TH1980 when, at the time, the latter had violated 3RR and I had not) and the obvious wikilawyering (baiting me into violating 3RR when I had not done so already, when TH1980 already had done so, and the fact that it took him three minutes just to inform me that this thread was open[83][84] but it only took him seventeen to put together a very complex EW report[85][86] implies he was already preparing this one-sided EW report before I had even done so) are a problem. Both TH1980 and CurtisNaito have made talk page discussion difficult (TH1980 over the past two days, CurtisNaito I just know from past experience will make talk page discussion difficult). Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I doubt anyone is reading this, because it has the appearance of a dog's fleafight over a disputed patch of galactic milk in Ïhātobu:) There's almost nothing to discuss: you broke 3R, User:TH1980 broke 3R, and CurtisNaito, the chief mischief maker, since he helped a 3R reverter while not reporting him, to corner you, so that he could report you, is trying to game the system to get rid of an editor. As I said, his presence is a disaster on all articles on ancient Japan where I have noted him. But that doesn't excuse your own error. CurtiusNaito is in his rights to make this report. But by doing so, given the evidence, he has no grounds to protest if an admin takes a WP:Boomerang reading of his own execrable judgement here (and elsewhere: I avoid him like the plague after Talk:Soga–Mononobe conflict and a few other pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture where I showed he consistently cites sources he either hasn't read, or can't construe correctly; and here where it was almost impossible without inhuman degrees of scholarly commitment to get him to see the obvious).Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Maurice Flesier reported by User:Anastan (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
Gračanica, Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660621833 by Anastan (talk) No concensus yet!"
  2. 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660619347 by Zoupan (talk) No any concensus!"
  3. 17:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660612708 by Zoupan (talk) As İ said dozens of times, its not a criteria."
  4. 16:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC) "There is no any result or decision on WP:NPV!!"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

User was already warned on his talkpage Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Flesier was previously known as User:Maurice07. Whoever closes this might also look at
There is also an entry for Maurice07 in WP:RESTRICT. If a block is the right course of action here, perhaps it should be indefinite, given the wording of the note at WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It's looking like a long (if not indefinite) block would be appropriate, but I'd like to see what Maurice says first. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I know at least one instance[87] where Maurice had been forgiven for making 4 reverts. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 05:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely – I've gone ahead with the block as proposed above since there has been no response from User:Maurice Flesier in the time available. This is a clear 3RR violation on an article lead with the apparent goal of promoting the importance of the Turkish name for this town. There is no clear answer on who is right, but his reverts are consistent with the Turkish nationalism that was evident in the AE complaints listed above, especially the one in Archive128. If he does return later and want to answer the complaint he can do so on his talk page, using the {{unblock}} template to get attention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Hernando1620 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Neurocrine Biosciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Hernando1620 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Updated corporate management information as of 2015 as well as updated description of company. Please don't revert back to the 2005 information as it is no longer relevant."
  2. 23:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Updated corporate management information as of 2015 as well as updated description of company. Please don't revert back to the 2005 information as it is no longer relevant."
  3. 22:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "this page was updated to reflect the current as of 2015. Both the CEO / CFO and Chairman of the Board are updated as well as the description of the company. The previous information was outdated (2005) and doesn't reflect the current state of company."
  4. 21:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Neurocrine Biosciences. (TW)"
  2. 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Neurocrine Biosciences. (