Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KoA (talk | contribs) at 17:04, 5 May 2015 (→User:SageRad and User:Jytdog reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected): r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

User: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 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 ).

After he'd edit-warred with multiple editors, an ANI discussion was started: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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: (After receiving the warning, he reverted it then reverted a tag on an article ).

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 ) and Scalhotrod (talk · contribs) (eg ) simply revert.

I want to point out in his defense that he might be changing his habits somewhat, given his cleanup after that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 in addition to my own talkpage 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 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 Misplaced Pages, I believe the length was appropriate considering the circumstances. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hanswar32 continues to edit war --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 . You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages 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 . 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. 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 ( ) 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 . 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 ( ) and Scalhotrod ( ). Seems that Wolfowitz considers the statements by Hanswar32 and Scalhotrod as reason to go ahead and remove the disputed content once again ( ). 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)

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

Page

The Islamic Schools of Victoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Stevengreggory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant -- Aronzak (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages rules of conduct or information. (I have referenced correctly with relevant links and sources ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See here:

Comments:

Obviously, there's not a 3RR problem, which is what you warned him for. What sanctions are you claiming are in place here? Are you refering to WP:ARBPIA? Kuru (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Its not a 3RR issue, but rather a 1RR problem. He states that Plot Spolier has "violated the WP:1RR rule in the Iranian/Palestinian/Israeli conflict area". Though, I am unsure how this has anything to do with Iran. Neither Israel nor Palestine is mentioned anywhere in the article. AcidSnow (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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
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 . 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.’”

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". 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. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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. "Billionaire's sketchy Middle East gamble: Meet the man betting on war with Iran". www.salon.com. Retrieved 1 May 2015.

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | talk 08:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC).

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

Page

Microsoft Publisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gtadude00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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

• Blocked indefinitely Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

Page

Gračanica, Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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

• here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• here

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

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128#Maurice07
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Maurice07
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive148#Maurice07

There is also an entry for Maurice07 in WP:RESTRICT. If a block is the right course of action here, perhaps it should be indefinite, given the wording of the note at WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's looking like a long (if not indefinite) block would be appropriate, but I'd like to see what Maurice says first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I know at least one instance where Maurice had been forgiven for making 4 reverts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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:Quantanew reported by User:GliderMaven (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page: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 · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 70.74.238.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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)

• 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: )

Page

Megatrend University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

184.145.137.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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:Krull The Eternal reported by User:Stickee (Result: )

Page: Economy of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krull The Eternal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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: 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:Hernando1620 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: )

Page

Neurocrine Biosciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hernando1620 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on Neurocrine Biosciences. (TW)"
2. 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Neurocrine Biosciences. (TW)"
3. 23:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on Neurocrine Biosciences. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

Page

Jencarlos Canela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Elindiord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)

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

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

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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 Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Continuation of Souther Strategy Neutrality Dispute.

Comments:
The editor is engaging in Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. User also posts as an IP and two of the reverts above were by the IP. This diff 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. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. - partial revert (this time the user deleted just the source for some reason, turning the sourced into an unsourced statement)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

The content in question was already discussed extensively on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura and Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture. Yesterday, 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 (聖やや) 04:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Apart from Hijiri I didn't see one single person on the talk page who opposed complete deletion of references to Yamanoe Okura. Including the material seems to me to be an improvement to the article, and although discussion was on-going, there was clearly no agreement that it should be deleted. Furthermore, it's inappropriate that Hijiri keeps on calling TH1980 a sockpuppet. It looks to me like TH1980 has been a user in good standing for a long time, so there is no reason whatsoever to make this accusation.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I felt like I was being pushed around by a bully. Hijiri had no rational reason for deleting a valid, fully sourced addition, nor did he provide any reason at all for why he kept reverting my edits. Finally, his personal attacks on me is nothing short of deplorable (though they do reveal that Hijiri has tendencies towards Internet bullying).TH1980 (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@TH1980: You made two edits, one about gugyeol/katakana, and one about the Okura-toraijin-ron. Neither of these was properly sourced: the former was wrongly (and deliberately) attributed to the wrong author, in order to give the false impression that that author's view is held by more than one person; the latter was a blatant expansion of what one vague, tertiary source says into something no reliable source says. Only the latter is under discussion here as (following User:Ubikwit's revert) you appear to have given up on the former. It's not clear what "personal attacks" and "bullying" you are talking about: I referred to your false characterization of the former source as a "lie", but that is something most others would likely agree with. If you're referring to my accusing you of sockpuppetry: either I'm right, in which case it's not a personal attack but an accurate observation on your very suspicious actions, or I'm wrong, in which case I apologize. But you have to admit your constantly dodging the question and refusal to directly denying engaging in sockpuppetry is not a good way to allay my suspicions... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And if you're referring to my description of your edit as "historically anachronistic and borderline racist" ... what can I say other than to ask you to stop making borderline racist edits and I'll stop calling your edits borderline racist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Problem solved. Edit war over.

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

I never violated WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. If we want to talk about violations of WP:POINT, how about inserting directly into the article that the source was "twisted to say what the Korean ultranationalists who still seem to be running this page wanted it to say."CurtisNaito (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, per WP:V (why do I have to keep explaining Misplaced Pages'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 directly into the article", and I don't appreciate your presenting it in such a way.

As for your own violation of POINT and BATTLEGROUND: the edit summary on your first revert indicated that you knew the material was a misrepresentation of the source, but you re-added it, left a warning on my talk page, but not the one who has made at least one more revert than me so far, and then brought it here. This one-sided action indicates that you are not interested in preventing an edit-war, but in getting back at me for all the other times I have argued with you over your failure to understand our core content policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Your refusal to make the changes that you yourself acknowledged were necessary was clearly meant as yet another attempt to make the result of this conflict be a sanction against me, rather than page protection (the normal course of action where two users have a content dispute and one is reverting while refusing to discuss on the talk page).

Admins: This failure to understand V and NOR, and wikilawyering in a manner contrary to normal dispute resolution, are recurring problems with this user, as indicated on the pages linked above, and as User:Nishidani (who has dealt with the problem before) can attest to. Please help ensure this does not happen again.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I warned you in the hopes that by doing so you would not violate the three revert rule. I never said that the text in question was a misrepresentation. I said the opposite. I said it was NOT a misrepresentation. By the time I got there the source was already quoted in full in the talk page and there did not seem to be any misrepresentation. You haven't managed to provide any evidence that I failed to understand any Misplaced Pages policies, though it's not relevant to the issue at hand anyway.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you warned me so that you could come here and say that you warned me. Rather than preparing this whole big report on me, it would have been so much easier for you to just fix the edit yourself. Why didn't you? Could it be that you wanted this "edit war" to come here? Why are you only reporting on me and not TH1980? Why did you not leave a warning on their talk page even though they had already violated 3RR? It can't just be that you agreed with TH1980 and disagreed with me -- you explicitly stated that you knew TH1980's edit was problematic when you first restored it. This is wikilawyering at its worst. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The latest version you inserted into the article is worse because it has no citation and it includes an inappropriate comment. All I said was that the previous version could be improved, not necessarily by changing the text itself, but by adding additional text after it. Not once did I say it was "problematic". Actually it was accurate and reliably sourced. I said there was room to discuss it because I wanted to discuss it. There was no reason to violate consensus by continuing to revert.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you seriously think the previous edit was not a gross expansion of what the source says into something that no source says, then we are back to discussing you competence issues regarding your strange interpretations of V and NOR, aren't we? The previous statement was unsourced, because the source cited didn't back up its claim; my revised edit is "unsourced" in that there is no inline citation, but "Okura was a prominent Man'you 2-ki poet", "the theory that Okura was the son of a Kudaran physician is accepted by a large number of scholars", "the theory developed in the latter half of the 20th century" and "the theory was spearheaded by Nakanishi Susumu" are all easily verifiable facts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hane clearly cited Yamanoe Okura as an example of "Korean influence" on a piece of Japanese literature. Hane was not being ambiguous about what he meant and his views were accurately reflected in the article. In fact I checked the source that Hane cited and it confirms that Hane did actually mean what he explicitly said. The source Hane cites for his statement, an article by Miller, spends several paragraphs discussing "the seminal contributions of Korean immigrants, and of Korean literary culture as brought to Japan by the early Korean diaspora". In this context, Miller's article notes that Yamanoe Okura's poetic style was directly influenced by Korean poetry. Therefore, there can be no question that the statement was both accurate and reliably sourced. There was no reason to delete a reliable source in this manner.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hane only said something resembling "Okura was a Korean living in Japan" because he apparently didn't fully understand the theory. The Miller article is a good one and I like it, but only because nowhere does he state that Okura was "a Korean living in Japan" (his title seems like it's making such a claim, but he admits that Okura's age combined with the date of the fall of Baekje make it extremely difficult to say he grew up somewhere other than Japan); and Miller (like all good scholars) knew that it was anachronistic to talk about modern nation-states like "Japan" and "Korea" for the period of time in question -- he used them as handy shorthand, because he was writing for a scholarly audience who knew what he meant (which is apparently more than can be said for you or TH1980). I would like to see the page number where Miller says Okura's poetic style was directly influenced by Korean poetry -- the essay itself devotes about 90% of its word-count to how Okura's style was directly influenced by the Chinese translation of a certain (Indian?) Buddhist sutra, so any discussion of Korean poetry is peripheral at best. Additionally -- exactly what Korean poetry could Okura have been influenced by? His native language (in Miller's opinion and the opinion of most scholars who hold to the Okura Toraijin Theory) was Old Paekche, a language with next to no extant attestation; if you mean "Classical Chinese poetry written by people from the Korean Peninsula", then we can't say "Korean poetry" without elaborating what we mean.

But none of this addresses the core issue that what was there before (or rather, what TH1980 unilaterally added) was bad, and what's there now is better. Why are you continuing to oppose my version?

And why, when this "edit war" was started by TH1980, and he was the one who made the greater number of reverts, and he is the one who has been refusing to engage me in discussion on the talk page, did you choose to "report" me alone? Could it be that you are wikilawering in an attempt to get me blocked for a content dispute in which I was the lesser of the several offenders, a content dispute that is already resolved?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Miller says that Yamanoe Okura was of "Korean... immigrant origin"(p.776), which is what Hane says as well. If someone is a Korean of immigrant origin living in Japan, then it's fine to describe them as "a Korean living in Japan". Of course that's not the only way one can describe it, but no one can say that it's a misrepresentation to describe a Korean of immigrant origin living in Japan as "a Korean living in Japan". On the same page Miller also notes that, "Nakanishi identifies specific text parallels between poems by Okura and poems from the Old Korean hyangga corpus". The text that was in the article was an accurate reflection of both Hane and Miller's views.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Tell me Curtis: how is saying that Okura was "of Korean immigrant origin" the same as saying he was "a Korean living in Japan"? Let alone that the adjectival use of "Korean" can easily mean (i.e., does mean, in this case) "originating in the Korean Peninsula". Calling him "a Korean living in Japan" has anachronistic (and borderline racist) implications of the modern notion of nationality. It's not really appropriate, but consider the fact that Okura is in Nakanishi-sensei's theory called a kika-jin; in modern Japanese, this refers to a naturalized Japanese citizen (I know it didn't then, but still); if you called Debito Arudou or Donald Keene "Americans living in Japan" you would be guilty of borderline racism because you would be denying their Japanese citizenship. They are two modern examples; as for Okura, he lived at a time when there was no such thing as "Korean citizenship" (there wasn't even a unified Korean state -- or any such thing as "Baekjean citizenship" for that matter) so saying that he never formally naturalized would also be ridiculous. Also, saying that there are parallels is problematic here: was Nakanishi talking about parallels between Okura's 8th-century Japanese poetry and later Korean poetry, and speculating that Okura may have been influenced by the (hypothetical/no longer extant) predecessors to these later Korean poems?

Therefore, the text was not an accurate reflection of Miller's views. I don't know if it was an accurate reflection of Hane's views, since I can't parse the latter's views from the brief quote provided, but I would be willing to guess that Hane was just parroting what he read in Miller, since he mirrored Miller's very rare orthography "Yamanoe Okura".

Anyway, I seem to have misunderstood you when you said "Miller": I had assumed you were talking about his excellent monograph "Yamanoe Okura, a Korean Poet in Eighth Century Japan", previously cited in the article; but it seems you were talking about his review of Kato, Chibett and Dore, "Plus Ça Change". His coverage of the Okura Toraijin Theory in this review article is minimal, and if Hane really got everything he knew from such a book review then he is not so much a tertiary source as a quaternary source. Taking extremely vague wording in tertiary and quaternary sources and expanding on it to say what a few Misplaced Pages editors want it to is an abuse of sources, and if you keep it up because you still really don't get why you're not not allowed do that you will be blocked.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mikiso Hane's book is indisputably a secondary source, not a tertiary source. The reason why Yamanoe no Okura was called Korean is because that is how both Hane and Miller describe him. The idea that calling him Korean is racist is purely your personal opinion. Surely Hane and Miller would not have called him Korean if they thought that was racist. There is nothing wrong with Misplaced Pages 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" 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

The text in question was an accurate reflection of Miller's views because Miller does clearly say that Yamanoe no Okura was Korean and Miller does clearly indicate that his poetry represents a Korean influence on Japan. Again: quotes and page numbers, please! I have read Miller's excellent monograph "Yamanoe Okura, a Korean Poet in Eighth Century Japan" from start to finish, and I don't think he said that Okura's poetry represents a "Korean influence on Japan". I forget if he makes the (obvious, well-established) point that Okura was forgotten for most of history before being rediscovered in the twentieth century, though. You are taking another, shorter essay in which Miller (diligently performing his duty as a book reviewer) discussed a few of the good points of Kato's book, the problems with Kato's book (of which his coverage of Okura is one) and the problems with the translation, and twisting it to say what you want it to when the same author has been much clearer and more thorough elsewhere.

It's possible that the text did not accurately reflect Hijiri's personal opinions, but it did accurately reflect both Hane and Miller. Please stop talking about Hane. As for Miller -- it did not.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, you still haven't provided any actual evidence that Miller used the word "Korean" as "scholarly shorthand". Miller doesn't say that and there is no evidence for it. I don't think it's useful to make such speculations about what might have been going on in Miller's mind. When Miller uses the word "Korean" there is no reason why we can't also. We need to focus on what Miller actually wrote, not on what he didn't write, and the text being inserted into the article did accurately represent what Miller wrote. Like Miller says on page 776, "Japanese scholars have made important progress in identifying the seminal contributions of Korean immigrants, and of Korean literary culture as brought to Japan by the early Korean diaspora from the Old Korean kingdoms, to the formative stages of early Japanese poetic art, in particular to the Manyoshu. In this connection, the reevaluation of the oeuvre of Yamanoe Okura, now generally believed by many Japanese literary scholars to have been of Korean, and specifically of Paekche, immigrant origin, is especially important..." Hane's book, which is a secondary source, concurs with this.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I went back and re-read the first six or seven pages of Miller 1984, and couldn't find the discussion of the problematic nature of using modern country names to refer to collections of independent kingdoms and/or chiefdoms in the distant past that happened shared some kind of cultural/linguistic/ethnic identity with each other and (debatably) with the modern countries that use those names. If I was misattributing this statement to Miller I apologize, but we certainly don't need sources that independently testify to this fact -- it is common scholarly sense. Miller never said once in the six or seven pages I reread that Okura was "a Korean who lived in Japan" -- he never in fact once used the word "Korean" as a noun to refer to a person, only to the language. And then, why are you bringing Miller into this in the first place? Miller was never cited in the article? Also, I reread the first few pages of Ledyard 1975 -- the main source for the Covells, on whose work the original draft of our still-pretty-horrendous article was based -- he quotes (220, note 9) a different review by Miller of Egami's original horserider theory book in which Miller compares the theory to the Ancient Aliens hypothesis; and (226, note 20) he says some interesting things about the Gwanggaeto Stele that I'm sure would cause our Korean ultranationalist Wikipedian friends to burn him in effigy.

Anyway, can this thread be closed now? The page doesn't need protecting. I need a fish thrown at me for violating 3RR. You and TH1980 need to be warned that you cannot edit war to include unsourced claims and/or OR in the mainspace. Nishidani needs a pat on the back for his insightful comment below. 'Nuff said.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I brought Miller into it because you kept on claiming that the Hane source was being misrepresented. However, the Miller source which Hane cites confirms in greater detail everything which was put into the article. Although it never at any time seemed likely that the Hane source was being misrepresented, comparing it with the Miller source leaves no doubt that it was not being misrepresented in any way. Even now you are still falsely claiming that TH1980 and I were including "unsourced claims" in the article. TH1980 and I were both using reliable sources to make accurate statements. You, however, not only edit warred in order to remove reliably sourced information, but you then proceeded to delete the reliably sourced information in favor of a completely and entirely unsourced statement.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, it is not at all clear that Miller uses the word "Korean" only to refer to a language. He mentions "the seminal contributions of Korean immigrants, and of Korean literary culture as brought to Japan by the early Korean diaspora from the Old Korean kingdoms, to the formative stages of early Japanese poetic art, in particular to the Manyoshu. In this connection, the reevaluation of the oeuvre of Yamanoe Okura, now generally believed by many Japanese literary scholars to have been of Korean, and specifically of Paekche, immigrant origin, is especially important". In the last case especially, "Paekche" is not a language so here he is definitely not using the word "Korean" to refer exclusively to a language.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, learn to speak frickin' English. I said the noun "Korean" refers only to the language when Miller uses it to refer to the eighth century. I don't know why you haven't been blocked for these CIR issues yet. And Hane was the source -- just because you checked Hane and found out what source he used, doesn't change the fact that the source being cited in the article (and the source you keep trying to argue is an important, critical source on the history of early Japanese literature) was a general historical survey by Hane. You and TH1980 have been abusing generally reliable sources (a tertiary historical review that says almost nothing about the topic and a scholarly book review that says almost as little) in order to make them say what you want them to say. I have pointed out (about a dozen times by now) that what you want the article to say is not what your "sources" say, and therefore your claims are unsourced and I am free to remove them from the article per WP:BURDEN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You both are confusing the function of this page. Please desist. Hijiri edit warred, as did Curtis Naito, the latter with a particularly incompetent, indeed, stupid revert in support of another indifferent editor's original proposal.

• The original edit, and
• the same author's subsequent revivals of it here and here of Hijiri's removal were dumb, reflecting the editor's ignorance.

• Curtis Naito waited, and stepped in to approve of the initial error, when Hijiri had made three reverts. Hijiri made his 4th revert, and
• Curtis reverted him again, restoring a patently dopey statement.

So Hijiri broke the 3R rule, while TH1980 and CurtisNaito provocatively edited in 5 times - by the looks of it Curtis Naito taggteamed to push Hijiri - a nonsensical nationalistic statement which distorts the sources used.

Yamanoue no Okura was not 'a Korean who lived in Japan'. He was the descendent of a Kudara refugee who fled to Yamato after that country was destroyed in a conflict involving Yamato, Kudara, Silla, and T'ang Dynasty China (source Nakanishi). Yamanoue grew up, from age 3, in Yamato. To call him a 'Korean living in Japan' is conceptually as stupid as calling Gary Shteyngart a 'Russian who lives in the United States', or Raul Hilberg an Austrian who lived in the United States, or Vladimir Nabokov ' a Russian who lived in the United States', or Saul Bellow a 'Canadian who lived in the United States'. Hijiri knows that, as it is commonsense. Neither TH1980 nor CurtisNaito understand the obvious. They kept within the 3R limit, but while sanctioning Hijiri, and admin should take severe action against the other two, esp. CurtisNaito who has a reputation for being impossible to reason with. He certainly shouldn't be editing articles on ancient Japan. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Just a little nitpick -- technically, I went a little further over 3RR than you think, and TH1980 violated it too (though not as much as me). If we include my last edit (a borderline "revert") then I reverted five times in a 24-hour period, and TH1980 four (you seem to only be thinking of the Okura reverts, but there were also the gugyeol reverts before that). CurtisNaito only reverted twice but his actions (tagging and reporting me and not TH1980 when, at the time, the latter had violated 3RR and I had not) and the obvious wikilawyering (baiting me into violating 3RR when I had not done so already, when TH1980 already had done so, and the fact that it took him three minutes just to inform me that this thread was open but it only took him seventeen to put together a very complex EW report implies he was already preparing this one-sided EW report before I had even done so) are a problem. Both TH1980 and CurtisNaito have made talk page discussion difficult (TH1980 over the past two days, CurtisNaito I just know from past experience will make talk page discussion difficult). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt anyone is reading this, because it has the appearance of a dog's fleafight over a disputed patch of galactic milk in Ïhātobu:) There's almost nothing to discuss: you broke 3R, User:TH1980 broke 3R, and CurtisNaito, the chief mischief maker, since he helped a 3R reverter while not reporting him, to corner you, so that he could report you, is trying to game the system to get rid of an editor. As I said, his presence is a disaster on all articles on ancient Japan where I have noted him. But that doesn't excuse your own error. CurtiusNaito is in his rights to make this report. But by doing so, given the evidence, he has no grounds to protest if an admin takes a WP:Boomerang reading of his own execrable judgement here (and elsewhere: I avoid him like the plague after Talk:Soga–Mononobe conflict and a few other pages (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture where I showed he consistently cites sources he either hasn't read, or can't construe correctly; and here where it was almost impossible without inhuman degrees of scholarly commitment to get him to see the obvious).Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

User: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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring