Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 474: Line 474:




Absolutely no need to. Why would I have do that, the evidence is clear: the name of the centre has OFFICIALLY changed. If the name had not offficially changed then we would not be having this discussion, stop being petty, if you don’t like the new name then I would suggest you complain to the owners of Intu Trafford Centre Directly. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:4418:D00:55BD:5DD0:FB71:B2DA|2A02:C7F:4418:D00:55BD:5DD0:FB71:B2DA]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7F:4418:D00:55BD:5DD0:FB71:B2DA|talk]]) 22:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely no need to. Why would I have do that, the evidence is clear: the name of the centre has OFFICIALLY changed. If the name had not offficially changed then we would not be having this discussion, stop being petty, if you don’t like the new name then I would suggest you complain to the owners of Intu Trafford Centre directly. Dr.T.Fan, Earl of Clarence CBE 22:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:41, 20 February 2018

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Garam reported by User:Zanhe (Result: Withdrawn - issue resolved)

    Page
    Paektu Mountain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Garam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "see Paektu Mountain#Names"
    2. 04:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "clear"
    3. 03:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825565660 by Zanhe (talk): when? look like your edits is first. and please visit the talk page, not here."
    4. 03:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "rv; no consensus the title."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ new section"
    2. 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ re"

    Note: I did not use the template to warn him because Garam is a long-term editor familiar with edit warring rules. He's been to ANI and this noticeboard before.

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 03:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ new section"
    2. 04:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ re"
    3. 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ re"
    Comments:

    Paektu Mountain is on the border of China and North Korea, and per WP:NEUTRALITY, such border features normally have native names of both countries in the lead (e.g. Mont Blanc). Yesterday I noticed that the Chinese name was missing so I added it to the lead. (Later I found out that it was silently removed 13 months ago by an IP). However, User:Garam reverted my edits three times, making the nonsensical claim that the IP removal represents "consensus" merely because it wasn't noticed at the time [1]. He refused to acknowledge Ngram evidence that shows the Chinese name is more commonly used than the Korean, using the ridiculous excuse that Ngram is too old because its most recent data is from 2008 (see Talk:Paektu Mountain#Names in the lead). When another user Koraskadi also added the Manchu name, Garam made his fourth revert within 24 hours, replacing both the Chinese and Manchu names with a second Korean spelling. His reverts are blatant violations of both 3RR and WP:NPOV. Zanhe (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As Garam has voluntarily reverted himself, I consider this issue resolved and would like to withdraw my complaint. -Zanhe (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Garam is a notorious disputer. [2] [3] [4] It will repeat again soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.62.216.170 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the links. I wasn't aware of Garam's extensive block history outside English wiki. He did change his behaviour this time so I don't want to be vindictive. If he resumes edit warring and/or POV pushing again I'll bring him directly to WP:ANI, but I hope that won't be necessary. -Zanhe (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zanhe: This IP (with special:diff/826113481 and special:diff/826107181 etc) is one of notorious puppet in Korean Wikipedia. And this IP is blocked IP in Korean Wikipedia because of vandalism and swear words. Please don't mind it. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be true, but it does not change the fact that you've been blocked on Korean wiki three times, for a total duration of more than a year. And I just saw that you've also been making tendentious arguments against multiple users on Talk:Chloe Kim and Talk:Korean fried chicken, the same way you did on Talk:Paektu Mountain. Are you trying to make trouble on English wiki after being kicked out of Korean wiki? -Zanhe (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pam-javelin reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: HMS Ocean (L12) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pam-javelin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [5]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 4.2 edit summary: When an announcement by either the Royal Navy, British M.O.D or the British Government then it can not be confirmed and therefore the sale is "proposed" and not "confirmed".
    2. 4.1
    3. 3 edit summary: Response to Wolfchild's constant maritime corrections without fact (and with second minor edit) There has been no official announcement from the British Government who own the ship over the proposed sale
    4. 2 edit summary: Unless you have official statement from the British Government then STOP REvERTING THE FACTS!
    5. 1 edit summary: There has been NO official announcement of the sale by the Royal Navy The British Ministry of Defence or even the British Government - yet.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

    This is their response to the 3RR warning: [7]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] After Pam-javelin was reverted, they were requested to discuss this on the article talk page, per WP:BRD, multiple times, (twice in edit summaries and again on their talk page) but they refused. I had to initiate the discussion. This is their response on the article talk page: [9] (same combative type response as on their talk page. This was posted after their 3rd revert. I replied, but instead of continuing the discussion, they instead reverted again, for a 4th time in 24 hours. )

    Diff of 3RRNB notice on user's talk page: [10]

    Comments:
    The bulk of the content regarding the sale of HMS Ocean to Brazil and the supporting refs was not added by me, but cumulatively by several regular editors. Pam-javelin seems to insist that only an announcement from the UK gov’t will confirm the sale. After the second revert, I added an additional source confirming the sale, from the Brazilian, gov’t & military and another source confirming the sale by the UK Defense Journal. This is in addition to the sources already in place. I have encouraged Pam-javelin to read up on Primary vs. Secondary vs. Tertiary sourcing, but they continually revert and/or change the content regarding the sale with POV-ish and WP:HOWEVER type additions putting the sale into doubt, and making the article look clunky.

    They have been continually difficult to deal with. A couple weeks ago I tried to discuss an issue with on their talk page, but my comments were deleted with the edit summary: Narrow minded Sceptic's rubbish removed. This attitude makes it both difficult to try and have a civil dialogue with this user and, basically impossible to resolve issues. Thank you - theWOLFchild 19:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Still awaiting a response, and in the meantime, the disruption to this page by this editor continues - theWOLFchild 21:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI - I have just edited the disputed content. While this editor continually edit-warred, removing sourced content, changing the status of this ship, making more than half-dozen or so edits in the past 24 hrs, insisting that it could only be reported as sold if and when the UK gov't confirmed it as such, it turns our that s simple Google search shows they already have. Numerous sources confirming the announcement of the sale by the UK gov't & MoD. I have updated the page, including four new refs. So, in short, all this disruption was for nothing. This editor was edit-warring and arguing, just for the sake of arguing as they clearly didn't bother to confirm their position. I know several admins are reading this, I just thought you all should know. - theWOLFchild 01:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued edit-warring

    While this report sits here, this editor has continued to disrupt this article with more edit-warring. A long-tern issue with this editor is they insist on going to various ship articles, and removing any feminine pronouns in reference to the ship. They have been advised to stop this before, as per WP:SHE4SHIPS. While they used to put "too much 'she'" in their edit summaries, they now use deceptive edit summaries. I asked them to stop these changes and especially to stop abusing edit summaries on their talk page here. There are diffs of their behavior included in that edit. (By the way, that is the edit they removed as "narrow minded skeptics rubbish")
    Now on this article, they're at it again;

    They had previously changed this very same content before;

    And on other parts of the same article;

    It's clear they intend to continue edit-warring, using false and deceptive edit-summaries, refusing to discuss on any talk page, whether it be article or user, and will continue to disrupt this article, articles like it and the project with their WP:IDHT, WP:IDLI and WP:BATTLE behaviour. As long as this report sits here unaddressed. - theWOLFchild 16:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    2nd 4RR vio in 2 days, same article

    This is the 4th revert of the same content in about 8 hours. This is while there is an open 3RRNB report open, and after administrator NeilN warned them on their talk page to stop. They then continued with yet another change;

    • changing "she" to "Ocean" edit summary: Ocean would not have been moored at Greenwich - the correct terminology would have been "positioned" as she was on active military service during the 2012 Games.

    ...with yet another totally deceptive edit summary. How long will this be allowed to continue?
    And, should I file a new report for the separate 4RR violation? - theWOLFchild 20:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Perky28 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Being worked out on talk page)

    Page: Near-death experience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Perky28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 17:21, 16 February 2018
    2. diff 17:35, 16 February 2018
    3. diff 19:30, 16 February 2018

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Near-death_experience#Computers

    Comments:

    User has an WP:APPARENTCOI and is aggressively editing to promote the publications/work of SL Thaler. Has not engaged on their talk page, and their comments at the article talk page are just abusive/personalized, which is typical of editors with advocacy/COI issues. (diff, diff, diff). The intention to keep trying to drive this into the article is very clear and I don't see them stopping to authentically work through the issues without a short block. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Defense:

    Reversion 3 was simply the addition of relevant Wikipedia-compliant references and not an attempt to reinsert what Jytdog had rejected. To me, it seemed like a diplomatic compromise, but evidently not. I maintain that Jytdog is obliterating information extremely relevant to this article. His edits coincidentally follow after another editor's use of profanity against my contribution. With regard to COI, I know of Thaler's work and do object to Jytdog's obliteration of Wikipedia-compliant secondary sources quoting it.Perky28 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Further, Jytdog is attacking credible references, for instance Scientific American and peer-reviewed papers published by Elsevier. Therefore comments such as, "not the kind of reference we look for" is very glib and indicates editorial bias.Perky28 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ZH8000 reported by User:86.153.130.41 (Result: Declined No recent edits made to article)

    Page: Lauterbrunnen–Mürren Mountain Railway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ZH8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11] (Original edit - the 'B' in WP:BRD
    2. [12] First revert
    3. [13] Second revert
    4. [14] Third Revert
    5. [15] Fourth revert introducing a reference that does not support the edit but supports the edit replaced.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:: No link but user is clearly aware of edit warring rules because he posted a report linking myself and a French IP claiming violation of 3RR when none had actually taken place.

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

    Not a violation of 3RR (in 24 hours), but a slow motion edit war with four reverts from ZH8000. For the avoidance of doubt, the French IP has made two reverts, and I have made two reverts (but not from the same IP - dynamic IP addressing). A straight resumption of edit warring to introduce his preferred measurement once the page protection expired.

    ZH8000 has posted no discussion on the talk page other than a claim that some non English railway authorities use an obscure measurement of gradient. Whilst that may be true, the measurement is both obsolete and obscure in the English speaking world as was pointed out. The measure is easily mistaken (as I initially did, and apparently the French IP - his edit summary of "(50% max gradient??)" strongly suggests this) to indicate a railway with a 50% gradient (i.e 60 degrees incline!). Also posted a claim that it is not the editor who was bold (B) that made the edit who had to obtain consensus having been reverted, but the editor who reverted the bold claim (the 'R').

    The page was protected following the above erroneous 3RR report declaring a content dispute with a declaration to resolve t.he dispute. ZH8000 has just returned to the edit war without any attempt to satisfy the 'D' part of WP:BRD (i.e. will not communicate).

    The reality is that a 'per thousand' measure of gradient is both obscure and obsolete in the English speaking world (and this is the en: Wikipedia). Percent gradient is used for roads, but railways are actually measure using the old 'one in ...' system, but % is understood. It should be noted that 'per thousand' is so obscure that virtually no English character set supports the symbol, and it cannot be found on any keyboard. A search on Google suggests that the symbol ('‰' - copied it) is deprecated because of its potential for confusion with '%' (it is very similar). 86.153.130.41 (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    The admins may consider the following:

    The French IP did not contribute any comments anymore, since the English IP(s) stepped in (– until the English IP will have another business trip to France, probably).
    • Both, the SRF France IP as well as the Vodafone UK IP already violated the three-revert-rule by themselves.
    • Special:Contributions/85.255.235.164 got already blocked (85.255.235.0/24) by @Oshwah: Please check the obove mentioned IPs as well.
    • Finally, let's go back to use our time for real work, please.

    Thank you for your precious time! -- ZH8000 (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Oshwah: Is the 16th and 17th of February 2018 not recent then? 86.174.153.3 (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)I have no comments to make concerning the relative merits of this case but would make the following observations.

    The articles concerned are very specialist articles and likely to have a very low footfall, so it is not that surprising that an edit goes unchallenged for several months.

    The concept of the '‰' symbol is more correctly referred to as the 'promille' (olde English) or the 'permille' (later usage, from the same derivation as 'percent' for the '%' symbol). Both the symbol and the word used to describe it are considered archaic in English usage and I have certainly never seen any paper use it other than one on the discussion of the symbol itself. The terms are so archaic that no (paper) English dictionary published in the last 70 years or so even includes either word (or any variation of spelling). Some on-line dictionaries do include it but they do not appear to agree on the spelling, and is some cases the meaning. I note that the Wikipedia article on the subject notes this as well.

    I do not understand the obsession with using an archaic method of expressing gradient when the universally understood '%' gradient precisely expresses the point attempting to be conveyed.

    I apologise if this is not the correct venue for this post (I am a relative newcomer), but this is where I found the discussion. Please feel free to move it to a more appropriate page if this is deemed appropriate. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Relevant part of above post copied to article talk page. 86.174.153.3 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is useful that a discussion has been started on the article talk, at Talk:Lauterbrunnen–Mürren Mountain Railway#Gradient. In my opinion, anyone who makes a further edit to the article which either *adds* or *removes* the per mill notation for the grade is risking a block, until such time as a consensus is found on its use. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps. Let us hope that your faith is not misplaced. It would remiss not to point out that the article was protected with a note that protection would be removed if due consensus was achieved on the talk page. The central plank of this complaint was that ZH8000 had resumed the edit war without making a single contribution to the actual discussion of the edit after the protection was applied. 86.174.153.3 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cherkash reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: No violation)

    Page
    2018 FIA Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Cherkash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "restored an unexplained removal of a passage supported by cited reference"
    2. 13:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826319155 by Joseph2302 (talk) if it's the date formatting you care about it, then only change that!"
    3. 12:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "undid the last 2 edits: if you feel it's vague, then please read the reference and feel free to clarify further based on the information there"
    4. 09:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Calendar changes */ added the reason for moving Russian GP"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 13:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Russia move */ reply"
    Comments:

    Editor adding and reverting back in changes against current talkpage consensus, and violation of MOS:DATE. This user needs to stop reverting and continue talking on talkpage. Instead they're using a questionable reference to insert rubbish text to the article Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sounds like a nonsensical reporting by Joseph2302: in my original edit, I've added a clearly sourced statement. I've then reverted unexplained deletions of the same: the editors deleting the passage, "Prisonermonkeys" and "Joseph2302", didn't bother to state their reasons in their respective edit summaries – so it clearly looked to me like either vandalism or promoting of their own viewpoints in contradiction of the cited reliable source. In addition, neither of the two had bothered to even mention an ongoing discussion on the subject on the article's talk page (of which I was unaware until I saw the link above). So I would say this nomination is totally bogus, aimed at mostly promoting a specific viewpoint, and suppressing any dissent. cherkash (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4 reverts in a short period, and deliberately ignoring a talkpage discussion. Source isn't necessarily reliable, which is exactly what we're trying to gain a consensus on. Which is why your mindless reverting is disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You should provide the reason why the source isn't necessarily reliable and provide a more reliable source that refute the statement made by TASS. Other way it is just WP:DONTLIKEIT. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason is explained in talkpage discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What is truly disruptive, Joseph2302 – is your mindless harassing me here: as I stated above, all my edits were done in good faith, and with cited reliable reference; so it was you along with Prisonermonkeys who initiated the "edit warring" and continued to engage in it without any reasonable explanation. It's your aggressive actions that are in bad faith here, not mine. You could simply leave a reasonable edit summary at least once (which you didn't ever do) – there was no mention of your reasons for your own reverts, nor of the allegedly ongoing discussion on the Talk page. All you did was "revert & report" – whereas you were the one aggressively reverting, not me. cherkash (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dsteakley reported by User:Favonian (Result: Warned user(s))

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

    Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/826304597

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Special:Diff/826377106
    2. Special:Diff/826380829
    3. Special:Diff/826381463
    4. Special:Diff/826382166
    5. Special:Diff/826384822

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/826382126


    Comments:

    • They have been reverted by many different people. They have been told to read the FAQ. Nothing seems to be getting through. I feel sorry for anybody who has been duped into pushing the line they are pushing, as they are often only unwitting stooges of the real propagandists seeking to change history. Nonetheless, this is highly disruptive to a very high importance article, and potentially damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia, so I would suggest a short block. Nothing too drastic at first. Maybe just long enough for them to go to a library, check out a reputable history book, and see what it actually says about the Nazis. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editor has started using the talk page and I've asked them to stop reverting. [17] Holding a bit to see how they respond. --NeilN talk to me 20:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned Dsteakley is now using the talk page. Any more reverts against consensus may result in a block. NeilN talk to me 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wkretz86‎ reported by User:Calton (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Hate group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wkretz86‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and probable logged-out 108.193.192.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    Previous version reverted to: [18]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Initial edit-warring
    1. [19] 03:49, February 6, 2018 Initial attempt to add ADL as a hate group.
    2. [20] 04:13, February 6, 2018‎ (Attemping to make page factual, citing sources 1. (https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/29/anti-defamation-league-cited-for-backing-genocide/) and 2. (http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article197386094.html
    3. [21] 04:45, February 11, 2018‎ (Added content)
    Most recent edit-warring
    1. [22] 01:37, February 19, 2018‎ (Fixed misleading information about a hate group pretending to fight against them.
    2. [23] 01:44, February 19, 2018‎ (Fixed bias)
    3. [24] 01:51, February 19, 2018‎ (Fixed bias)
    4. [25] 01:57, February 19, 2018‎, by 108.193.192.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Unbiased information)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [26] 01:51:55
    2. [27] 01:53:09

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Talk:Hate group#Is ADL a hate group?

    Comments:

    User:EtienneDolet reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: )

    Page: Turkish military operation in Afrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [28]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [29]
    2. [30]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

    Comments:
    This article is under a 1RR restriction WP:GS/SCW. Etienne's first revert is part of a contintious series of edits that begins at 20:06. There are two intervening edits (20:46 and 21:27). Etienne resumes editing at 21:54 and replaces a Turkish news source Hurriyet with Reuters. The edit summary is Hurriyet is still not reliable due to strict “patriotic” media regulations in Turkey today - there is an open discussion about this linked above - there is currently no consensus for Etienne's position, with a majority of editors currently opposed. It was reverted here by Wickfox [32]. Seraphim System (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this a revert? You'll have to elaborate with evidence how such a simple copy-edit is a restoration to which previous version of the article. It's a simple edit that merely replaces one source with one that is more reliable. I also want to add that this report appears highly reminiscent of WP:BATTLEGROUND by a user who is currently under a month long 1RR restriction ([33]) as a result of a report I filed a couple of weeks ago. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to be clear, the majority of users are not opposed to the fact that Turkish news outlets, under heavy regulations by Erdogan's government, are partial when it comes to sensitive matters like war crimes. On my count, there are several veteran third-party users ([34][35]) that have called that into question. There's no doubt in my mind that any user would rather have a neutral RS like Reuters instead of pro-Turkish/pro-Kurdish sources. But this matter shouldn't be discussed at WP:3RRN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Etienne's continuing to insist that his edits aren't reverts or are supported by consensus when they aren't is another reason I think the disruption on the article is likely to escalate without intervention. A revert is anything that undoes another editor's work in whole or part (just as Wickfox's restoration of the original source would count as a revert and not a "simple edit".) This is a dispute involving multiple editors who have objected and Etienne continues to say he merely replaced one source with another.
    • Regarding the discussion, I largely agree with Calthinus I suppose, more in line with GGT's point: self-censorship does not automatically imply that what they do report is unreliable. this is very different from Etienne's position, and the content dispute shouldn't be an issue here, only the violaton of 1RR in the course of that content dispute. The fact that it was promptly reverted should be enough evidence that this was not only a revert, but a revert that was likely to escalate the dispute.Seraphim System (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it was not a revert: neither in full, nor in part. In order for it to be considered a (semi-)revert, you need to show what previous version of the article it has been reverted to. However, no such version exists because all I did was replace a source with one that is more reliable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes removal of a source is a revert. You removed content from the article that other editors want in the article. The article removed was published on February 18th. Before you reverted the source was available in the References section. After you reverted the link was no longer available in the article. Replacing it with a new source doesn't change that. Even if you are right, the edit summary does not provide any justification besides your own personal opinion - if you continue, this is going to escalate to back and forth reverts. And even if you are right, you should have waited 24 hours because you know the article is under a 1RR restriction and this source did not need to be removed tonight. Or you could have proposed on talk and maybe editors would have agreed to remove it per WP:NEWSORGS - you did none of things, you chose to edit war and escalate conflict on a controversial article. Seraphim System (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making this sound a lot more complicated than it should be. The definition of revert, per WP:REVERT, is pretty simple. A revert is an edit that reverts to a previous version of a page. So, I'm asking you once more, which version of the page did I revert to? All that I've done is place a new source into the page, and a much more reliable one in fact. Such edits are pretty common and occurs repeatedly throughout the project, yet they're never considered reverts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the complex nature of partial reverts and rapidly changing content on articles, there is no requirement to show a version that is exactly the same as the version that exists after the revert. This simply isn't possible, and I have never seen anyone demand it before as defense for violating 1RR. Simply put, for any removal of content, including a source or link, the "previous version" can be considered the version before that source or link was added. It's not a requirement that your new content be in the previous version, the removal is enough especially if it a controversial article with a 1RR restriction, and there is an open talk page discussion on the subject of replacing Turkish media sources and your revert is reasonably likely to be escalate an ongoing dispute.Seraphim System (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I really don't see reverts to be that complicated and complex of an affair. However, if for any reason an admin sees that edit as a revert, I'd be more than willing to say that I won't be doing such an edit again. And if I had an opportunity to self-revert, I would have. However, like I said above, I didn't and still don't see that as a revert since for it to be considered a (semi-)revert, we must be able to demonstrate the previous version of the article it has been reverted to. This is impossible here since all I did was add a source. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a source would not be a revert, but removal of one is. It is also common sense to not do it while there is a discussion open on talk about whether Turkish sources should automatically be considered unreliable - it is one thing to say they are downplaying civilian casualities in Syria and maybe we need another source for these numbers, and another thing entirely to say they are running "fake" stories or as GGT said To say that amounts to saying that they might be producing pro-government fake news. That simply ain't true. - if you agree to continue discussing this on the talk page instead of just removing Turkish sources, I think that is a good step. Seraphim System (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article falls under SCW GS and is under 1RR. The first diff is clearly a revert but I'm struggling to see the second as one. Unless other admins object, I'm minded to close this as no violation. (The same user has another revert also falling within 24 hours, but claimed the copyvio exemption. The text reverted here is pretty generic and turns up so many hits from different sources on Google that I doubt it is copyrightable, but I think the exemption was claimed in good faith.) GoldenRing (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    GoldenRing I don't think it requires a sanction at this point since Etienne has re-engaged at the talk page, but I think a warning should be issued to Etienne about editing collaboratively with editors who don't share his opinion and engaging with talk page discussions. I don't think it sets a good precedent to say this is not a violation, because removal of sources often leads to edit wars, and there is no revert exception for replacing one source with one that you consider more reliable - ultimately, it was added by another editor, and is the work of another editor, and any alteration or removal of another editors work is a revert.Seraphim System (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For example right now I want to remove a citation to NewsMax because I think it is not a reliable source. It's editor was a contributor to the Trump campaign and I don't think it's a neutral source. The statement in the article is sourced to two other sources, but one is a conservative think tank that wasn't attributed in the article, and I want to remove that one too. The third source is Neue Zürcher Zeitung which seems pretty reliable to me. Two questions: 1) If I remove the two sources I don't like and leave the statement sourced to Neue Zürcher Zeitung would that be a revert? 2) If I remove the two sources I don't like and replace them with other sources I like more, would that be a revert? Seraphim System (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seraphim System: WP:REVERT is an essay. WP:3RR, which is policy, states, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." In your examples, I would look to see when the original sources were added. If they've been in the article for some time, I would consider your edits "normal editing" and not reverts (if' there wasn't a past or existing dispute about the sources). If they were added recently, I would consider your edits reverts. Different admins may have different perspectives, however. --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN: Would you mind taking a look at the second diff in this report? It's replacing a source whose neutrality is disputed with a Reuters source. There has been a bit of back-and-forth over use of this source here and while it might have been better to leave both sources in, I'm not minded to consider it a problem. Sorry, I did find where the source was last added earlier today but don't have time to dig it out again. GoldenRing (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoldenRing: It's a revert - added here. Changing sources in this case is edit warring as it advocates a source is unreliable (which may be disputed) and so can't be used for other content either. I would go with Seraphim System's suggestion and issue a warning. --NeilN talk to me 17:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TonyBallioni reported by User:張泰銘 (Result: No violation)

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

    Evidence is in the page history of the pointed to page. Content on this page is not supposed to be removed without discussion. Thanks.

    • No violation As far as I can see TonyBallioni has only acted administratively at that page to enforce DS and start a discussion of what is clearly a controversial move. User:張泰銘, this change is not out of the question but you need to establish a consensus for it, especially now it's been challenged by multiple editors. GoldenRing (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JoeyofthePriuses reported by User:Wicka wicka (Result: )

    Page: 2018 IndyCar Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: JoeyofthePriuses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [36]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [37]
    2. [38]
    3. [39]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:JoeyofthePriuses#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2018_IndyCar_Series#Why_the_horrible_prefixes_in_parentheses_for_the_different_types_of_tracks?

    Comments:
    The IndyCar Series races on two different types of race tracks: ovals and road courses. In the past we used a blue background on rows the season schedule to easily differentiate the latter from the former. A few months ago a user went through the pages and removed all the background colors, claiming that it was not allowed per WP:Color, and replaced it with bold letters noting the different type of each track. This change was raised again recently, so I went back to read WP:Color, and noted that it only said that colors should not be "the only method used to convey important information." I then re-added the colors, along with the letters, as I felt it was a good compromise and satisfied WP:Color. No other users complained, but JoeyofthePriuses has continually reverted this change, continues to incorrectly quote WP:Color, and has so far refused to discuss on the talk page. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    JoeyofthePriuses, you stated, "We already had plenty of discussions about this in the other IndyCar pages as well and the compromise is that we're only using the letters." I'd like to see links to these conversations, please. --NeilN talk to me 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I looked for these conversations and couldn't find them. The 2017 IndyCar Series page had a color-coded schedule until some point last year, but there's no discussion on that talk page regarding it. Also, I am more than willing to put in the work to make the matching changes on other pages, I just want to be sure it won't be reverted after I do it. Wicka wicka (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xerton reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page
    Sally Yates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Xerton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "laypersons will not understand this sentence without some clarification, which I have added."
    2. 01:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826605826 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) please accept that consensus cannot trump what the actual RS primary sources say"
    3. 01:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826582447 by JFG (talk) changing "tone" does not justify ignoring the primary sources which clearly state she was "fired""
    4. 22:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC) "The very first link in this article is from CNN which says "fires"; also, a preponderance of Reliable Sources described this termination as "fired", "fires" - I have cited the sources - see Talk Page."
    5. 11:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC) "utterly factual"
    6. Consecutive edits made from 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC) to 04:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
      1. 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "concise and with "stated" as per talk"
      2. 04:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC) "the "Landler" NYT ref is misleading if it omits this - that article makes clear that insubordination was the reason for the dismissal"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 18:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC) to 18:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
      1. 18:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "As per CNN - see talk page and link in article"
      2. 18:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "more accurate"
    8. Consecutive edits made from 14:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC) to 17:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
      1. 14:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "The CNN citation we're using for this clearly states "Trump fires acting AG after she declines to defend travel ban""
      2. 17:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "clarify"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sally Yates. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:
    Editor has grossly exceeded WP:3RR in a dispute over the use of the word "fired" versus the word "dismissed". General Ization Talk 03:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have stricken a few diffs which might reasonably be argued to be constructive edits of different content rather than repeated reversions. General Ization Talk 03:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:93.97.45.91 reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page
    November 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    93.97.45.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 14:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Please, stop removing this. Future generations will thank you if you leave it there."
    3. 13:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826685998 by Felida97 (talk)"
    4. 13:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826684299 by 1997kB (talk)"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 13:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC) to 13:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
      1. 13:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
      2. 13:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
      3. 13:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on November 11. (TW)"
    2. 14:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 93.97.45.91 (talk) to last revision by 331dot. (TW)"
    3. 14:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:93.97.45.91. (TW)"
    4. 14:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "/* February 2018 */"
    5. 14:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "/* February 2018 */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User continues to edit war and based on their replies does not seem interested in attempting to resolve this. Reverted by four different editors. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Now five different editors. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Fine, ban a college — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.45.91 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Роне reported by User:Jbhunley (Result:Article deleted, Роне blocked 48 hours)

    Page
    Rudanovsky Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Роне (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 14:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 13:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
    4. 09:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
    5. [42] - After report to ANEW
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 12:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Speedy Deletion Tag Removal */"
    2. 14:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rudanovsky Foundation. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Tried explaining nicely about how to recreated AfD article here Jbh Talk 14:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davey2010 reported by User:Tony Fan123 (Result: )

    Page: Trafford Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

    Comments:
    . This is really quite silly how this page keeps being reverted for no apparent reason when evidence and sources have been cited. Hope someone can help me, sorry about my misunderstanding of how to report this incident. [1] Thankyou Dr.T.Fan, Earl of Clarence CBE 22:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

    Consensus back in 2014/2015 was to keep the title, You've been told to start an RM so why haven't you done so ? .... I would suggest you withdraw this and go to the talkpage and fire up an WP:RM. –Davey2010Talk 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note I went to RFPP about 10-15 minutes ago to have this move-protected so if someone could do the honours that'd be much appreciated, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 22:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Absolutely no need to. Why would I have do that, the evidence is clear: the name of the centre has OFFICIALLY changed. If the name had not offficially changed then we would not be having this discussion, stop being petty, if you don’t like the new name then I would suggest you complain to the owners of Intu Trafford Centre directly. Dr.T.Fan, Earl of Clarence CBE 22:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

    1. ^ http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2013-01-16/manchesters-trafford-centre-to-be-renamed-in-25m-rebrand/
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=826771584"