Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Agent raymond232 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Warned)

Page: Milkshaking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Agent raymond232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1018294432 by Lord Belbury (talk) Kindly provide reasonable justification to revert edits. Threatening to edit block someone and then ganging up on them by reverting their changes separately are not going to make Wikipedia a better place. If you think that a certain edit should be reverted, kindly follow your own advice and discuss it on the talk page. Threatening and bullying new users is not helpful."
2. 07:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1018288552 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC) to 06:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
   1. 06:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "No need to mention the ideologies of the egging victim here. Also, pointing him to be anti-immigrant and anti-Muslims is a pathetic tactic of diverting the focus of the article to the characterization of the victim."
   2. 06:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "Named the perpetrator of egging as this page is about the act of throwing edibles on targets and hence perpetrators names make sense."
   3. 06:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "Removed unnecessary parts of the page which made it look like a gossip story. The page should discuss about the origins, the act itself, the perpetrators, the victims and their reactions as well as the analysis of milkshaking. What happens to the perpetrators as a form of public response can be covered in a different Wikipedia article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "/* April 2021 */ ce"
2. 07:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "/* April 2021 */ ce"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

WP:RGW edit warring, removing well-sourced material on the grounds that they are I am here to remove the existing political bias. ——Serial 09:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what is the problem here? Do you think that the content I removed/ added should not have been done? If yes, let's discuss on that. By simply reverting my edits and on top of that, alleging me to be indulging in edit-warring is typical bully behavior. It is not going to help anyone. If you think, the edit was not justified, kindly mention so and provide your reasons. I have provided reasons for the edits I made and I am ready to have a discussion with you on that. Agent raymond232 (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You were reverted by two experienced editors and myself; as long as you see, now, the unwisdom of that—which you might as you haven't reverted since—that's the main thing here. No one is (or ought to be) looking for sanctions for the sake of it, and any preventative need there may have been has hopefully been ameliorated. ——Serial 05:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Agent raymond232 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Escorban-Han reported by User:Rashicy (Result: Insufficient violation)

Page: Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Escorban-Han (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

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

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

Comments: User Escorban refuses to listen. I tried everything with this user you name it he refused, he reverted all my edits even after I warned about the 3 time revert rule. He claims my sources are fake however I provided him the info in his talk page [6] I gave him 5 sources which support my case but this user claims they are fake, the user was even told by a admin to refrain from what he is doing @C.Fred: [7] and I thank the admin for telling him but this user won’t give up, after I reverted his edits he nominated every article I created For a speedy deletion for no good reason and his edits have since been removed by the following admin @Liz: [8]. I even tried discussing with this user in the talk page but this user couldn’t care less even after I pinged him 3 times and I can assure you this user was active on Wikipedia while I was pinging them on my alt account. [9] [10] after he didn’t respond I tried reasoning with him on his talk page but he ignored it and in fact deleting everything I wrote on his talk page. [11]. I’ve had enough and I’m really tired of giving this user multiple chances and warnings before I report them. I hope my case is reviewed:

• Comment User had not violated 3RR at Adal Sultanate, since the edits took place over a number of days. Further, their removals were noting that the sources were insufficient (works published by self-publishing houses). I have asked the user to comment on the relevant article talk page. I don't see any administrative actions necessary for edit warring at this time, but I will be monitoring them. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It is as you said Fred and the other sources used to do not contain what written to the page. Btw can you look at all the pages that user has created and put them up for a speedy deletion. Those articles look like they was all made up and invented by that user

Escorban-Han (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: as you can see this user is still trying to delete the articles I created please tell them to stop this user is even claiming I made all of them up. @Escorban-Han: can you not see what your doing the articles are all sourced and your claiming it’s fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashicy (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rashicy and Escorban-Han: Those concerns are outside the scope of the edit warring noticeboard and will not be addressed here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As for Adal Sultanate all the sources used do not contain what was added to the page. This source Trimingham- Islam in Ethiopia. go to page page 57. And this source Narrative of the Portuguese Embassy to Abyssinia during the Years 1520-1527 No mention to what was written to the page. All that is added to the page is completely made up by him. With the exception of The Dynamics of a unfinished African dream. Mohammed Kheir Omar which is from a self-publication service

It looks to me that this User reported me to avoid someone from checking his edits. I also deleted what he left on my UserTalk because it looked like an angry dump spam.

Escorban-Han (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Escorban-Han: Those concerns are outside the scope of this noticeboard. Please address them at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It will only take a minute to look at and i don't think that user who is inventing stuff is going to care about me adressing something on the talk. But Alright i might try , i have copied it to the talk page as you requested Talk:Adal_Sultanate#Afar_influence Escorban-Han (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Zero response on the talk page and he reverted it again with no explanation.

Escorban-Han (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Ukelele47 reported by User:122.11.212.253 (Result: Warned)

Page: Star Awards 2021 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ukelele47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Removing of some design and template design for the page, claiming that it has violated the MOS rule. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

• • Undid by [17] and [18]- He shouted out that asked the editor to refer to the last year templates and keep the Chinese text (yeah, because the award show is in Chinese)

1. [19]

• • Undid by [20]

1. [21]- the user asked the editor to read the response on the talk page and told the editor to stop his disruptive and vindictive reverts.

• • Undid by [22]

1. [23]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Awards_2021&diff=1018437427&oldid=1017733016
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ukelele47#Star_Awards_2021

Comments:

• There has been ongoing dispute between the user and Unknown152438, who he did more on the award ceremony articles and its experience before, specifically the Star Awards articles (I saw his page). Then, the day with the ceremony (from what I heard) saw that there was an ongoing war and Unknown152438 claimed that Ukelele47 was vandalizing Star Awards 2021 so that it can improve the MOS rule.
  
• This is a new user, suspecting some inexperience edits.

• I've already given editing warring and demanded this user to read previous years' articles before making any changes of the current articles but no avail. This is an annual ceremony which is given out for excellence Chinese media in Singapore which necessarily need the Chinese Language as what previously did.

122.11.212.253 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC) (Unknown152438 (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC))

• Result: User:Ukelele47 is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. It appears the talk page is not being used very much given that the article is so active. Keep in mind MOS:FLAGS which restricts usage of flags in articles. I notice that User:Canterbury Tail, an administrator, has participated on the article talk page and they might have some further advice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Epicforest reported by User:Koncorde (Result: Blocked)

Page: Bradford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Demography */ This is a much wider problem that occurs in more than one ethnic group, hence the 43 ethnic groupings surveyed in this report."
2. 08:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Demography */ As before, this survey involved 73 different ethnicities."
3. 16:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Demography */ Cousins marrying are not confined to one group and there was 43 ethnicities involved in the survey."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bradford."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Epicforest "Warning: Edit warring on Bradford."

Comments:

User has been in persistent edit war with two other users for 3 days, making 9 reverts. I subsequently reverted and warned on their talk page, and was reverted the following day (within 24h). Response on users talk page continues to ignore what they have been asked to do. Koncorde (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

For context. The initial change is by user AngrySkies (talk · contribs) on the 11th[25]. The statement changes the wording from "South Asian" to Pakistani. on the 14th there are a series of reverts between each other.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. On the 15th an additional user Q Chris (talk · contribs) steps in to revert as well. Both users have repeatedly pointed out that the source does not use "South Asian" in any form, and instead explicitly attributes "The number of babies born with birth defects in Bradford" to "this was largely because of marriages between first cousins in the Pakistani community". Now we can discuss the sensitivity of this statement, but there is no way to sugar coat the studies outcomes. The study included 43 different ethnicities but the largest ethnic groups were Pakistani (45%) and white British (just under 40%). Of 5,127 babies of Pakistani origin, 37% had married parents who were first cousins, compared to less than 1% of married couples nationally..

EpicForests initial reverts The leading cause was found to be a 37% rate of consanguineous marriage among British South Asians are fundamentally misleading, and do not summaries the source (which is explicit in its reference to what the 37% is referring to). EpicForest prefers to focus on the fact there were "43 different ethnicities involved in the survey." per repeated edit summaries (which will cover a variety of White, Black, Asian and other minorities) which again is misleading against what the main context of that statement: i.e. of proportion of those 43 ethnicities, 45% were Pakistani.

On the 15th the edit war continued.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Again, EpicForests assertions boiled down to the idea that there are 43 ethnicities in the study. Nobody disputes that - only that the article being sourced is not about the 43 ethnicities, but about 1st cousin Pakistani's marrying and an increase in birth defects as a result.

Late on 15th I stepped in and summarised situation.[40] EF you have been reverted by two different editors over the same content. As per those editors, the content specifically refers to Pakistani, it makes no other mention. Your insert is WP:OR as it definitely reflects something not stated in the article which is what is referenced here. Please take to talk page to establish consensus as this is a prolonged edit war. EF reverted, and I again changed back[41] cease edit warring. The source as given mentions specifically the content reflected and not your insertion. and left a warning on their talk page (per top of this section). They subsequently reverted again, and that is therefore how we arrived here.

EpicForest has replied to the warning on the talk page[42] but it fundamentally misses the point behind Edit Warring, discussion, or using talk pages. Goes further to basically threaten bringing their mates round to gerrymander the "consensus", intimating that somehow I am party to the other two users at the same time by asking for ...completely independent editors to look at this argument. As far as I am aware, all 3 editors reverting EpicForest are independent. Koncorde (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

My words implied I wouldn't get my friends to back my comments up as that would be a fraudulent way to go about things. I would like independent editors to look at this debate as it is getting ridiculous the amount of negative edits that are happening on the Bradford page.Epicforest (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

We are independent editors. You made a statement I could easily get three friends to back my opinion up but wouldn't that be a fraudulent way of doing things. not a question. If it was a question, I take it you would therefore be accusing myself and others of being "fraudulent" in some way? There is nothing negative about Bradford to use Pakistani as it is used in the BBC article, and BiB study. Tangentally related, I find it curious the main Bradford article doesn't really mention the rather significant 20%+ Pakistani population at all under Demographics given its relative prominence and significance. Koncorde (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This story is another negative addition to the Bradford page. It is ridiculous that Bradford continually gets edits such as this one about birth defects and cousins marrying. Anyone would think this type of thing doesn't happen in Blackburn, Birmingham and London to name three. It isn't just a problem with people who families originally came from Pakistan, it happens with many ethnicities who's families originated from the Indian sub continent and from other places. I would want completely independent editors to look at this argument. The very fact that the survey looked at 43 different ethnicities seems to indicate it is a wides spread problem and not just confined to one of the ethnicities. Where's the original editor in all this, was he warned about constantly changing my edits? The very use of fraudulent in regards to my last post clearly indicates I would never do that but I'm sure other editors would, that is why I want completely independent editors to look at this. Epicforest (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, we are "completely independent editors". The report clearly states the issue, particularly related to birth defects, is from first cousins marrying and that this is associated with the Pakistani community. There is nothing negative about Bradford to this. It is factual reporting about public health.

What is notable to Bradford (above those other towns mentioned) is the number of birth defects is double the national average and this is a longterm health concern. If a similar report for those towns also showed a similar link I would expect their articles to also recognise the issue. The report didn't look into 43 ethnicities and find all of them were equally reflected in the health outcomes. The report looked at all births which came from 43 ethnicities, and identified that one particular group was disproportionately represented, this is why "South Asian" is misleading - because you are trying to imply that the report identified other groups also having this same issue which is not the case.

To me it appears you either want to sanitise the article of any mention of Pakistani's, and / or any mention of 1st cousin marriage leading to birth defects in the Pakistani community despite coverage to that effect from serious Reliable Sources[43][44][45][46] to the extent it was even subject to a debate in Parliament[47] and the "Pakistani Cohort" was subject to an additional paper[48] the outcome of which was commented on by the Royal College of Physicians[49] and ongoing coverage and investigation of both the Pakistani community and wider consanguinity but that is very clearly referred to as a particularly Pakistani issue.[50][51][52][53] Koncorde (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I would doubt this is the whole report, just something cut together from the original survey. The original complete survey needs to be looked at. Having said that, there are still 43 ethnicities mentioned which does indicate that this is a much wider problem than the original editor seems to indicate. The idea that the whole of the Indian sub continent and further countries don't have this problem is quite honestly incredible. South Asia is a far better indicator of the problem. Where is the original editor, it is very odd that he or she isn't involved in this discussion or even being pulled up for warring! This process could easily be swayed by a clique of like minded editors so maybe some South Asian editors could give a different view of this.This just looks like more negative content added to the Bradford page. To say this isn't negative to Bradford is incredible! Epicforest (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This means you haven't read the report. This means you have ignored the repeated additional sources provided. This means you are not reading what other users are saying because you don't agree with them. The study is the largest of its type ever conducted. The team examined detailed information collected about more than 11,300 babies involved in the Born in Bradford project. and Example text[54][55][56][57][58][59][60] There is literally a decades worth of material and articles from numerous sources all discussing this issue from the Pakistani perspective exactly because it impacts their community at a higher rate. The outcomes of the Bradford study have been applied across the country in health policy. Your edits here just reinforce the point that you will not listen to reason.

As for the other editor, the Admins who review this case can take a look at all the edits on the page and if they feel AngrySkies needs warning they can go ahead. In his defence he is actually using the source material whereas, as you have demonstrated, you are not and your continued suggestions the issue is This process could easily be swayed by a clique of like minded editors rather than your behaviour is why we are here, so please cease trying to deflect. Koncorde (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be doing quite a bit of deflecting where as I am simply pointing out that marrying cousins is a common occurrence in the whole of the Indian sub continent. You seem unaware that Bradford has large Indian and Bangladeshi communities so the idea that this is a Pakistan thing is incredible just as saying this report being placed on the Bradford page wasn't a negative, an incredible statement from you. This is a South Asian problem not just a Pakistan problem. There are also other countries where this practise exists. Clearly the whole survey has not been used in the reference so is hardly a full account of what was found in the survey. It would be interesting to find the percentage of Bangladeshi and Indian people used in this sample, if it wasn't the same percentage as the Pakistan sample then the survey was biased. I would certainly want South Asian editors to take a look at this, rather than people that may have pre conceived opinions on Bradford. This survey being placed on the Bradford site is just another example of the negative edits that have happened over the last couple of years on the Bradford page. The original editor is nowhere to be seen which is odd, he was also warring yet I'm guessing no action was taken over his persistent edits. Lets have South Asian editors looking at this with their insight into that part of the world and how those practises have been transferred to the UK including Bradford. Epicforest (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You have not read the report or you would have your answer to the above. You have not read the additional sources or you would have your answer to the above. You have not read the words: In the Pakistani group, 59.3% of women (n = 3038) were blood relatives of their baby's father. Consanguinity was uncommon in the Other ethnic group (7.3%, n = 127) and rare (n = 5) in the White British group.[61] or you would have your answers to the above. This is not about other South Asians. This is about Bradford, the BiB study, and the Pakistani community - per the sources - and its findings. (For the record the % of people wont change depending on the number of people as the report is based on the proportion of cases within the population group. The Pakistani community makes up 20% of the Bradford population. All other South Asians make up less than 5%). Wikipedia doesn't work based on how you feel other people live their lives.

Admins, I believe the other user has demonstrated that they are WP:NOTHERE and probable WP:CIR issue. Koncorde (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems the same percentage of the various ethnicities were not used so the survey was skewed and would always give a false impression of the various problems children had when being born to parents that were related by blood of Pakistan descent. This clearly isn't fair on the Pakistan community. If the biggest grouping surveyed were of Pakistani descent it is hardly surprising that that group came out top of the pile. To be a fair reflection on the whole South Asian community in Bradford the same percentage needed to be used for each ethnicity. That would mean people from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. I would think if that were used as a starting point the picture would be much clearer. As it is, the survey is skewed and of no use. Epicforest (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours. Epicforest wants our article to say 'South Asian' rather than 'Pakistani', but it appears that the source says 'Pakistani'. (The term 'South Asian' doesn't even occur in the BBC article that is being used as a reference). Changing how the source specifies the national origin of the people in the study would be considered WP:OR or even source falsification. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Unibond reported by User:Hipal (Result: Warned)

Page: Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unibond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:14, 19 October 2014
2. 03:38, 3 November 2014
3. 18:38, 2 December 2014
4. 20:59, 2 February 2015
5. 13:32, 4 February 2015
6. 02:22, 7 February 2015
7. 16:06, 7 February 2015
8. 11:46, 15 April 2018
9. 19:53, 20 May 2018
10. 14:52, 22 May 2018
11. 16:05, 22 May 2018
12. 16:11, 23 May 2018
13. 12:02, 18 April 2021
14. 16:57, 18 April 2021
15. 17:08, 18 April 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:04, 18 April 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:21, 23 May 2018 Talk:Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)#convictions

Comments:
There is more edit-warring from this editor on this article, but 15 diffs of BLP/MOS:LABEL changes to the first sentence of the article should be enough. --Hipal (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Unibond is warned. They may be blocked the next time they add 'fraudster' to the article unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

User:RossButsy reported by User:DarkShadowDude (Result: warned)

RossButsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Counter-productive edit warning. DarkShadowDude 💬 18:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@DarkShadowDude: It would help if you used the full template when creating a new report.

• Warned No evidence of 3RR warning before this report. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Rewindturtle reported by User:Elmidae (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]
5. [67]
6. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments: Constant re-addition of an objectively wrong map, while stoutly ignoring the discussion on the talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I've invited the user to engage in talk page discussion. I'm waiting to see how they respond before taking further action. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Efbrazil reported by User:Clayoquot (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:

One person is reverting three different editors (@Femkemilene and Bogazicili: and myself). The dispute is the continuation of one that began around a month ago in which he repeatedly removed air pollution deaths from the lead altogether [78], [79], [80]. I expressed my concern at Efbrazil's talk page at that time. In early April we agreed on interim wording without prejudice to future improvement. This was an interim solution to stabilize the article which was in the middle of a GA review and to avoid the embarrassing situation of having the lead seem to forget to mention millions of people dying. That calmed things down enough for GA review to finish, but then I tried to improve the wording further and Efbrazil reverted, so here we are. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted Clayoquot's changes back to the consensus wording, away from the unsubstantiated claims. I don't see how that qualifies as edit warring. If Clayoquot wants to move away from consensus wording, the way to do that is with an RfC, which I've been open to all along, although I prefer consensus as a solution. The essence of the dispute is that I want the lede to be clear that pollution controls are another way to reduce deaths from fossil fuel burning. Pollution controls are how high-income countries have already lowered deaths from pollution by an order of magnitude according to several studies. The wording Clayoquot prefers implies that fossil fuels are killing millions and only a change in energy sources is the solution. It's really an absurd dispute, as the essence of the dispute comes down to this one reversion by Clayoquot: [81]. Efbrazil (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You know, if it were me being reported at this noticeboard, I would announce my intention to stop reverting and to accept current local consensus on the Talk page, whether or not that consensus is arrived at via RfC. I would also acknowledge the idea that if I'm being reverted by three different people and the only person around who supports my views is me, maybe just maybe my views don't have consensus. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree with Efbrazil's characterization of the "essence of the dispute" as coming down to two words. In diff #3 above he also excluded indoor air pollution and pollution from biomass (effectively removing the causes of approximately 1-3 million annual deaths from the lead). This is a good illustration of why the dispute has become such a time sink for everyone else: When Efbrazil is told that his edits are highly problematic for reasons A, B, and C, what he concludes is "I just have to convince them how right I am about A and all will be fine." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Those 2 words are the essence of the dispute, because I was happy with Clayoquat's rewrite provided we included that one caveat. When Clayoquat reverted the caveat, I went back to consensus wording. Clayoquat has now reverted the edits again away from the consensus wording, so really they should be reporting themselves here. Consensus means everyone- I realize there is process for voting on disputes, but that doesn't make an edit a consensus edit then. Efbrazil (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus at Wikipedia is defined in WP:Consensus. Please review it because no, it does not "mean everyone". Given that you believe in a definition of consensus in which you get to edit-war until an RfC says you should stop, it's not surprising that you edit-war so much. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit warring about pollution was also continued at climate change: [82] [83], between Bogazicili and Efbrazil. Despite multiple requests [84] [85], Efbrazil frequenty does not use WP:BRD, even though they edit mainly in contentious areas. I asked twice that they self-revert after breaking WP:3RR [86] [87], which they ignored. Instead they reinserted a primary source for a medical fact [88], again ignoring various objections on the talk page (Talk:Sustainable_energy#MEDRS_source_needed). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

FemkeMilene has agreed based on additional sources in the talk pages that the 7 million number is a bad number to use, and I helped the article by getting it out. Maybe I went about getting the information fixed the wrong way, but I was trying to find consensus and truth. I think it's a bit off to complain on an administrator forum that I removed false information from an article the wrong way.

Regarding this edit: [89] it was a mechanical mistake that I backed out and apologized for, as I did not know the correct way to rename an article. I agree that I have made mechanical mistakes in some of my edits, and have thanked FemkeMilene for assistance with standards there.

Regarding the 3 revert issue, it's not clear to me- I did not commit the initial changes being pointed at, I only reverted changes that I did not think were accurate, then opened talk page discussions so we could try to get to consensus. If a change is then pushed through anyhow, that seems to me to be undermining the talk page process and is also the real third reversion of content. Sometimes there have been multiple edits to a sentence as we are trying to come to consensus, but again that's not an issue of 3 reversions.

The "primary source for a medical fact" issue is under discussion on the talk page, let's see if we can come to consensus there instead of dredging it up here.

What we need to stop doing is suppressing information because it is not a convenient fit for an ideological narrative. The article currently is leaning on studies that paint a utopian vision for sustainable energy without presenting a full picture of issues like air pollution. Omitting information is a form of bias, and the push to remove all mention of pollution controls from the lede comes across clearly as bias. Efbrazil (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You're not supposed to edit war, even if you fully believe you're right. Please read WP:3RR if you don't understand how you broke that rule. While I appreciate that you try to learn from my guidance, I don't feel like I'm getting through. I don't mind a mechanical mistake, I mind you reverting [90] instead of discussing as your first instinct.

In the case of the medical citation, you're still not following the WP:BRD procedure by leaving your version in the article, while there seems to be consensus against it. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Fram reported by User:Mike Peel (Result: )

Page: Template:Cite Q/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92] (12:21, 19 April 2021)
2. [93] 12:03, 19 April 2021
3. [94]] (11:17, 19 April 2021‎)
4. [95] (11:55, 15 January 2021‎)
5. [96] (09:05, 15 November 2017 - originally adding it)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: At Template_talk:Cite_Q#TfD_warning [97]

Comments:
Fram's only contributions to this template has been to add this warning notice, which is not necessary (it is not normal - the normal link is on the talk page - and it is outdated). Their solution to avoid reverting for a 4th time was to ping people on the talk page to support their view - getting around the rule of 3RR but not the spirit. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether the notice is necessary or not is hardly relevant for the EW noticeboard, but people can look at the discussion on the talk page about this. I pinged all people in the previous discussion about the state of the template and its status, i.e. 4 people on one side and 3 on the other. That's hardly "pinging people to support my view", but pinging everyone from the previous discussion. Fram (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course, Mike Peel is also edit warring and has removed the notice five times in the same period (initial removal on 8 December 2020, first revert on 14 December 2020, second revert at 11:34, 19 April 2021‎, third revert at 12:19, 19 April 2021‎, fourth revert at 13:08, 19 April 2021). Also, the claim that Fram ping[ed] people on the talk page to support their view is unsupported, as Fram pinged everyone who had participated in a past discussion, regardless of their position, and I happened to be the first one to respond to the ping. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The other user who coincidentally happens to have been the only other editor to add the notice back - in total three times twice now? [98] [99] [100] Which are also your only contributions to the template, same as Fram's? Hmm. Mike Peel (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread this diff, which moved the notice while adding {{high use}}. Corrected accordingly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:OWN much? Anyway, I also participated in discussions about the template, mentioned issues with it on the template talk page, and corrected many problematic uses of it in the mainspace.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 14:11, April 19, 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that opposing its use, complaining about it, and removing uses of it really counts as 'contributing to this template'. Certainly it's not the best way to do so. Mike Peel (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User:5.25.168.133 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: )

Page: Adıyaman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 5.25.168.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC) to 19:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Stop the baseless accusations of editwarring. I provided a thorough explanation of my edits, far more thorough than the usual explanations given on this site. As mentioned in previous edits, the SETA source provides no evidence and is unreliable. The other two sources are available online and absolutely do not make any claims regarding the ethnic majority of Adiyaman. Bingol University paper only refers to Adıyaman as one of the places where Kurds live ("Kürtlerin yaşadığı bölgeler..."). The..."
   2. 19:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Nisanyan is neither a linguist nor a historian and provides very little to no evidence for his speculations. This sort of reasoning is not accepted in other regions' pages and hence will not be accepted here. Stop vandalizing."
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC) to 19:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Please stop the baseless vandalism. As mentioned in previous edits, the SETA source provides no evidence and is unreliable. The other two sources are available online and absolutely do not make any claims regarding the ethnic majority of Adiyaman. Bingol University paper only refers to Adıyaman as one of the places where Kurds live ("Kürtlerin yaşadığı bölgeler..."). The other political science journal article only refers to the mixed character of the region"
   2. 19:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Nisanyan is neither a linguist nor a historian. His claims are largely speculative. He should not be treated as a Respected Source."
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC) to 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
   1. 18:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "As explained previously, As mentioned in previous edit, the SETA source provides no evidence and is unreliable. The other two sources are available online and absolutely do not make any claims regarding the ethnic majority of Adiyaman. Bingol University paper only refers to Adıyaman as one of the places where Kurds live ("Kürtlerin yaşadığı bölgeler..."). The other political science journal article only refers to the mixed character of the region."
   2. 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Sevan Nisanyan is not a linguist or historian and relies on speculation for almost all of his claims. Nisanyan Sozluk and his "map" are not RP."
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) to 18:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
   1. 18:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "I've given a very thorough explanation with direct citation to the given sources why the claim in the deleted content is not proven by the given references. They are publicly available. Please stop ideologically vandalizing the page. It is laughable to claim that my edits were unexplained."
   2. 18:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Diyarbakir Medical Association and a book called "Kurdish Awakening" are not acceptable source for the name of a city. Both are heavily ideological Kurdish irredentist nationalist sources, and someone from Diyarbakir Medical Association has no relevance on this subject whatsoever. None. Overwhelming majority of the country, international sources, locals call the city Adıyaman. Finally, "Kurdish" is not a language but a language group."
5. 18:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Username Semsuri needs to stop vandalizing and trolling. Reverting to previous edit. As mentioned in previous edit, the SETA source provides no evidence and is unreliable. The other two sources are available online and absolutely do not make any claims regarding the ethnic majority of Adiyaman. Bingol University paper only refers to Adıyaman as one of the places where Kurds live ("Kürtlerin yaşadığı bölgeler..."). The other political science journal article only refers to the mixed character..."
6. 18:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "Diyarbakir Medical Association and a book called "Kurdish Awakening" are not acceptable source for the name of a city. Both are heavily ideological Kurdish irredentist nationalist sources, and someone from Diyarbakir Medical Association has no relevance on this subject whatsoever. None. Overwhelming majority of the country, international sources, locals call the city Adıyaman. Finally, "Kurdish" is not a language but a language group. It has many constituents including Kurmanji, Sorani, Zaza,..."
7. 18:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "The SETA article does not provide any evidence for its claim nor any reference to any independent research. SETA is an AKP aligned think tank that is known for its sketchy research and erroneous claims. At the time the AKP was in negotiations with the PKK and frequently parroted their propoganda to intice Kurdish irredentists. The political science paper does not refer to Adiyamans demographics outside of stating that it is of mixed Turkish-Arab-Kurdish character and that there is a Kurdish p..."
8. 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC) "The BBC article references the Financial Times which is not an aurhority on demographics and is just parroting Kurdish irredentist propoganda. The article makes NO mention of the ethnic makeup of the province and city other than to note its mixed Turkish-Arab-Kurdish character and that the Kurdish population is "significant". There is no proof or evidence whatsoever of a Kurdish majority in the province and city. It has historically been a Turkish region, run by Turkish states for close to 10..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: These aren't EW-specific warnings but:

1. Disruptive editing
2. Removal of content
3. Removal of conent 2

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I believe this also applies to Special:Contributions/5.25.167.37. They also just reverted again with this series of consecutive edits (1, 2, 3). They are claiming WP:BLP as a defense. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This user was also reported at ANI. It just occurred to me that maybe that means I shouldn't have also brought this here. Let me know if I should delete this! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Khenry69 reported by User:AeschyIus (Result: Partial block)

Page: Kenneth E. Hartman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Khenry69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_E._Hartman&oldid=1018819417 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_E._Hartman&oldid=1018809577 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_E._Hartman&oldid=1018807861 Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_E._Hartman&oldid=1018819417 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_E._Hartman&oldid=1018809577 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenneth_E._Hartman&oldid=1018807861 Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC) "Message re. Kenneth E. Hartman (HG) (3.4.10)"
2. 00:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC) "/* April 2021 */ reply: Google Drive is not a reliable source. (-) (CD)"

Comments: This user is restoring poorly sourced BLP to wikipedia. I warned him and got no response whatsoever on the talk page. aeschyIus (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month. I partially blocked the user from the article. Mz7 (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)