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:Adoniosis reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Battle of Vrbanja Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adoniosis (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]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
This "new" user deleted an edit-warring warning from their talk page.[9] then immediately claimed anti-Serb bias when reverted by DuncanHill.[10] They have been warned yet again by Jim1138,[11] for edit-warring on a different article; Jim was probably not aware that I had already warned them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You failed to mention your own edit war, your biased wording and POV in mentioned article, and the fact that we were suggested to settle our dispute on talk page when you rushed to lock and protect the article from editing. Adoniosis (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. I asked for protection to ensure you used the talk page to discuss the issue and use dispute resolution as needed. You ignored that advice and edit-warred. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. Your unconstructive and non-neutral edits and your lack of will to cooperate is the reason for this dispute. Adoniosis (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Adoniosis is warring on Operation Corridor 92, after this report was filed reverted again on that article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: This account [12] was created a few minutes ago and is rv the same edits. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Mazesbacon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just turned up. DuncanHill (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Will monitor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Oogaboo1234 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

European Defence League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Oogaboo1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Hogesa */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC) to 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Norwegian Defence League */"
   2. 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Scottish Defence League */"
3. 09:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Dutch Defence League */"
4. 09:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Norwegian Defence League */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 09:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on European Defence League. (TW)"
3. 10:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on European Defence League. (TW)"
4. 10:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on European Defence League. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated acts to remove or blank sections of this page. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by RickinBaltimore NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:YSSYguy reported by User:Deryck Chan (Result: Warned)

Page:

• List of Singapore Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Cathay Pacific destinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Hong Kong Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• List of Singapore Airlines destinations:
  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]
  5. [20]
  6. [21]
  7. [22]
• List of Cathay Pacific destinations:
  1. [23]
  2. [24]
  3. [25]
  4. [26]
  5. [27]
  6. [28]
  7. [29]
  8. [30]
  9. [31]
• List of Hong Kong Airlines destinations:
  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]
  4. [35]
  5. [36]
  6. [37]
  7. [38]
  8. [39]
  9. [40]
  10. [41]
  11. [42]
  12. [43]
  13. [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

YSSYguy went around standardizing airline destination lists between April and May. Since then, he has been displaying heavy WP:OWN behaviour on those list articles. One point of particular concern was his adamant insistence that Hong Kong must be listed under China.

An IP user in the dispute opened an RfC on Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations. YSSYguy has not participated since 23 May but continued to revert any edit that he disagreed with, without providing any edit summary. He hasn't reverted in a few weeks but restarted doing so yesterday. YSSYguy has resorted to incivil language in his edit summary and has refused to compromise despite multiple editors telling him it is inappropriate to lump Hong Kong under China in aviation lists [45][46][47].

Edit warring / 3RR templates have not been used because the pace of edit warring was slow and no single user is close to violating 3RR.

Comments:

I have inspected his edits, I think there exists a broader problem of these list : I check jurisdiction but others may not do so. I hate doing these things and these really isn't a small thing for Hong Kong citizens.--1233^Talk 12:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: He is continuing his effort to force his will through a consensus at the related RfC which the majority did not support Hong Kong being listed as a Chinese destination.--1233^Talk 10:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:1233. The RfC at this link does not have any statement at the top about what question it is discussing. If you think editors have reached a consensus, can you say what it is? EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, the question is about whether Hong Kong and Macau should be listed as a separate country from China or not. Most of them would not list Hong Kong as a PRC Airline Destination.--1233^Talk 13:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @EdJohnston: The RfC's question is "how should the 'country' column in aviation destination lists treat Hong Kong and Macau". I think the rough consensus is "not under China" and opinions are split about the "think outside the box" solution of renaming the column "Country / Territory"; however both 1233 and I have expressed an opinion in the debate the discussion hasn't been closed yet, so I would leave it to you to gauge the consensus. In the meantime, YSSYguy has continued to change the "country" field of "Hong Kong" to "China" in other lists,[48] even going so far as making such edits in a list where Hong Kong has never been listed under China before.[49]. Deryck C. 13:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If User:YSSYguy doesn't continue to revert it is likely this complaint will be closed with a warning, not to revert again about 'country' on those three articles. One problem is that the complaint is not super-clear. (The edits listed above are not all about this issue). Also, in some cases people are putting the country field as blank next to Hong Kong, which seems peculiar. Even if we delegate this whole question to the editors working in WT:AIRPORT, they should be able to state clearly what they want the rule to be. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Would WP:Countries or WP:Lists (or Categorisation) be more relevant than Airports? 124.217.189.141 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:YSSYguy is warned not to revert again between 'China' and 'Hong Kong' in the country field of airline destination lists without getting prior consensus on a relevant talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been rather busy of late and have not had any involvement with WP since the weekend, hence this has passed me by. I guess it's too late for any of my comments to carry any weight, but nevertheless I offer the following:

The comment "going so far as making such edits in a list where Hong Kong has never been listed under China before" is demonstrably false; the previous edit changed "People's Republic of China" to "Hong Kong", less than ten hours later I changed it back to the version that an examination of the edit history has existed since March this year ([50]), with a brief interlude of it being "Hong Kong" again in the meantime ([51]).

The fact that I am not the only person making changes of this nature, as seen in the two diffs above, is evidence that no consensus exists that Hong Kong should be treated as not being a part of China. Both Deryck Chan and 1233 have self-identified as having a close connection with Hong Kong, which results in both of them having a non-neutral point of view on the subject. I have no connection at all with mainland China, Taiwan, Macau or Hong Kong; I am a middle-aged seventh-generation Caucasian Australian; I have transitted Hong Kong airport a few times, I have transitted Kunming Airport once and I spent a few hours in central Shanghai once, when my time between flights to/from Pudong airport was sufficient for me to do so.

I don't see why I should comply with an injunction to not make changes that others are free to make and have made (further examples: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] - this last one made more than eight years ago and as far as I can see, never altered since), that is the result of a case opened by a person with a clear non-neutral POV - the reality is that Hong Kong was handed back to China 21 years and a few days ago, I am old enough to have seen the very large number of news reports concerning the handover in the years and days leading up to 1 July 1997, and many more since. I can well understand that Deryck Chan and 1233 (and no doubt hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others) don't want to be Chinese subjects (I wouldn't want to be either), but that is the situation for people living in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. Others have mentioned the existence of the Hong Kong passport as evidence that it is not China, however only Chinese citizens are eligible to hold a Hong Kong passport, and such passports list "China" as the holders' nationality. Are we really going to treat some lists of airline destinations as a special case within Wikipedia because of an RfC opened by an IP troll trying to harass me ([57], [58], [59], [60]), that has had just a small number of participants? YSSYguy (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:85.12.78.251 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page

Data type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'cyka blyat idi na hui'"
2. 13:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'wankerssss'"
3. 13:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'wankers'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Data type. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated 3RR. The IP user made destructive edits. Must be stopped. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks @Web SourceContent: You'll get a faster response if you report vandals at WP:AIV. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2405:204:D200:EFF3:23F1:77FC:202B:5CB6 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

World oil market chronology from 2003 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2405:204:D200:EFF3:23F1:77FC:202B:5CB6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 15:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC) to 15:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Added content"
   2. 15:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on World oil market chronology from 2003. (TW)"
2. 15:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on World oil market chronology from 2003. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Reported vandalism by this user. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Jauerback NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Alian786 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Adam Saleh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Alian786 (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 17:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC) to 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 17:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 17:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 17:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely by Amorymeltzer NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User: 2A02:C7D:8080:AB00:252F:F166:50DC:DB9D reported by User:Marashdeh (Result: page semi-protected for one week)

Page: Electrical capacitance volume tomography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:C7D:8080:AB00:252F:F166:50DC:DB9D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 86.164.255.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 86.133.215.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 86.130.33.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]

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

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

Comments:

An anonymous user continues to adjust one line at the top of the Electrical Capacitance Volume Tomography page which deals with the original developers of ECVT. There are many references on the page which indicate Warsito, Marashdeh, and Fan as the original developers of ECVT. The anonymous user adjusts the text to state that it is researchers from the UK and Poland who developed ECVT before the prior mentioned three names. They provide no source or evidence of this claim. When the edit is removed (twice by me and once by Mwtoews), the edit is later added back again with no sources or references. Because they are not registered on Wikipedia, I do not see any route by which to discuss the accuracy of the statement. A different IP is stated for each edit, but they all trace back to London, UK or Manchester, UK area.

Looking for help on how to resolve this issue without continuing a fruitless Edit War.

Marashdeh (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Nosebagbear and Coryphantha reported by MC (User:141.131.2.3) (Result: No violation)

Page: Gun culture in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nosebagbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Coryphantha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]

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

Comments:
Basically there are a couple of users that seem to want to start an edit war. I made a simple edit to fix an MOS inconsistency and that was quickly reverted with no explanation. I put that one back saying their needed to be an actual explanation for the revert and then separately added another edit citing a specific reference. Both were summarily reverted with a cryptic "NPOV" as the explanation. Both users left little Wikibullying notes on the user talk page. I started a discussion on the article talk page which neither user seems inclined to participate in. I am guessing their must be some history here that I don't know about. I have not gleaned it from the talk page.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, while on vandal patrol I picked up an edit that I believed violated NPOV. I reverted and dropped a NPOV warning (lvl 2), since use of terminology such as "pervasive part of American society" rather than its predecessing language did not seem either NPOV or a MOS amendment. 141.131.2.3 then, after reverting his own change, dropped a vandalism template on my own talk page - diff: [69]. . I replied with a request to talk to me if he had any issues with my reverts rather than just dropping his own warnings Diff response: [70]. This would appear to be their response to my request.

The poster has also complained about our lack of participation in the talk page comment, but since we weren't linked in that would have been difficult for us to be aware of.

-- Nosebagbear (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the reply. Still at most you have explained that you did not like a word choice, but not why you felt the need to simply revert the whole edit (you could easily have offered different wording to address the concern I was trying to repair). Nor have you explained why you felt the need to start accusations of inserting personal commentary in the article.

And despite the protest about your not being aware of the article talk page, I notice you still have not commented there even now.

Again, I don't specifically know what the motivation is here but I don't really see good faith behind it.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi MC 141.131.2.3. It's a shame that this discussion couldn't be had by raising questions on a user talk page (or an article one, we just didn't know of it), rather than the Admin Noticeboard. Speaking purely for myself (I've not read through Coryphantha's) I'll answer your questions in order:

• Reversion of whole edit - when I read the edit it had a negative bit (the non-neutrally phrased part) and a potential issue part (reflecting highly ingrained). The previous edit, to me, seemed fine, so reverting it didn't seem to delete clear positive alteration.
• Accusations of personal commentary - the templates used by both me and Coryphantha were standard "Neutral Point of View" warnings. I used it since I felt your change would have made the article read in a less neutral way. It's possible to do this without having a specific personal viewpoint on the issue and I don't feel my use of it by any means indicates either aggressive accusations or wikibullying.
• Talk page - I've not used the wiki talk page since this board takes precedence and I don't want to split any discussions we might have. It's my first time as the accused party on any admin noticeboard afaik, and given potential consequences I'm not inclined to continue work on the area while it is under consideration
• My motivation was solely to remove negative (obviously as I perceive them) edits - I can't have more than a couple of edits on gun control out of all of mine, and afaik we've not met before my initial reversion of your edit. If I wasn't editing in GF, what is the (most likely) motivation I was running off?

--Nosebagbear (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of my inclusion in this Noticeboard, frankly I do not see why either Nosebagbear or I are here. I apologize for having taken so long to reply to this page as I was taking part in the real world which is evidenced by my break in editing for several hours.

• While on vandal patrol I noticed this unsourced edit regarding gun culture in the United States: "is a pervasive part of American society, reflecting highly ingrained" which appeared to violate WP:NPOV and appears rather to be an opinion which is less than neutral. There are readers and users of various opinions who use and read Wikipedia, and all of the articles should reflect the standard of neutrality that the editors and administrators hold in such high regard. I, of course, am not the only editor who wishes to see WP remain neutral, especially on such a divisive topic as this one.
• I reverted the above edit and the previous one together, the previous one was most likely acceptable, but given the attitude of the second edit by 141.131.2.3 I assumed it was also non-neutral and most likely should have left that one. My reverts cannot possibly be termed "edit warring", however, since that was the only time I visited that page. I apologize for having reverted the first of the two, although I stand by my opinion that the second edit violated Wikipedia's policy of neutrality.
• I did not reply on the article's talk page as I was not pinged and I will not be replying there as I will not be dividing the discussion into two places either.
• About the "little Wikibullying notes on the user's talk page": I use the Wikipedia Twinkle app in my effort against vandalism and the "notes" that were left on 141.131.2.3's talk are prewritten templates that I myself did not write. If 141.131.2.3 has a problem with the message he'll have to contact the person/people who wrote the {{subst:uw-npov1|Article}} template. In retrospect I left a Level 1 warning and Nosebagbear left a Level 2 warning and the two should have been reversed. In my own defense, mine was not the second warning left on his page.
• May I remind 141.131.2.3 that civility is still an important part of Wikipedia. Had he simply alerted me to my inclusion on the article's talk page I would have at least had the chance to reply and back up my argument there when I returned to WP, and this discussion may not have reached the level of animus that it has even before I've even had the opportunity to take part.
• As to "the history", I am not aware of any "history" either. I simply do my part to make Wikipedia a better place, and it would be nice if everyone included in this discussion felt the same way, especially where it concerns divisive topics, Nosebagbear notwithstanding.

In summary, I do not feel in any way that I, nor Nosebagbear, took part in edit warring as each of us only reverted once. I defend the removal of the NPOV edit for the reasons stated above. Regards and best wishes, Coryphantha Talk 21:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• No violation This report was premature NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User Pragdon reported by Ruhubelent (Result: Pragdon warned}

The user I am going to report is Pragdon. This report is kind of precaution. I have previously reported him for the same issue: He kept on reverting a change I have done without stating any reasons or objections to do so and it seems he started again as he reverted the same article again stating only "VANDALİSM!!!" as a reason where as I have raised my objections a year ago, waited for 6 months and then updated the section with explaining the excerpts I have quoted. I have once reverted his revert but I do not want to end up being blocked again due to the edit-war he launched. I have reported as he started so that I will not violate Wikipedia rules.

Sincerely yours, Ruhubelent (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Pragdon has never posted on any talk page. They are warned that making any further reverts without first engaging in discussion may result in a block. Ruhubelent, in the future please use this link to create a properly formatted edit warring report. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Dan the Plumber reported by User:Terrorist96 (Result: Dan the Plumber warned)

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dan the Plumber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. This edit was made by an IP (could be Dan, idk): [72]
2. It was reverted by another user here: [73]
3. Dan the Plumber did his first revert here: [74]
4. Dan's revert was reverted by another user here: [75]
5. Dan's 1RR violation is here: [76]
6. I reverted him, based on his 1RR violation here: [77] (three people have now reverted that specific edit)
7. Dan committed 2RR here: [78]
8. Dan then committed personal attacks against me here: [79]
9. Dan was then reverted by yet another person (4 different people have reverted him in total): [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This article is under 1RR discretionary sanctions and consensus is needed for addition of reverted edits. [82]

Comments:

• Warned Dan the Plumber was not previously properly notified of discretionary sanctions which is a requirement prior to levying sanctions. I've now notified them and logged the notification (Terrorist96, you could have done this as well) so any more reverts will likely result in a block or topic ban. Also, the article is not under a consensus-required restriction. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:יניב הורון reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: No violation)

Page: History of the Jews in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Note: This is not a 3RR violation in the sense of a user making 4 revers in less than 24 hours. However, it is edit warring in a sense of a slow-moving edit war with minimal (essentially none) discussion on talk over long period of time, with one user edit warring against five or six other users.

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]
5. [88]
6. [89]
7. [90]
8. [91]
9. [92]
10. [93]
11. [94]
12. [95]
13. [96]
14. [97]
15. [98]

(I might have missed one or two because there are so many)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100] (user being reported provided a link which is a dead link, another user provided a link [101] which is not). See also [102].

Comments:
Again, this is not a straight up 3RR violation. Rather it is ONE user, Yan (יניב הורון), edit warring against multiple other users over a period of time (since May). Best I can tell the editors he reverted essentially without discussion include User:Yulia Romero, User:Lute88, User:Galassi, and 2600:1700:1111:5940:d9f6:63d1:857a:104. He also reverted User:BrillLyle, although this one could've been simply because he was doing blind-reverts and did not pay attention to intervening edits (i.e. he seems to have reverted Brill just because Brill got in the way of his edit war)

I'm surprised you have reported only me despite other editors are also involved in this. Even though I have reverted three users (and a suspicious IP), this is a borderline vandalism situation on your part, increasing Ukraine's Jewish population from 67,000 to 400,000 (while the source seems to be clearly stating 67,000). An undated Jewish congress web page is not a strong source. In addition, as you can see here (pg 624), there were 100,000 Jews living in Ukraine in 2002 (NOT 400,000), while there's no source to support 400,000 Jews in 2014 (dead link). This might be a question of a range of estimates (beyond the official census) for Jewish origin people. The box should probably stick to one thing (e.g. the official census) while the range of possible Jewish origin people (estimates of whom vary quite a bit) should be stated separately.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Referring to other editors' good faithed edits as "vandalism" isn't very constructive. And yes, there are five other users whom you've been reverting. That should tell you something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I will note that Yaniv has opened a talk paye section on 25 June. RSes do not support 400,000 Jews in Ukraine (true in 198o, but vast majority immigrated - see this, which is a RSor the Atlantic. This may fall under the vandalism exception to edit warring policy - particulalrly when the citations next to the table do not support this inflated time series. Perhaps editors such as VM shoud explain why they have inserted such numbers without apparant RS support.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and he called it "Fake statistics" and claimed that "while there's no source to support ..." which there clearly is (which source is better is a different question). He then continued to edit war against multiple users for another EIGHT days, while referring to other editors' good faithed edits as "vandalism".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And Icewhiz, WP:VANDALISM clearly states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". And these edits here were not even "disruptive" or "against consensus" (which is clearly against Yaniv). So please don't refer to other editors actions as "vandalism" either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I said "may fall". I'm sure inflating population figures by a factor of approx. a multiple of 4-8 (in relation to generally accepted numbers), without a good source, is forbidden by some policy.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Is the 400,000 supported by any source or not? If not, who put in that number originally? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It's 53,000 (2017). Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: (edit conflict) The other users in the dispute are referring to this source [103]. That seems to support neither side in this dispute if we add up the numbers listed, but those only cover major cities (but since 260k > 60k, that would rule out the "lower side" that Yaniv is edit warring for). This source is also used in the article. Quickly looking at it, it suggest that this may be a dispute over whether the "core" or the "enlarged" Jewish populations should be listed (which of course gets into all kinds of issues). A link to this source is also provided in the article, but it's a dead link. The numbers were added [104] in May of 2014 and have been in the article for more than four years. Anyway you slice it, this was not "vandalism" on anyone's part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Current estimates vary (no census since 2001) - but 53k is one of them - 400k is only if you add "extended jews" or crypto Jews - and even there is a very high side estimate. Very. The undated WJC doc is probably not a rs. The stable version is with 67k for 2014. The inflated figures were inserted by an IP on 18 June who just changed the numbers in the table without any refs (and in a manner which does not reflect the some 300+k immigrations in the 1990-2010 period) - which seems like a WP:DUCK.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC) If this were an "extended Jew" issue - then the 1989 should have been updated as well - but it is stuck at 487k - leaving the table at complete odds with the mass immigration of Jews after the fall of the Soviet bloc.Icewhiz (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but this report isn't about a content dispute. You (and Yaniv) should've said all those things on the talk page rather than edit warring. The only reason content issues are relevant here is to establish that you can't use "vandalism" as an excuse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The inflated figures were inserted by an IP on 18 June - The high numbers were inserted in [May 2014 by User:Avaya1. The ones in the table were removed by another IP [105], although the ones in the infobox were left in place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Talk page discussion was opened June 25th. No one defended the 400,000 number. As for the charges of vandalism, editors need to look at the intent of an edit. If a random IP changes 40,000 to 400,000 for example then that's likely vandalism. Established editors reverting to a poorly sourced or unsourced number is likely due to a dispute or carelessness. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)