Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:15, 16 March 2017

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

User:Huldra reported by User:BedrockPerson (Result: No violation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diff. of user reverts:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is constantly reverting major improvements made to the article's grammar, formatting, and just general appearance on the grounds it removes valuable information. No information from the previous versions was removed. User also engaged in an edit war with an anonymous IP editor, I did not include those reverts as I am not sure if I can use them in a report not concerning them. User has been blocked for edit warring one time before on a page of similar subject. BedrockPerson (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit nr 1 is a revert of User:BedrockPerson. The two next edits are reverts of an IP, and an editor with 6 edits, and according to WP:ARBPIA3, I can revert such edits as many times as I want. And I revert, (as is clear from the talk page) because the edit remove all information about religious affiliation, while falsely claiming that they "just integrated better”. WP:Boomerang? A CU of those two ”others” I reverted would also be in order, IMO.

(And my one previous block was admitted to be a mistake from the admin in question (and he was battered on WP:ANI for it….)

But hey, what do I know? Im just a moron, apparently... Huldra (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. You can use any reverts (in ~24 hours) that are not reverting vandalism or serious BLP edits, or Indeed, Arbitration Committee mandates. Feel free to resubmit. BedrockPerson is, however, warned for that personal attack. El_C 23:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have treated all the Arab Israeli places as being under WP:ARBPIA3, and that means under 1RR, with the exceptions which I mention above, Huldra (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: No, ARBPIA mandates that you're allowed up to 1RR. You are being too strict with yourself (that's, of course, to be commended). El_C 23:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Im not sure I understand you here? What is the difference between "allowed up to 1RR" and 1RR? And, as I understand it, BedrockPerson has just broken the 1RR, he reverted me 00:09, 10 March 2017 and 22:46, 10 March 2017 Huldra (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You also exceeded 1RR, according to those diffs. El_C 02:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC) —No, never mind, that was an IP you reverted. El_C 02:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: It is my understanding that only when the ARBPIA notice is attached to an article's talk page do 1RR restrictions come into effect. You can ask any administrator to attach it to any related article. I was misled thinking you knew that and was under the impression one was attached in this instance. I blocked BedrockPerson for it, only to promptly unblock him once I realized no such notice exist. I will be attaching it momentarily, however. I realize you just didn't know this was a prerequisite and been editing all along as if it were in place. That's fine. Continue to do so, it now applies. Sorry for the confusion. El_C 02:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Now that I think about it more and am further questioning myself, I am voicing my reservations and self-doubt more explicitly. Though I chose to err on the side of caution, I more emphatically note that this is just my understanding of the restrictions, and I actually am unsure—maybe Huldra didn't know it was a prerequisite because it isn't. It may be that any user can invoke the ARBPIA3 restrictions on any related article. *** Perhaps an admin more versed in ARBPIA3 can clarify this for me once and for all. At any rate, I attached the notice to the article talk page, so now the restrictions are definitely in effect. Sorry for all the confusion, that's entirely on me. El_C 02:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• @El C: In theory, "All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." (emphasis mine) So assume all affected articles are automatically under ARBPIA3. In practice (for WP:ANEW), give me a break. No IP or new editor is going to know about those restrictions if the article isn't under ECP. So, for me, experienced editors get a pass when reverting non-ECP editors (helps if they note that in edit summaries) and new editors need to adhere to WP:3RR until they are explicitly informed about ARBPIA3. Hopefully by that time an admin will wake up and apply the necessary protection. --NeilN 03:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. Looks like my block was valid, after all, since the editor in question knew that 1RR/ARBPIA was related to the article. But it would be a m:dick move to reblock them now. (Unless, EdJohnston, is right and it dosen't apply—I think it's borderline.) El_C 03:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Not all articles on Israeli topics fall under WP:ARBPIA3. Yarka is an Israeli Druze town. Per the article on the Israeli Druze, they are not considered Muslims, they serve in the Israeli army and they have representatives in the Knesset. So nothing in this article seems related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. My vote is to remove the ARBPIA3 banner and assume that normal 3RR applies to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

They speak Arabic and are Arab citizens of Israel, so it's rather borderline case. El_C 03:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

As an editor who regularly edits in the WP:ARBPIA area, I couldn't find anything that might give rise to issues. I'd remove the ARBPIA banner. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, this whole edit dispute was because BedrockPerson removed the religious affiliation of the citizens in a certain village in Israel, namely that they are Druse, Christians and Muslim. And this has nothing to do with WP:ARBPIA? Seriously? (And Arab Israeli also have some representatives in the Knesset, even some who serve in the IDF.... this does not change the the fact that the place is non Jewish is one of the most defining things about it.) Huldra (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. That was just a minor part of his edit. In addition, perhaps he decided that in view of the fact that the article already said clearly that the village is Druze, and the total number of villagers was already mentioned, that there was no need to mention the precise numbers of the about 5% that are not Druze. I can understand that logic very well, and no ARBPIA involved. Debresser (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the restriction since three people already raised objections over this dispute not falling under ARBPIA, and it is a borderline case. But I may reintroduce the restrictions if related disputes arise, or if this current dispute does evolve so as to be falling under the broadly construed restrictions. El_C 13:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, of those editors saying that this does not come under ARBPIA, all (with one notable exception: EdJohnston) are what I would say noted for their pro-Israeli views. This is not a coincidence.

I wonder, would these pro-Israeli accept removing Jewish history from Israeli/Palestinian places as easily as they accept removing Christian/Muslim/Druse history? If you look at history, I would say: Heck, no. Absolutely no detail of Jewish history is too small, or irrelevant for Misplaced Pages. If 5% of Yarkas population had been Jewish it would have been 100% notable. If 5% of Yarkas population is Muslim/Christian it is 0% notable. Take a look at articles like Ramla#Crusader_Period or Tiberias#Ottoman_period...where all the early Ottoman history is Jewish history...... even though according to Tiberias#Demographic_history no Jews actually lived in the city at that time! Or take a look at talk pages like Talk:Peki'in, where editors, seriously, think that only the Jewish history of the place has any relevance.

For the record: I never remove any info about Jewish history in a place (if it is supported by WP:RS)...I try to add history about the Christian, Muslims and Druse, instead, to make a more balanced picture.

It is rather frustrating to experience again, and again that pro-Israeli editors find such info "irrelevant details".

Of "outsider" views, one (EdJohnston) thinks Yarka is not included under ARBPIA, while another (NeilN) think it is. While a third (El C) seems to be half way between these two opinions. Fair enough. Those opinions matter. But that a group of heavily entrenched pro-Israeli editors say that non-Jewish history is "details", or "irrelevant"...frankly, that is exactly what I have learned to expect. Huldra (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: No, I merely added the padlock to the page. I agree with Ed. --NeilN 01:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: sorry if I misunderstood you. But I really need to have this clarified: I reverted IPs as one is allowed to do that, under ARBPIA. Does this mean that I would have risked being blocked *if* I had reverted another IP, thereby bringing my total reverts up to 4 in 24 hours? I have taken that "broadly construed" quite literally, as in "If in doubt, it is under ARBPIA". But obviously, if Im wrong here, I cannot just revert all IPs, say on Yarka? Huldra (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Broadly construed generally means any reasonable editor would be able to look at the article content and see a connection. If you are constantly reverting on articles that are not found to be under ARBPIA then you'd probably be told to narrow and tighten up your definition of "broadly construed". --NeilN 01:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: You don't make sense. Why would an editor be in favor or against restrictions based on which camp (you think) they are in? Restrictions are always impartial. Another bad faith question of you. Debresser (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Neat. Next time I don't want to answer a question I will say it is in "bad faith", Huldra (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Huldra, since you are casting aspersions on my statement, allow me to expand a bit. I didn't even look at what was being reverted, I was just commenting that the article is not under ARBPIA. You made a statement that you treat all places as under ARBPIA and that is incorrect. We should not strive to place articles under ARBPIA if we don't have to. Just being a city in Israel is not enough to be under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph 01:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That was another bad faith assumption. You may not be sanctioned here, but you are definitely an unpleasant editor. Well, I suppose any society has its rotten apples. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Now, now. That personal attack is uncalled for. Please don't do it again. El_C 14:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

not uncalled for at all. This expression of my personal opinion was a reaction to that editor's continued bad faith accusations. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Dailycare (Result: Users warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. March 4th
2. March 7th
3. March 9th
4. March 11th
5. March 12th
6. March 13th

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (edit warring warning given to me by Debresser, which indicates he is aware of edit warring)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This is not a 3RR case but a more general behaviour issue. As is known, an editor can engage in edit warring without violating 3RR. The last two reverts violate 1RR to the extent this article is under the ARBPIA sanctions ("when in doubt, assume it is related" as provided by the sanction, of which Debresser is aware. The way the diaspora came about has been a bone of contention as some people feel it relates to the strength of the Zionist case/ideology, which is probably why the "myth of exile" is bandied about to begin with. This should bring the article under the purview of the sanctions, however, this report doesn't rely on the article being under these sanctions).

In the reverts above, Debresser is reverting material which has been in the article for several years (2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012, the last one being in briefer form.) The provided reasons for reverting change, from an incorrect assertion there is only one source for this material (there are three, or four including the one from the following paragraph ("non-exilic")) to an incorrect assertion Debresser's version is the stable one, and I would need consensus to return to the version which has in fact been in the article for several years. In particular, Debresser repeatedly reverts while insisting his version is the stable one, despite being made aware (diff diff) that this is not the case. He provides no reasoning, why his version would be the stable one, beyond saying "Revert to stable version as I understand it", "The stable version was this one, as a matter of fact".

Further, Debresser made his revert of March 11th without responding to source interpretation arguments presented to him. In the edit comments of this particular revert, he nonetheless implores me to discuss, even though in reverting he ignores the reasoning presented to him.

As a final point, although this verges toward content, the version Debresser is reverting to is transparently wrong. Debresser's homepage claims he has a near-native command of English, however this experienced editor now suggests that the neutral rendering of these sources would amount to "Some scholars argue", despite the sources clearly presenting this as the consensus view among scholars ("The concept of exile is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions", "Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine").--Dailycare (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain how your edits should not be considered edit warring as well? Sir Joseph 18:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the edit summaries I've provided, I believe my edits are quite proper, e.g. I've corrected Debresser's incorrect assertions concerning the number of sources and explained that he needs to have consensus for changes, instead of trying to ram them into the article. I am also the editor to initiate content discussion in this issue. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Let's apply the rule of three. Three observations: 1. Both editors edit warred; 2. but Debresser may have contravened the provision-that-keeps-on-giving, by supplanting something longstanding without consensus; 3. This may therefore belong in AE. The potential resolution is also threefold: 1. Debresser is blocked for edit warring and for violating the ARBPIA provision; 2. Both editors are blocked for edit warring; 3. page protected, both editors warned. I'd like to hear from other admins before deciding. El_C 18:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't apply option 2/3 because I don't think we need ARBPIA content scope. I would recommend page protection, reverting to last stable version, and both editors warned. Dailycare has started a talk page protection and that's where the discussion should be, not through edit summaries. Sir Joseph 19:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, an important question is whether ARBPIA applies. I agree that in this case, it's a bit of a stretch, but welcome contrasting opinions. Also, what is the last stable version? El_C 20:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

For stable version, I would most likely go to a version before Debresser or Dailycare started their back and forth. (I would love to have some sort of edit filter put in place where if the bytes are the same but negative, then it flags you to use the talk page first.) Sir Joseph 20:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

According to the links I've provided above, the version Debresser is reverting the article away from has been in the text for several years, so I think it's clearly the stable version. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The content was first changed on 27.12.2016 by an IP. The version predating the IP's intervention (an edit which has been adopted by Debresser) is the current consensus version. --Dailycare (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Dailycare, is the conversation not progressing on the talk page? El_C 23:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There is one editor there who supports Dailycare's position, as I knew already from another discussion I had with him a few years ago. On the other hand, I brought sources for my position, to counter his source. We are lacking a bit of outside input there. On the other hand, if there are various opinions, usually the right thing to do on Misplaced Pages is to state opinions and use attribution. That is precisely the previous version, using attribution of the statement to its source. Debresser (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing on the talk page, yes, and the content issue is not really in doubt as the source interpretation is here very straightforward (Debresser's sources don't address the content being discussed, but that's not in-scope of this report). I filed this report, which I didn't very much enjoy doing, since Debresser's conduct on the page was out of line and he had failed to justify e.g. why his version would be the stable one despite being repeatedly challenged on that, and continued reverting, which I didn't feel like doing. --Dailycare (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: See what I wrote below regarding some of the options available to you two to resolve the dispute. But I recommend the nexus remaining the article talk page. As far as I can see, you both edit warred, and you can both be blocked over it, or warned and allowed to proceed with hammering out a compromise that willl represent an emerging consensus. Incidentally, I'm still looking for a 2nd opinion from another admin. But if that is not forthcoming, I'll probably just close these two reports as users warned. El_C 17:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Has there been an actual determination of the "stable version", or at the very least when the content was originally added? I don't want to swim through the diffs if someone already has... and I can't seem to find it using the WikiBlame tool. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I am leaning toward Dailycare version being the older (stable) one—see his 2012-2017 links—but am not 100 percent on it, either. El_C 10:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

See below that it is not all that simple. The text was added by another editor in August 2015, formulated in a more balanced way, and then Dailycare soon turned it into a less qualified statement, which stood for slightly over a year, till it was changed a few months ago in December 2016 by another editor, who changed it into a version closer to the original version. It is that version which I am defending. There is no support in versions from before August 2015 for Dailycare's edits, which in either case stands at odds with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines regarding how to represent information in sources. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, if that's the case, that is fair enough and is noted for the record. I still don't think who was there first and whose version is the prior one is that key (because ARBPIA dosen't apply)—let's instead of examining edit dates, look into resolving the content dispute directly. El_C 14:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dailycare reported by User:Debresser (Result: Users warned)

I actually think that the truth is precisely the other way around. The last stable version was the one before Dailycare started edit warring. He is therefore reported for edit warring as well, his edits being:

1. March 3
2. March 4
3. March 7
4. March 9
5. March 12
6. March 13

As you can see, 1. Dailycare's first edit changed the consensus version. His first edit predates mine. QED. 2. He made no less than 5 reverts, and that despite numerous warnings: , . Please notice that in my first warning I already explained to him that he is changing a consensus version. In addition there is a discussion at Talk:Jewish_diaspora#re._Debresser (rather an awkward header, which anybody please feel free to change to something more indicative of the issue), in which I also right away explained the issue. Also please note that Dailycare's last revert was made after the start of that discussion and in spite of it.

WP:ARBPIA has nothing to do with this article or the specific edit in case. See and , consider the lack of a WP:ARBPIA warning on the talkpage of that article, and apply common sense.

In short, all there is here is a slow-burning edit war, without any violations of WP:3RR or WP:ARBPIA, instigated by Dailycare and his ignoring repeated warnings "Do not edit war even if you think you are right". Regarding sanctions, I think that reminding Dailycare of the error of his ways should be enough, and do not see reason for a block. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring