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.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
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.
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.
| ||
User:Xslyq reported by User:Symphony Regalia (Result: Page protected)
[edit]Page: Assassin's Creed Shadows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xslyq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning by another editor [2]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [4]
Comments:
User registered in 2017, and then made their first edit one week ago to strong-arm poorly sourced nationalist POVs/WP:FRINGE in the Assassin's Creed Shadows article, using a website that denies the Nanking Massacre.
User was warned by both another editor[5] and myself to stop edit warring and wait for discussion before forcing changes given that said changes were opposed by multiple editors on talk[6] [7][8]. User then misrepresented discussion as closed, started a RfC with selective notification (failing to notify the editor who told him to stop editing warring), and then immediately continued to revert to force their change without waiting for the RfC that concerns the change. Symphony Regalia (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- First of all, I did not violate 3RR.I have been actively trying to resolve the dispute.
- The editor referred to by Symphony Regalia was not directly involved in the discussion of the article, but was only involved because of previous disputes with IP users. A compromise consensus had indeed been reached before Symphony Regalia itself revised it without discussion.
- I also strongly disagree with the accusation that was poorly sourced, which can be found here. I'm simply reverting to Symphony Regalia's behavior of removing content at the time of the ongoing RfC.Xslyq (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: User did violate 3RR (Revert diffs 2, 3, 4, 5 take place between 04:02 24 September 2024 and 03:41, 25 September 2024). Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- During the ongoing RfC, the version of Symphony Regalia should be considered disruptive editing.Therefore, I think did not violate 3RR.Xslyq (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Page protected for two weeks by Acalamari. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- During the ongoing RfC, the version of Symphony Regalia should be considered disruptive editing.Therefore, I think did not violate 3RR.Xslyq (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
User:AneasSu reported by User:Roffaduft (Result: Both blocked)
[edit]Page: Plancherel theorem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AneasSu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [9] 09:38, 26 September 2024 - Clarification of "frequency spectrum", which is ambiguous
- [10] 12:38, 27 September 2024 - Added a proof, without removing the lead section. A proof may help many learners to understand it, so if its layout is inappropriate, please be so kind to fix it instead of deleting the proof.
- [11] 13:03, 27 September 2024
- [12] 13:34, 27 September 2024
- [13] 13:55, 27 September 2024 - Undid vandalism
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]
Comments:
User fully ignores the reasons why his edits get reverted and continues to copy/paste the exact same statement. I've tried to address the issue on the user's talk page, but to no avail.
Accusations by Roffaduft about both edit warring and lack of verifiability are false.
1. I did not violate 3RR, since from 13:55, 26 September 2024 to 13:55, 27 September 2024, I undid the editions of Roffaduft 3 times, not more than 3 revisions.
2. The accusation about verifiability by Roffaduft is also invalid, since the Proof section written by me can be verified from reliable sources, as the theorems used in the proof are quoted from other wikipedia pages, and the demonstration is logically consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AneasSu (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yet, you provided zero reliable sources. Don’t create a false narrative by suggesting you did. Roffaduft (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, direct quotations are reliable sources, and logical statements are universally verifiable. Stop vandalizing other people’s works AneasSu (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nowhere did you use direct quotations.
- Also, please stop with the spiteful, unsupported accusations of vandalism, here and on my talkpage, just because of this edit warring dispute.
- Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @AneasSu: The policy says the exact opposite about direct quotations, i.e., that quotations must be supported by an inline source. It says nothing about "logical statements" at all, let alone that they are "universally verifiable". Finally, stop calling other editors' comments or edits vandalism. It's a personal attack, and if you persist, I will block you for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, direct quotations are reliable sources, and logical statements are universally verifiable. Stop vandalizing other people’s works AneasSu (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for misunderstanding the verifiability criteria. I will refer to a textbook to justify the theorems used in the proof.
AneasSu (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours As often noted, you can avoid violating 3RR without edit warring. This is not an editorial area covered by 3RRNO. After several days, it just got more intense today, and again the discussion that should have taken place on the talk page took place here. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
User:C.monarchist28 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
[edit]Page: European Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: C.monarchist28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 05:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248196891 by Moxy (talk) You have not yet given one valid concern that was not immediately explained"
- 05:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248195866 by Moxy (talk) Moxy's beyond ridiculous concerns have been addressed in the talk page. I have stated if anybody else adds it, that is fine, but Moxy does not understand this subject. Stop this edit war. Your concerns are rooted in lack of knowledge, Moxy. PLEASE SEE TALK PAGE: MOXY STATING CONCERNS OF ARABS WHO ARE COUNTED AS WHITE - I HAVE CLEARED THIS TO THEM ALREADY!"
- 05:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248194494 by Moxy (talk) If any other editors would like to add this, go ahead. But not Moxy, who has shown an inability to understand basic concepts of race and ethnic identity, and who is not very familiar with census-taking, how their information is collected. Moxy's concerns on the Talk page are comedy gold and laughable. Cannot take them seriously.
- 05:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "This is not disputed information. The white populations shown are a fact and are published by the government. If you would like to discuss whether French Canadians can be confirmed to have European ancestry, keep it all on the talk page."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 04:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "Very simply put not all people who self-identified as white are of European descent...many that claim to be white are of North African descent or middle eastern descent. Your restoration of the data in the infobox of white people encompasses more than what this article encompasses.... because not all white people identify with being European."
Comments:
Simply trying to add inline dispute tag about content (stats) dispute to attract more input by others. Have also been insulted a few times....however ....think best thing here is simply a page block over site block so they can participate in talks when others chime in. Moxy🍁 06:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- The only person who isn't following proper guidelines (save for me insulting you, which I should probably stop) is Moxy, because her dispute is baseless.
- She is concerned of people who identify as white but are not European in ancestry. The census does not ask if you are white, it only asks what your ethnic origin is, and then categorizes people racially based on that. White includes European and other non-visible minority and non-Indigenous groups. Her concern does not make sense, and I will not be taking them seriously. She is in the wrong for edit warring me instead of responding to her with (my complete logic - she does not respond, but keeps re-adding her baseless dispute). Moxy also made comments calling it "original research" and an "assumption" that French Canadians have European ancestry. I will continue to remove her dispute whenever she puts them on, because I am firm and sure that she is putting forth a baseless dispute and is not responding to what I am saying to refute it.C.monarchist28 (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is no purpose to getting input from other's when you HAVE NO REAL CONCERN TO BEGIN WITH. The dispute you are trying to enter has a false claim itself!!!!!!!! C.monarchist28 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- As you were told and shown others have talk about this before...
- Moxy🍁 06:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- What I have added is different. I have significantly, significantly improved the page. This link[19] is the page before I edited it. I believe an all around significant improvement has been done. These talk pages you are linking are irrelevant to the edits I have done today. My argument also still stands - your dispute is baseless and you have also demonstrated horribly poor knowledge on how the census is taken/published and on ethnic identity in general. "French Canadian does not necessarily mean European ancestry" LOL C.monarchist28 (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- We cant guess link for a second time for you WP:SYNTH. Moxy🍁 06:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Moxy has a problem with the fact that European = White according to Statistics Canada (non-visible minority and non-Indigenous). The map on the European Canadians page already shows not just the 52% who nominated European ancestry but anyone who had European ancestry - if the map only depicted European origin responses and not other white responses (Canadian ethnicity), then rural Quebec would not be as 90%+ European as is already shown on the map, it would be around 50%.
- Instead of accepting they are the same thing (White and European, at least according to Statistics Canada), she would like to create a second page, one for European Canadians and one for White Canadians. I hope it is clear why I kept reverting these false disputed notices by Moxy. She called it "original research", "an assumption" that French Canadians have European ancestry. Look at our discussion on the talk page of European Canadians! Anyone can see this, right? I'm not crazy! C.monarchist28 (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nowhere does Statistics Canada conflate the racial term "white" with the geographic origin term "European". White Canadians are not necessarily the same as European Canadians. Moxy🍁 07:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- What I have added is different. I have significantly, significantly improved the page. This link[19] is the page before I edited it. I believe an all around significant improvement has been done. These talk pages you are linking are irrelevant to the edits I have done today. My argument also still stands - your dispute is baseless and you have also demonstrated horribly poor knowledge on how the census is taken/published and on ethnic identity in general. "French Canadian does not necessarily mean European ancestry" LOL C.monarchist28 (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for WP:3RR and WP:UNCIVIL (Particularly Special:Diff/1248259424). Aoidh (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Βατο reported by User:DonCalo (Result: Declined)
[edit]Page: Languages of Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Βατο (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248472377 by DonCalo (talk): WP:BRD seek consensus in talk page for dubious and disputed changes in the lede"
- 18:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "rv, stick to the source. Restored content with quote from the cited source. For clarity: Arbëresh is a variety of the officially recognized language"
- 17:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "rv, not an improvement, restored the language family officially recognized as language minority"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 18:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Arbëreshë speak Arbëresh, not Albanian */ new section"
- 19:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Arbëreshë speak Arbëresh, not Albanian */"
- 19:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Arbëreshë speak Arbëresh, not Albanian */ Reply"
- 20:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Arbëreshë speak Arbëresh, not Albanian */ Reply"
Comments:
Please stop pushing your rather one-sided opinion. "Arbërisht is not standard Albanian", and that is what the Arbëreshë speak, not Albanian. DonCalo (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment :I did not break the 3rr, User:DonCalo wanted to change with several reverts the WP:STABLE version of the lede by adding WP:original research that was against the cited source (Norme in materia di tutela delle minoranze linguistiche storiche, Italian parliament, retrieved 2015-10-17), and without discussing it in talk page. I asked them to seek consensus in talk page for that edit, and now we are discussing it in talk page, but they have not yet provided sources for the change they want to make in the lede. – Βατο (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Really? There is nor WP:original research. I used sources, kindly provided User:Βατο himself, to try to make clear that his interpretation is rather one-sided, which is now discussed here. And I did not start warnings about 3rr, Βατο did. DonCalo (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- The official source of the law expressly states "Albanian", and the reliable source I provided confirms it. I warned you because you changed the content for the third time, without starting a talk page discussion to seek consensus, but you too did not break the 3rr, and I did not report you. This is a content dispute that we are addressing in talk page without engaging in an edit war. – Βατο (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Really? There is nor WP:original research. I used sources, kindly provided User:Βατο himself, to try to make clear that his interpretation is rather one-sided, which is now discussed here. And I did not start warnings about 3rr, Βατο did. DonCalo (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Declined The content that Bato did, in fact, restore more than three times in 24 hours has since been removed as copyvio, but without any indication that Bato was aware that it was (but you are now). So, since there is no likelihood of the edit war continuing, and you are discussing on talk, I think we can let this go for now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: I did not restore copyvio content, that was a new addition by User:DonCalo in the article's body, removed immediately after by User:Diannaa. I just restored the WP:STABLE version of the lede, clearly not "more than three times in 24 hours", and asked for discussion through WP:BRD, which we are continuing in talk page, without engaging in edit war. My last edit in that page is not a revert of other editors, I only added a reference. – Βατο (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright. Sorry for that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- May I step in? I believe the dispute originates from the type of source used: from the linguistics side, from the sociolinguistics side, and from the political side (I mean it in a neutral way). To me, one could assess which source provides the most accurate information, and which side of the subject matter the article should focus on. Then, one moves to select the source that aligns with the direction of the article. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright. Sorry for that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: I did not restore copyvio content, that was a new addition by User:DonCalo in the article's body, removed immediately after by User:Diannaa. I just restored the WP:STABLE version of the lede, clearly not "more than three times in 24 hours", and asked for discussion through WP:BRD, which we are continuing in talk page, without engaging in edit war. My last edit in that page is not a revert of other editors, I only added a reference. – Βατο (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Rade777 reported by User:Allan Nonymous (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
[edit]Page: FK Jugohrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rade777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "Revision"
- 18:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "Page"
- 18:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "New article"
- 17:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "New site update"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on FK Jugohrom."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 18:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Allan Nonymous "/* FK Jugohrom */ Reply"
Comments:
- Sock indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)