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:Βατο reported by User:DonCalo (Result: Declined)

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:

1. 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"
2. 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"
3. 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:

1. 18:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Arbëreshë speak Arbëresh, not Albanian */ new section"
2. 19:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Arbëreshë speak Arbëresh, not Albanian */"
3. 19:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Arbëreshë speak Arbëresh, not Albanian */ Reply"
4. 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)

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)

Excellent ... maybe you'd be willing to add this to the talk page discussion? Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd be glad too. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Daniel Case, just a note. I have not been involved in the content dispute so far, but I would have done the same reverts done by Bato. On Arberesh language DonCalo is misusing sources to push an idea that even the sources do not make. DonCarlo wrote that "Although Albanian is recognized as a minority language by Italian law, several sources recognize Arbëresh as a distinct language related to Albanian". If you read the quotes from the Minority Rights Group International and Cambridge Language Collective, they don't say Arberesh is a "distinct language related to Albanian". Arberesh as a language is a variety or dialect of Albanian, which has big differences with standard Albanian (the official form used by Albania). It might not be a coincidance that just a few days ago another admin warned DonCao for source misuse [1] (writing things the source does not say [2]). The copyright breaches too seem to not be a coincidance, as DonCao had been warned about that as well in the past [3][4]. I hope DonCalo reflects on the issues, as they indeed are serious ones. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  When we review reports here, we do not care about the content but the conduct, unless the reverts are within the narrow content-based BLP exception allowed under 3RRNO. Had you made the same reverts, you would have been edit warring as well. The issues you raise are better off at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Daniel Case, I know, but the issues raised at my note above still serve their purpose, to urge DonCarlo to reflect on their own conduct. And no, I don't want to report DonCarlo anywhere, be it ANI/I or another drama board. I don't know the editor enough. When I said I would do the same reverts as Bato, I meant I would revert on all articles that Bato reverted DonCarlo, not that I would do the same revert multiple times. I know the difference between defending article quality from edit warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, just so you know ... we have blocked people for reverting across multiple articles even if they didn't violate 3RR on any of them. It's better in situations like that to request protection before things get out of control, as long as the user isn't responding to talk or warnings.

  Also, I think because of the issues involved in this I would be justified in putting a CTOPS notice on the talk page under ARBEE, even though it's geographically outside of that area. What do you think? Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Daniel Case, I don't think that doing a revert on each of the 2 or 3 articles involved would justify a block - IMO it would be utter nonsense. If there would be several reverts on each of multiple articles, then yeah, and I have seen such blocks being applied to editors in the past.

  Although the Arbereshe are in Italy, the topic is covered by the ARBEE, so IMO leaving a CTOPS notice is a good idea for both Languages of Italy and Arberesh language. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, one revert across several articles isn't a problem. It's when it's two or three per day for several days running.

  I have placed CTOPS notices on both articles' talk pages. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User: Lord Ruffy98 reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Shahid (Algeria) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lord Ruffy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:59, 2 October 2024: "The war was an indipendence war not a religious one; please don't mix the things. Undid revision 1248932090 by Skitash (talk)"
2. 13:11, 2 October 2024: "In fact I kept the name change for now as it makes sense. For the rest you changed the references to religious elements like shuhuda and mujahideen which in this context have different meanings than the Algerian ones as expressed in the sources. Please refrain from edit warring. Undid revision 1248962817 by Skitash (talk)"
3. 13:28, 2 October 2024: "The grammatical errors get corrected. Islamic context has nothing to do with the definition of the shuhada. Please use the Talk page; I suggest you refrain from edit warring WP:AVOIDEDITWAR IUndid revision 1248964967 by Skitash (talk)"
4. 13:42, 2 October 2024: "WP:CIRNOT Undid revision 1248966675 by Skitash (talk)"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:

This user appears to be exercising WP:OWN over this article they seemingly translated from French Wikipedia. They consistently insist on retaining the grammatical and spelling errors they introduced, such as "Indipendence" and "theirrelease", along with improper capitalization of nouns, such as "algerian". They're aware of this and refuse to permit the corrections. Following this, they started edit warring on my own talk page. They have demonstrated similar behavior to push their POV on other articles, raising concerns over WP:CIR and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Skitash (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As i said in the object your argumentation about the fact that the war of indipendence was fought within an islamic context doesn't mean that have the same meaning as mujahideen in Islam is different and there is nothing there which can explain better the meaning in this context.

[A] "Your argument that 'shuhada' and 'mujahideen' has a different meaning in Algeria makes no sense, as the war of independence was fought within an Islamic context. "

The same thing for the shuhuda as it's a different thing.

The definition of those are available here as i writed the source [9][2[ more precisly Titre 2- Chap 1.

On the French community of Wikipedia you can also find this page that explain the difference between a Moudjahid in Islam and in the context of Algerian War.

[B] I agreed with the change of the name so i didn't revert everything cause some correction we're usefull.

After i reverted the edit the user that cited me keeped reverting in a loop without following my advice to argue onto the talk page.

His accusation of WP:OWN is false as apart this user only Braganza modified the article. Anyone can edit the page as long as they use correct information; this should be the basis of Wikipedia; I am open to future changes if someone thinks something should be changed further and indeed I ask you to provide sources and information or edit the article yourself if you have something to add.

As regards grammatical errors can be modified on a second edit without a complete revert but you didn't do it. [C]

He avoided discussions also by deleting my warnings. [D]

I would prefer not to use this argument but the user in question has often shown to take it out on several users especially in reference to dynamics that see the Berber language on Algerian Talk page, ethnicity and other topics. So the accusation of WP:BATTLEGROUND should be given to him. Also i see a bad behavI have always sought dialogue, in fact after every edit prior to today I have requested his attention on his talk page to find a meeting point; the result has always been absolute failure to dialogue by not responding or not following when discussed in the talk pages of other pages. Here is an example.

I also note a difficult behavior to interact with from the person in question since he deletes any edit that adds Berber elements under the Algerian pages as if to maintain personal control WP:OWN over the pages and maintain an anti-Berber position.

But that's another topic but since he accused me of Battleground I thought it was necessary to say it.

I would like to say a final word about my defense; I have not been writing actively for a very long time and the user in question has never been kind or willing to help improve the articles, obviously, I speak of my experience, I do not know if with others it has been better. #WP:NOBITING

P.S. Sorry if my English is not perfect. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:4B5E:FE0:C515:EE68:8B3E:327F reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: 48 hour block)

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

User being reported: 2607:FEA8:4B5E:FE0:C515:EE68:8B3E:327F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249022007 by Adakiko (talk)"
2. 19:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248839915 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
3. 13:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248839915 by Tgeorgescu (talk). It is not impossible. Please do not leverage the writings of one biblical scholar and leverage that as "fact". This page should stay unbiased as just stating the origin of the name."
4. Consecutive edits:
   1. [10]
   2. [11]
   3. [12]
   4. [13]
   5. [14]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Yahshua."
2. 19:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Yahshua."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Peddles WP:FRINGE views. Also active as 69.77.185.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Result:

Page protected for seven days. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Stormm001 reported by User:PARAKANYAA (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Waikino school shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stormm001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Notification: [21]

Comments:
User repeatedly is inserting OR as to what model of firearm was used, is ignoring any criticism claiming they are a firearms expert and this exempts them from OR rules. Has also repeatedly inserted an unreliable source. Has resisted my attempt to discuss this on the talk page and just keeps inserting this information. (never filed a report here sorry if i did it wrong) PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

After this report Stormm has self reverted so consider this retracted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Object404 reported by User:STSC (Result: Fully protected one week)

Page: Sabina Shoal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Object404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25] - A multiple reversion which reverted 3 different edits in one go
4. See no.3
5. See no.3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]; [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]; [29]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [30]

Comments:
Object404 has the bad habit of quick reverting. We find it very unacceptable. STSC (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@STSC Was actually the first one to be edit warring, so I left a notice at his talk page to refrain from doing so. I guess he's decided to escalate things here to pre-empt me.

@STSC has been uncivil in accusing me of cherry-picking content and POV-pushing and has been deleting well-cited items not to his liking. He's actually been advocating for False balance. He has also been deleting relevant content in the article that fact-checks Chinese government disinformation (public domain videos of China Coast Guard ships ramming Philippine ships in the area of the article subject. The Chinese government has been stating that it was the Philippine ships ramming Chinese ships).

I am going to refrain from editing the articles in question for a few days to let things settle down.

-Object404 (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not start any edit war at all; me and other editors have tried to make a compromise but Object404 keeps on his/her quick reverting tactic to intimidate other editors. STSC (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, STSC. I don't see where the "compromise" is in this latest discussion you brought up in the talk page. From what I can see in the article, you're insisting that a Philippine government source (which, in this case, are the videos Object404 has put in the article showing China Coast Guard ships ramming Philippine vessels) is "biased", never mind that the authenticity of the videos in question, and that they were not edited to support a Philippine claim, aren't in dispute.

I will leave it to other admins to decide on the merits of this report, but I will say that your actions don't particularly hint at supporting WP:NPOV. Removing content while not adding additional context does not hint at objectivity; rather, it appears like POV-pushing. I would encourage you to read up on WP:WFTO and consider that merely removing content that you may find objectionable, but otherwise have strong historical and editorial value, undermines your claim that you're trying to be neutral. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have never accused that the Philippine government source is biased or false at all. I removed the Philippine Coast Guard's media as per fact-picking: "Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject (positive and negative), a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. As such, fact picking is a breach of neutral point of view". Also, Object404 has just failed to follow the BRD cycle. Other editors removed his bold edits but he just reverted their edits immediately. STSC (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• In Object404's defense, his reversions were to reinstate back content that were removed by STSC. I don't particularly find the reason STSC gave to remove the content convincing. The article is discussing an event, and STSC removed media that is extremely relevant to the discussed event, stating that it is "cherry-picking". —seav (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• I've fully protected the article for one week. There's too much edit-warring going on by multiple users, of whom the worst offenders are STSC and Object404. The editors can of course continue to discuss the disputes on the article Talk page, but I strongly urge them to do so in a civil manner (although not ideal, accusing someone of cherry picking is pretty mild stuff in a content dispute). In addition, after protection expires, any editor who was previously edit-warring may be blocked without notice if they reinstate their version without having first reached a clear consensus on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)