Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    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 {{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:Isimmons1 reported by User:Danners430 (Result: No violation - contested, PBLOCK issued)

    [edit]

    Page: List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Isimmons1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    First addition: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

    No discussion has taken place on the article talk page; however, the user has discussed the issue on User:Redrose64's talk page

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

    Comments:
    Long term edit warring - user has tried four times to add content which goes against established consensus to a page, and has been reverted by two users already - three now including myself. No attempt by the user to start a discussion until the post on Redrose's talk page. Danners430 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not asking for the 3RR to be applied in this case - I’m asking for it to be reviewed as to the concerns around edit warring, which is clearly happening here. This is the edit warring noticeboard is it not? Danners430 (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We do block people for making single reverts repeatedly without violating 3RR, but usually when they've done it a lot more than this. If this continues, take it back here, or to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case: - I disagree. Saw the report at WT:UKT and I have partially blocked the editor in question from editing the list, a fairly mild sanction which stops the disruption in question. there is no evidence of any other disruption requiring a stronger sanction. The talk page remains open to him to present his case. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your discretion, then. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a heads up @Mjroots - I noticed that the block on the page is indef but you’ve posted the block notice listing it as “temporary” - don’t know if that’s intentional or not, just wanted to let you know :) Danners430 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Danners430: - unintentional, but Redrose64 has sorted it. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Summerfell1978 reported by User:Just10A (Result: Blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: Kevin Roberts (political strategist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Project 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Summerfell1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [7] and [8]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [9]
    2. [10]
    3. [11]
    4. [12]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

    Comments:

    User is doing essentially the same conduct on both the Kevin Roberts and Project 2025 pages. Warring with multiple editors across the pages. Most of the explanations were done on the P2025 talk page, but the diff links/3RR violations I used were on the Roberts page, I can add the Project 2025 ones as well if need be. Reverted them twice on both pages, but am stopping now to prevent edit warring/3RR. Also, just being generally uncivil on the talk pages. Just10A (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Kevin Roberts page: A single sentence was added in the lead paragraph of the Kevin Roberts page. I find this information to be crucial, relevant, and significant, especially considering the real-time changes occurring rapidly in the United States. I provided citations. User reverted it without cause, without modification of text, and threatened me with a block.
    Regarding Project 2025 page: I initially added in the lead paragraph that it is currently being implemented by President Trump. Another user reverted it and recommended that I add citations. I added citations, prominent ones such as from MSNBC, Politico, and USA Today. Another user reverted and recommended that I address this in the Talk page. Several users complimented my work and said I should work on adding the information first to the Implementation section before adding that sentence in the lead paragraph. User @Just10A became hostile and reverted my edits without reason. He has made zero attempts to "refine" my sentences as he recommended, and is instead deleting them without cause. I am a new user but I feel that I'm being bullied. Summerfell1978 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if you feel bullied, that was never my intention. I merely asked you to draft and discuss on the talk page so that we could refine it instead of just forcing it in the main article,[16] but you refused. I don't want to comment anymore to muddy the waters, I'll let the admin sort this out. Just10A (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skinnedface reported by User:PARAKANYAA (Result: Blocked 24h)

    [edit]

    Page: 764 (organization) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

    Comments:

    Edit warring with multiple people to introduce version that has no consensus PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johnnybgood999 reported by User:Allthefoxes (Result: Partially blocked)

    [edit]

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

    User being reported: Johnnybgood999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "Rather than deleting entire sections, editors should aim for targeted, precise edits that align with Wikipedia’s content policies. Please discuss in talk page before deleting."
    2. 23:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1273767321 by Grayfell (talk) Please discuss this on the talk page. Only edit those messages that you believe do not meet the criteria, but do not delete the entire section (in fact, there is content prior to my edits that you also deleted)."
    3. 22:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "WP:PRESERVE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR - see talk page"
    4. 21:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "WP:WAR – see talk page"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC) "/* Recent additions */ Reply"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 23:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Antifeminism

    Comments:

    slowburning edit war - user continues to edit and war after warnings and unproductive talk page discussions. --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 2601:404:D000:B915:6415:F05B:3466:AF1B reported by User:TDKR Chicago 101 (Result:/64 Blocked from article for two weeks)

    [edit]

    Page: June Foray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2601:404:D000:B915:6415:F05B:3466:AF1B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2601:404:d000:b915:faef:f666:eba8:5265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2601:404:d000:b915:bacf:9cae:c0a5:b205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2601:404:d000:b915:8951:55d3:6c83:506f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2601:404:d000:b915:95fe:45c7:d42:8bce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:11, 2 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:bacf:9cae:c0a5:b205
    2. 12:36, 3 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:8951:55d3:6c83:506f (already warned)
    3. 20:46, 3 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:faef:f666:eba8:5265 (already warned)
    4. 23:32, 3 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:6415:f05b:3466:af1b
    5. 23:35, 3 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:6415:f05b:3466:af1b
    6. 02:17, 4 February 2025 by 2601:404:d000:b915:95fe:45c7:d42:8bce

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 05:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC) I undid their edit of changing the infobox image without consensus. I added a note suggesting "Create a talk page discussion"
    2. 13:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC) Undid their edit again with the note: Once again, there was no issue with this image being on the infobox before and it does follow precedent with other deceased celebrities. ONCE again, discuss this in talk page and do not engage in an edit war
    3. 20:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC) User Freedoxm undid the edit again suggesting the unregistered IPs edit is not needed
    4. 23:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC) I once again undid the unregistered IP's edits with the note: Please stop engaging in this edit war. Please discuss your thoughts on the talk page
    5. 23:36, 3 February 2025 Once again undid the unregistered IPs edits.
    6. 11:40, 4 February 2025 Unregistered IP said "Just let the most recent picture be at the top, please" to which I reverted the edit and once again kindly asked them to create a talk page discussion

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Unregistered IPs, possibly the same user, have been continuously undoing edits without proper justification or disregards suggestions to start a talk page discussion. Two of the four unregistered IPs had been warned for undoing the infobox image, which had no issues before and follows precedent for some deceased celebrities in terms of using black and white images. Would it be possible to block these IP users or at the very least protect the page? Thank you. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of two weeks From article. The range 2601:404:D000:B915:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Omar7575 reported by User:Tiggerjay (Result:Indef block)

    [edit]

    Page: Melhem Zein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Omar7575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25]
    2. [26]
    3. [27]
    4. [28]

    Other pages exhibiting similar behavior after warnings

    1. [29]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts beyond warnings, including: diff diff diff diff

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

    Comments:
    Attempted good faith conversations on talk page, a new user posting in contentious areas, with borderline WP:ARBPIA implications. Primarily trying to introduce unsourced lineage of people, which cannot be verified in reliable sources. Continued posting implicates WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and talk page replies convey WP:BIT. I reverted their content three four times, and they've re-added it four five times total, multiple edits after engaging on talk page discussions, which shows that they've decided that the rules do not apply to them. Updated to 5th time re-adding the content after being reverted four times. Now a bright line violation. TiggerJay (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tiggerjay: It's not a bright-line violation as the 4 reverts did not occur in a 24-hour period. Nonetheless, I would have blocked the user it if it weren't for the fact that you too have been edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23 - the only thing I've been doing is reverting their unsourced additions which appear to be vandalism and/or POVPUSH back to the most stable version of the article[32] [33] [34] [35]. With regards to other pages, with the exception of a single errant partial revert, all other pages have also been reverted to their stable versions. Last time I checked that was not a criteria of edit warring on my part. However I will agree that it looks like their most recent (4th revert) occurred within 31 hours, so I would agree with perhaps not bright-line. TiggerJay (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits are not exempt under WP:3RRNO; your interpretation of what constitutes vandalism is incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The continued addition of an unsourced nationality, especially to the lead, violates not only MOS:NATIONALITY (not good), but also WP:BLP (double plus ungood). I've removed the content as a BLP violation, plus the related categories which run afoul of WP:BLPCAT. If they're restored, a block is in order.-- Ponyobons mots 16:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ponyo: If you think that the user's edits are WP:BLP violations, the reversion of which is exempt under 3RRNO, you should really block the user indefinitely. AFAICT, that's all they've been doing on Wikipedia since they started editing a few days ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want to be a toe-stepper, isn't Tuesday your swing dance lesson night? I gave them a final awarning and a CTOPs notice and am monitoring. Plus cleaning up the mess.-- Ponyobons mots 16:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was canceled because of snow. They didn't want to rename it to slip dancing. I'm crushed (ice) and am trying to comfort myself by twirling in the living room to Strauss waltzes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Omar7575 continued to restore the BLP-violating content despite my final warning, so I've blocked. In this case it's indefinitely as, per this statement, they have no intention of abiding by our policies.-- Ponyobons mots 18:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fdom5997 reported by User:Mazamadao (Result: Full-protected for three days)

    [edit]

    Page: Rade language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rade_language&diff=prev&oldid=1273844739

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rade_language&diff=prev&oldid=1273845371
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rade_language&diff=prev&oldid=1273822246
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rade_language&diff=prev&oldid=1273702667



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fdom5997&diff=prev&oldid=1273847447

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fdom5997&diff=prev&oldid=1273852474

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Where's "can also be heard as" and "may be heard as" in the source?. Thank you.

    Comments:User talk:Fdom5997 repeatedly reverted my edits with no justification other than "it's my wording choice" or "I like to write it that way". They repeatedly failed to add inline citations and stop using subjective languages unwarranted by the sources they're refusing to cite properly. When all failed, they resorted to making this threat in the edit summary: Stop reverting and just concede. Keep this up and I will report you to ANI:Noticeboard, clearly demanding me to capitulate to their bad behavior. During our exchange to resolve the issue, they repeatedly misrepresented my argument, insisting that I was forcing them to "quote verbatim" the sources, even though I only asked them to stop using unfounded subjective language and cite sources properly.Mazamadao (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected In full for three days. I'd tell you to go to the talk page, but it's clear from that discussion on Maz's talk page that that's no longer going to be productive, as you're both digging in and losing good faith. So ... for the love of wiki, get some other people involved so you can reach a consensus on this very lame edit war. If you don't, and just go back to what you've been doing when the protection expires, I see no choice but to recommend to anyone looking over this record that the two of you be blocked from the page for some certain time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2A02:2F0C:C207:C000:54A6:FCA1:1156:2E2B reported by User:An anonymous username, not my real name (Result: Semi-protected)

    [edit]

    Page: 2025 Risbergska school shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2A02:2F0C:C207:C000:54A6:FCA1:1156:2E2B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC) "there are about 60 gun related murders in sweden every year and 60 murders by other means. only referring to the gun violence gives a false impression of the level of violence experienced in sweden"
    2. 19:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC) "homicides by gun isnt in any way more important than homicides without guns. either put overall homicides in or neither"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Repeated removal of sourced content for some kind of POV pushing. I understand they technically haven't done much, but these are the user's only edits; it's painfully obvious that they are NOTHERE. — Anonymous 20:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    2601:80:4803:8d60:18b:d03a:b090:5aa2 reported by User:RobertJohnson35 (Result: /64 range blocked 3 months)

    [edit]

    Page: Sino-Vietnamese War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2601:80:4803:8d60:18b:d03a:b090:5aa2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Older IPs:
    2601:80:4803:8d60:20d2:d3c0:f457:b2bd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2601:80:4803:8d60:51ff:287c:880f:a0da (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2601:80:4803:8d60:dd44:833:e6fb:6ebb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2601:80:4803:8d60:68e0:666a:8f7b:bb63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    4 February:

    1. [36]
    2. [37]
    3. [38]
    4. [39]

    5 February:

    1. [40]
    2. [41]
    3. [42]
    4. [43]
    5. [44]
    6. [45]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [48]

    Comments:

    Now there's another similar IP repeating the same edits: 2600:1002:B12B:A77B:0:58:FA06:5701. It may be the same person, the locations are similar but they don't match. RobertJohnson35 – talk 16:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    lol it's obviously him and he is at it again.[49] He has gone on a reverting rampage and it seems the block failed to stop him. 49.186.230.86 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested protection of the article, I don't want to report him again if he's going to do the same thing all the time. RobertJohnson35 – talk 16:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jacobolus reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: No violation)

    [edit]

    Page: Law of cosines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jacobolus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [50]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [51]
    2. [52]
    3. [53]
    4. [54]
    5. [55]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [58]

    Comments:

    Few days ago, I edited the law of cosines' article, my edits were reverted by Jacobolus. I tried to find a compromise with that editor, but each time I edited the article, trying to take their comments into account, they reverted me. First, they said that the explanations were not correct, then I made an edit, taking into account much of what Jacobolus said, but they reverted me again. Then, they criticized the quality of the source, but when I added more sources, they reverted me again. Then I took the sources at WP:RSN, where they were dubbed reliable and a proposal from a third party was made, however, when I edited the article accordingly, Jacobolus reverted me again. It seems quite clear that this editor will not stop reverting my edit to that article, no matter if they are sourced, no matter if a third party opinion has been given. Also, as anybody can see at Talk:Law of cosines, Jacobolus constantly makes their own analyses of the works of al-Kashi or al-Tusi, blatantly ignoring what the sources say. Also, I'm a bit surprised to see XOR'easter intervening on the talk page, with a small and quite vague comment, while they had never edited that article before (WP:MEATPUPPETRY ?) ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikaviani: Please try to resolve content disputes on the discussion page instead of repeatedly edit warring in the article text to force in material that other editors are opposed to. My position was, and continues to be, that the article as it stands clearly describes al-Kashi's work and its relation to prior work; indeed I would say Wikipedia's text does a better and more complete job of this than other sources I have seen. (Unfortunately the article does a poor job describing later work, though that is not relevant to this dispute.) We don't need to add vague or inaccurate non-factual sentences further promoting that work, especially not if they are based on off-hand mentions in tangentially-related sources. Your goals here seem to me to be largely political/ideological rather than factual/historical, and your discussion style is frustrating because you don't engage with comments you disagree with, but just ignore them and move back to your same (still insufficiently substantiated) point every time. If you can just straight-forwardly explain what you are trying to do and why, it might help people to either more easily reject it or to figure out how to compromise with you.
    Also: You think XOR'easter is a "meatpuppet"? Seriously? If you want we could try to get some more involvement from other editors at WT:WPM or a similar place. –jacobolus (t) 17:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly my goals could be politica/ideological ? You say al-Tusi, I say al-Kashi, they are both Iranian scientists. are you serious ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you two considered WP:DRN? Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your suggestion.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I say "Scholar A directly did X, here is a quotation of their text. Scholar B directly did Y, here is a quotation of their text, here is how it relates to X, here is how you would write it in modern notation, and here is a picture." This lets readers compare and draw their own conclusions.
    You say "Scholar B was the first person to do «named statement» in a modern way.[footnote with a link to a half-sentence of fluff with no concrete detail in a big pop math book.]" This doesn't really tell readers anything except the unsubstantiated opinion of the author of the pop math book, and is confusing and potentially misleading to readers because it involves undefined and ambiguous language whose meaning would be interpreted differently by different readers, and some inferences reasonable readers are likely to draw from this statement are incorrect: what the scholar actually did is not identical to «named statement» as presented commonly today, and is part of a historical process of changing priorities and presentations that doesn't have clear boundary lines, so that claims about who was "first" are inherently subjective and often political. Can you see the difference between these two approaches? The goal of the former approach is to share factual description, while the goal of the latter approach is apparently to promote a particular scholar's work. –jacobolus (t) 17:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Wikipedia rules have changed, but I don't remember which parts of our guidelines say that we, as editors, can make the job instead of secondary sources. And, again, in the thread, you give the credit of the use of trigonometry and the study of a random triangle to al-Tusi while I give the same credit to al-Kashi, both are Iranian scientists, there is no politics here, my goal is to fairly represent the history of that law. Anyway, if I'm in the mood for that, I will try Simonm223's proposal, otherwise I won't and the article will remain just as it is, who cares after all.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is a gross misstatement of my claims. I didn't "give credit" to anyone for anything. I just quoted and explained both texts. (If you want my opinion: I think it is almost certain that authors earlier than al-Tusi gave similar methods for finding the third side of an SAS triangle, possibly many centuries earlier, but I am not personally aware of those texts. Neither al-Tusi nor al-Kashi makes any claim about novelty of their method for solving SAS triangles, but just present it among a list of methods for solving various types of triangles which were presumably already known to contemporaries. Even if we restrict ourselves to something recognizable as "trigonometry" specifically, I would not be at all surprised if equivalent expressions relating the sides to one angle of a general triangle turned up in the extensive but now-lost treatise of Hipparchus about that subject. But my speculations are an appropriate topic for a blog post, not for Wikipedia.) The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to "give credit", and even quoting secondary sources which give credit is often problematic because those sources are not omniscient, are often political, and credit-giving statements are often misleading or factually incorrect. "fairly represent the history" – the history is not currently fairly represented because we focus quite a lot on developments before 1500, which are covered quite well, but not at all on developments after 1500. If you want to work on "fairly" representing the history of the topic, please go find some sources about 16th–19th century trigonometry and extend this section. –jacobolus (t) 18:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you guys find somewhere else to take this "discussion"? Unless you have an issue with the resolution of this report, it's taking up space that it shouldn't be taking up here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Just10A reported by User:Summerfell1978 (Result: Blocked for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: Kevin Roberts (political strategist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Just10A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [59]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [60]
    2. [61]
    3. [62]
    4. [63]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [65]

    Comments:

    I am writing to formally report user Just10A for their disruptive editing behavior on the article Kevin Roberts (political strategist). Over the course of our discussions on the talk page, I have raised concerns about neutrality, verifiability, and adherence to Wikipedia’s sourcing standards, particularly regarding content related to Project 2025. However, Just10A has repeatedly:

    Added or restored material without proper citations. Engaged in edit warring by reverting changes without consensus. Ignored talk page discussions, failing to engage constructively in content dispute resolution. Introduced content that appears promotional and does not meet Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. I have made good-faith efforts to address these issues on the talk page, but Just10A continues to dismiss concerns and reinstate problematic content. I believe this behavior violates Wikipedia’s core policies on NPOV, verifiability, and edit warring.

    Just10A raised an issue that I shouldn't have the concluding lead sentence because there is no information in the body regarding Project 2025. I took him up on that offer to make accomodations so that he's happy. I spent quite some time writing in the body a subheading regarding Project 2025. Project 2025 is spearheaded by Roberts. User then claimed that it's irrelevant and deleted the paragraph. He has also repeatedly harassed me the past few days. It seems that his issue is with displaying the appropriate information on the article page. I believe that he is not being sincere in his reasoning as to why he doesn't want the information available. At least 6 times I and other users posted in the talk asking what his objections are to the sourced material but they have been ignored. When I left a warning on his page regarding edit warring, he reverted my comment. I was also nice enough not to report him yesterday for editwarring, after he raised this to admins. I believe these actions are not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerfell1978 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 5 February 2025 month year (UTC) Just10A (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I think this might end up as a WP:BOOMERANG. The reporting User was blocked for edit warring on the Kevin Roberts (political strategist) page (their report hasn't even been archived yet, it's still on this page), and immediately returned after the block by resuming to edit war the page, despite being implored multiple times by myself and other editors to draft on the talk page and gain consensus before injecting things in. [66] The diffs he provided of me "edit warring" are multiple days apart, and the first ones are from their initial dispute above which resulted in their block. I (along with others) reverted them twice since they returned, but will not do again to avoid 3RR until this is resolved.
    On top of this, they've done what I think can only be seen as a WP:HOUNDING edit [67] against me after this all started up again, and have had a pattern of clear incivility on the talk pages, saying things like: "Some of us, like me, contribute to society as a surgeon. Not all of us have time at home to make 220,000 edits on Wikipedia in a span of few years." (making fun of an editors large amount of edits, on their talk page) and "If you can't read, this really isn't my problem."
    Unfortunately, I don't think the original block did it's job, and they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. A boomerang might be appropriate here. Just10A (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the edit comments in the article history from several frustrated editors it looks like WP:CIR too. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of one week Per and in addition to the above discussion, they did it right off their last block, they have been alerted to CTOPS, the talk page has a CTOPS notice—there's not much else I need to say. If they return to this again a responding admin should block for a month, log it and make it ArbCom-appealable. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1274157437"