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:82.17.145.49 and User:2A00:23C7:848B:B801:842B:3B0B:C5C7:510 reported by User:Czello (Result: Page extended-confirmed protected for a year under CTOPS

    [edit]

    Page: 21st century genocides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 82.17.145.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Israel */ Unfounded allegations, just accusations from unreliable sources"
    2. 22:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Israel */ Israeli propaganda"
    3. 20:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Israel */ Removed accusations of Palestinians genociding Israelis on October 7th only a single biased source (Times of Israel)"
    4. [1] (as 2A00:23C7:848B:B801:842B:3B0B:C5C7:510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    5. [2]


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 21st century genocides."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User clearly switched to editing on mobile as 2A00:23C7:848B:B801:842B:3B0B:C5C7:510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) after receiving a 3RR warning. Note that this topic (Arab-Israeli conflict) is under CTOPS and the user is not permitted to make more than one revert in a 24 hour period. — Czello (music) 21:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    now thip 71.212.119.156 is editing 21st century genocides which the ip is not post to edit. Untamed1910 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    StandardRossoneri99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has now joined in the edit war. Potentially the same user, as their only edits are to this article. — Czello (music) 06:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected by ToBeFree for a year at the extended confirmed level under WP:CT/A-I Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, StandardRossoneri99 has previously been told of the EC requirement, and previously made the same edits under StandardRossoneri. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sayuuuto reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: Political status of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297175165 by Skitash (talk) it's not me who did an edit, it's M.bitton, he created a topic in talk page about it."
    2. 15:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297174512 by Skitash (talk) stop edit warring, there is ongoing talk on this."
    3. 15:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297172730 by M.Bitton (talk) Please refrain from edit warring and bring it to talk page"
    4. 15:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297151119 by M.Bitton (talk) We agreed to stick to official sources. please refrain from editwarring and make a discussion topic."
    5. 07:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Not an RS, should bring a official source from Paraguay like for Kenya Undid revision 1296209723 by M.Bitton (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Political status of Western Sahara."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 15:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Please note that their first reported edit (number 5) is a revert of an edit that was made last week. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How convenient to not mention that on the talk page. Nor on the revert itself.
    I thought that was your edit and I was the one reverting it, and now you're framing me like it's the opposite.
    It doesn't mean that I'm okay with what's in your edit, What I mean is that I wouldn't have reverted you if I knew. you played me really well good job. Sayuuuto (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Skitash, I don't understand the edit summary of Special:Diff/1297175165 given that material is added rather than removed with it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree: Sayuuuto had already violated 3R (4 reverts) by that time, and to be honest, they were edit warring for no reason whatsoever (given that the content was copied from the main article). M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    M.Bitton, I said nothing about that, nor would that alone have given Skitash a reason to revert. I'm just wondering about the inversion of ONUS when someone cites it while adding material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake; I misspoke earlier about ONUS. What I meant is that once an edit is reverted or contested, the editor should seek consensus rather than keep pushing it through (per WP:BRD). Skitash (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. While BRD itself is an optional process, you're right, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sayuuuto, you made five reverts while telling people not to edit war in the summaries of these reverts. Do you see how that is an issue independently of who started? Could you follow your own advice in the future? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    M.Bitton, please let me know if this continues. I can't extended-confirmed protect right away, but disruption during semi-protection would be a good reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OdunayoM reported by User:Gommeh (Result: Already blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: List of people from Lagos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 17:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC) to 17:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
      1. 17:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Sports */I removed the people who are not from Lagos. Lagos is a Yoruba city and only Yoruba people are from Lagos. Non-Yoruba people cannot be on the list of people from Lagos. It's like putting Donald Trump on the list of Chinese people. Ridiculous right?"
      2. 17:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Sports */I removed the people who are not from Lagos. Lagos is a Yoruba city and only Yoruba people are from Lagos. Non-Yoruba people cannot be on the list of people from Lagos. It's like putting Donald Trump on the list of Chinese people. Ridiculous right?"
      3. 17:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Sports */I removed the people who are not from Lagos. Lagos is a Yoruba city and only Yoruba people are from Lagos. Non-Yoruba people cannot be on the list of people from Lagos. It's like putting Donald Trump on the list of Chinese people. Ridiculous right?"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 17:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC) to 17:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
      1. 17:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Other */I removed the people who are not from Lagos. Lagos is a Yoruba city and only Yoruba people are from Lagos. Non-Yoruba people cannot be on the list of people from Lagos. It's like putting Donald Trump on the list of Chinese people. Ridiculous right?"
      2. 17:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Business */I removed the people who are not from Lagos. Lagos is a Yoruba city and only Yoruba people are from Lagos. Non-Yoruba people cannot be on the list of people from Lagos. It's like putting Donald Trump on the list of Chinese people. Ridiculous right?"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 17:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC) to 17:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
      1. 17:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Sports */I removed the people who are not from Lagos. Lagos is a Yoruba city and only Yoruba people are from Lagos. Non-Yoruba people cannot be on the list of people from Lagos. It's like putting Donald Trump on the list of Chinese people. Ridiculous right?"
      2. 17:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Other */I removed the people who are not from Lagos. Lagos is a Yoruba city and only Yoruba people are from Lagos. Non-Yoruba people cannot be on the list of people from Lagos. It's like putting Donald Trump on the list of Chinese people. Ridiculous right?"
    4. 17:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Other */I removed the people who are not from Lagos. Lagos is a Yoruba city and only Yoruba people are from Lagos. Non-Yoruba people cannot be on the list of people from Lagos. It's like putting Donald Trump on the list of Chinese people. Ridiculous right?"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 17:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC) to 17:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
      1. 17:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Business */I removed some people who are not from Lagos. Lagos is a Yoruba city, and only Yoruba are from Lagos. Non-Yoruba people cannot be on the list of "list of people from Lagos". It's like saying "List of Chinese people" and adding Donald Trump to the list. Ridiculous right?"
      2. 17:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Sports */I removed the people who are not from Lagos. Lagos is a Yoruba city and only Yoruba people are from Lagos. Non-Yoruba people cannot be on the list of people from Lagos. It's like putting Donald Trump on the list of Chinese people. Ridiculous right?"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "Message re. List of people from Lagos (HG) (3.4.12)"
    2. 17:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of people from Lagos."
    3. 17:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 17:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Removing non-Yoruba people from the list */ new section"

    Comments:

    User made a personal attack on their talk page against UrielAcosta (talk · contribs) when asked to stop edit warring. Gommeh 🎮 18:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thehistorianisaac reported by User:Nghtcmdr (Result: Declined – malformed report)

    [edit]

    Page: Army Academy of Armored Forces and Army Special Operations Academy
    User being reported: Thehistorianisaac

    Previous version reverted to: Army Academy of Armored Forces ([3]) and Army Special Operations Academy ([4])

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Army Academy of Armored Forces ([5]) and Army Special Operations Academy ([6])
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]



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

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

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

    Comments:
    The user has decided to resume monitoring my activities and edit warring across the pages I had made changes to even though they had just gotten off a block for that offense.[7] They reverted my contributions with no prior discussions on the talk pages even though we had never interacted over those two articles before and they had practically made no edits to them. They have shown they do not intend to stop following and reverting my edits, so I have decided to bypass the usual route of raising this issue on the administrator's noticeboard first and come here directly instead. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nghtcmdr
    I have seen a tendency for you to make bad edits, and I monitor you to make sure you stop making said bad edits.
    For my reverts, I very obviously told you on the talk page that those are reliable sources, and you should not remove sources unless you have proof against their reliability. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has continued to follow and revert my edits ([8] [9] [10] [11]) despite their awareness of the hounding accusations contained in this report. In one of these cases, they reverted against consensus that was formed when a third editor said [12] they preferred my version of the article content to theirs. Nghtcmdr (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nghtcmdr
    For each of the edits, there were very obvious problems with them. WP:HOUND explicitly states Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. which my edits fall under.
    As for the chengguan article, consensus from said user said BOTH sources can exist.[13] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More hounding from the editor [14] [15] 10:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Nghtcmdr (talk)

    User:Sapedder reported by User:ChanduDev

    [edit]

    Page: Operation Blue Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 1:30 26 June 2025
    2. 2:25 26 June 2025 Uses a false edit summary claiming I proposed moving the content in the lead to another section, I never said anything to that effect. Invokes Bonner’s “hundreds” figure despite me removing it, and him reinstating it.
    3. 2:32 26 June 2025 This edit summary is also ridiculous, he removes a source from Duke University claiming it is "unreliable". Again, Sapedder actually reinstates the contested figure (“Bhindranwale orchestrated militants to kill hundreds of Hindus) from Bonner’s book (whereas I removed the “hundreds” phrase and made no mention of any numbers or figures in my addition), while using his disapproval of Bonner’s figure as justification to revert.

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [16]

    Comments:

    This user has multiple edit warring notices on his talk page and was blocked before for personal attacks. On top of that he is removing multiple academic sources from the article which contravene his POV. On the talk page, his is frequently manipulating my arguments and accusing me of saying stuff I never said (such as saying that I disputed an Tully’s numbers/figures when I never said anything to that effect, saying that I proposed moving content from the lead which again I never said, claiming that a Duke University book isn't reliable, saying that I am adding sensationalist language even though my addition is perfectly backed up from the sources (any one can verify this), and completely being unable to acknowledge that are numerous, numerous sources which back up the content. ChanduDev (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I never called any source "unreliable;" that is clearly false. This user did try to grossly overstate the qualifications of the source's author to make it look stronger than it was, which was quickly disproven. At the same time, they refuse to acknowledge the validity of several sources that actually have those academic qualifications that contradict the claims they support (that these allegations lack evidence), or make any effort towards balance or neutrality, or attributing claims (Weasel words is not what is meant by attribution). This content, by the way, was originally implemented by a disruptive user who got topic-banned immediately after, reverting it was permissible per BANREVERT.
    Second, proposing moving the figures to a specific section, not replicating the source elsewhere, was proposed by this user here, though nothing was agreed to yet. This user attempted to implement further changes while discussions were still ongoing, so I reverted the page to the current status quo in the meantime, even to a version that disadvantaged me. Edits should be clarified and agreed to before implementation. Sapedder (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be unable to understand that you reverted twice invoking Bonner’s figures in your edit summaries and then made an argument on the talk page after your reverts accusing me of failing to heed the discrepancy in figures/numbers by authors, despite the fact that my edit clearly did not mention any figures. That is clearly disruptive editing and shows hastiness in reverting. Secondly, the main premise of Bonner’s claims is iterated by multiple scholars, yet you keep going on and on about Bonner, and refuse to acknowledge that a plethora of academic sources that state the main premise of Bonner’s quote surronding Bhindranwale’s militancy.
    The sources/quotes he provided barely contradict the sources in question, by the way.
    I literally never said anything about moving content or figures, that’s a straight up fabrication. On the talk page, he said the sources he disagrees with are “parroting government claims” which is basically trying to impose his worldviews and have them supersede multiple academic sources. He also claimed that “they lack research”. Is that not disruptive? These are sources from Cambridge, Duke, Stanford, Britannica etc.
    The fact of the matter is that Sapedder is trying to prevent the inclusion of the scholarly consenus surrounding the subject at hand, which is utterly preposterous and an egregious case of POV pushing. I request something be done about this WP:OWN behaviour.ChanduDev (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you finally acknowledged a discrepancy in figures, and thus in sources, shows that progress was being made, before you threw a wrench everything by what is in fact your hastiness to edit. In light of the problems with Bonner, his other claims also need to be reconciled with the conflicting sources I have presented to you, the quality, validity, and prominence of which you don't dispute.
    WP:OWN is when you want to use Bonner to the exclusion of every other source because you favor that narrative, calling everything else FRINGE, instead of presenting varying claims in the appropriate sections in a dispassionate way. Speaking of fabrication, I didn't say "they lack research." "Verification in research" was quoting this policy when I was making a point after you tried to invoke FRINGE. You've misquoted me twice now.
    You proposed that "The specifics of the exact number killed can be elucidated in another section." Is that a fabrication?
    Scholarly sources differ, that's the opposite of "scholarly consensus," and you need to cooperate in reconciling them. That's it really. Sapedder (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sapedder, WP:BANREVERT is limited to edits made in violation of (already-existing) bans or blocks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Katanicx reported by User:Nswix (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

    [edit]

    Page: List of undefeated mixed martial artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1297162546 by Nswix (talk) he is 17-0"
    3. 06:07, June 24, 2025 (UTC) "no.. he is 17-0"
    4. 04:20, June 23, 2025 (UTC) "This is simply not true. Sherdog's score is wrong because his match was overturned to win and not NC."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of undefeated mixed martial artists."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:User has made it clear they don't care what consensus was reached in their edits. Going to a talk page to have them tell me the same thing isn't going to change it.


    Comments:

    Per a consensus reached on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts, we use Sherdog for records and results precisely for this reason, because different sites list things differently and using one cuts down on this. Katanic knows this, they just want this person to have a better record. Nswix (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of one week From article. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OCDD reported by User:Servite et contribuere (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Virat Kohli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 08:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 08:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 14:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC) ""
    4. 14:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC) "Color keys are used all over Wikipedia."
    5. 14:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC) "Then remove third place from the list"
    6. 14:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC) "That’s your opinion. A world existed before WTC."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    These are all different reverts, but it is the same user constantly reverting any content that they add that gets reverted. I previously warned them here [17] but they blanked the page later. They have been warned by so many editors from the Cricket community about so many issues and have continued to edit war and get very defensive and appear to be unwilling to collaborate. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The same can be said about you then? Your blatant obsession with every single edit I have made has been baffling. You wake up everyday and check every edit I have done just so you can revert them. Case of targetting to say the least. Also, I have heard feedback and been okay with many changes. You on the other hand have made several assumptions and mistakes without checking facts. OCDD (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OCDD Please cite (Provide a link to) where you have heard the feedback please. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And this comment here just feels like the tip of the iceberg: [18]. It feels like they are projecting themselves on others. Servite et contribuere (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't care what narratives you want to set. I am not the one actively going out of my way to revert every edit you make each day. That's what you are doing. And acting like the victim won't change it. OCDD (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1297614039"