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:202.169.114.130 reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Partially blocked 1 month)

Page: National Socialist Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 202.169.114.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

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 IP has been slowly going at this since 30 November, then escalated in the last 24 hours. Appears to be static IP maybe?

• Partially blocked – for a period of 1 month Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

User:BlackSun1000 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

User being reported: BlackSun1000 (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 09:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC) to 09:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
   1. 09:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 09:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) ""
   4. 09:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 09:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 09:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) "/* December 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor changed content on a mass scale and marked their edits as "minor", using the terminology of the Nazis in the article Führer. They repeatedly restored content despite my notices. Since they've a new editor and despite their controversial changes, I'll assume good faith and recommend that they be temporarily restricted from editing the article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Mauro Ambriz Tapia reported by User:Fermiboson (Result: page deleted, blocked indef)

Page: List of Mexican supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mauro Ambriz Tapia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on List of Mexican supercentenarians."
2. 05:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Mexican supercentenarians."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reverts are in a partial manner and can be found in the article history. Fermiboson (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked indef. Indistinguishable from the previous creator of the article. —Cryptic 07:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Aleksandartasic2828 reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

User being reported: Aleksandartasic2828 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC) "Small edit, Albanian think stayed here, but only mentioned work from professor Loma, who is reliable source. We need to be tolerant here. Keep all opinions, as I respect others"
2. 23:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC) "Deleted without explaination and without any given reason Undid revision 1188986985 by AlexBachmann (talk)"
3. 19:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC) "Exactly, some professors do not agree, so there is NO CONSENSUS. We should be polite and respect each other. Undid revision 1188950741 by Botushali (talk)"
4. 16:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC) "There is no academic consensus, only partial consensus between in one group Undid revision 1188921111 by Βατο (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article is under the 1RR, and that is made clear by a banner on the top of the editing page. This content had been discussed several times in the past, and the editor has not brought any new argument. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Another, partial, revert [10]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Թուրքերի մաման քունեմ reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Battle of Artaxata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) & Battle of Ekaterinefield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Թուրքերի մաման քունեմ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Battle of Artaxata

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

• Battle of Ekaterinefield

1. [16]
2. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:

I'm not sure if this is a personal issue(WP:HARASSMENT) or simple disruption. User:Թուրքերի մաման քունեմ, who has multiple warnings on their talk page, has chosen to not use article talk pages wherever they've edited and are currently edit-warring over two articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Wikiedit4444444 reported by User:Rosguill (Result: Withdrawn and off to dispute resolution)

Page: Fat men's club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiedit4444444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff of last edit in edit war of April 2023, which was followed by a block from AN3

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff of edit today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1150927031

Diff of prior p-block Special:Diff/1151095014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1151093220

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1189120770

Comments:

When this dispute last left off in April 2023, I had specifically requested that Wikiedit44444444 open an RfC on the relevant question once they are unblocked. They have instead returned to edit war. Given their similar pattern of editing at Physical attractiveness, I think that this may be approaching a CIR/NOTHERE situation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to talk to someone above on the edits I made, I believe that my edits are in the right at this moment, I also believe discussion on this topic would be a great way to move forward rather than out right banning those you disagree with Rosguill Wikiedit4444444 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You haven't been banned by Rosguill. This appears to be a content dispute between only two editors, and I would suggest both of you to look for a third opinion to solve it. While this looks like edit warring, I wouldn't call it imminent to the point of having to go to the administrator's noticeboard, but I advise you that it would be much more productive to discuss the issue and seek the output of uninvolved editors (ie, no canvassing) rather than to keep the cycle of edit warring. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input I requested a third opinion. Have a great day man. Wikiedit4444444 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that this has been brought to 3O I have no issue with this being closed with no further action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:36.68.221.130 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page: MLS Cup 2023 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 36.68.221.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) "previous years also like this"
2. 01:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC) "follows usual format, as in 2023 UEFA Champions League final, goes right to left"
3. 01:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC) "https://www.mlssoccer.com/competitions/mls-cup-playoffs/2023/matches/clbvslafc-12-09-2023/lineups"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Dispute over the formatting of a lineup table, which has been standard across American soccer articles for some time and follows the source versus what is "preferred" for European articles. As this is an American subject, it is not obligated to follow the European "standard". SounderBruce 02:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

In my defense, the "European" format is also used in previous years, see MLS Cup 2019, MLS Cup 2020, MLS Cup 2021, and MLS Cup 2022. It is an international standard instead of European, see 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup final and 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup final, when no European countries playing. So the argument is lost. And the warning was about 01:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) rather than the line-ups. So in line-up case there has been no warning at all. 36.68.221.130 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Our content must reflect what the source offers; the specific positions are not in the MLS lineups page. As for the order, why on earth would you start on the right side? We read left-to-right in English, so it's only natural to use that order. SounderBruce 02:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The point of having exact positions is to inform which player in which spot and what were the starting formations. As there is no graph for it (yet), and the information is available (unlike in 2023 Emperor's Cup#Final), then it should be mentioned in the article. 36.68.221.130 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but you have like 7 reverts in the past 24 hours. I'm pretty sure a couple are reasonably acceptable per WP:3RRNO, but most of them aren't. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I see a whole lot of reversion and no discussion on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

User:MSL1995 reported by User:IRefuseToStudy (Result: )

Page: Jonathan Turley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MSL1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:52, 9 December 2023‎
2. 15:40, 11 November 2023‎
3. 19:06, 18 October 2023‎
4. 03:07, 21 September 2023‎
5. 19:03, 26 August 2023‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor was directed to the talk page in this edit. Previous edits from other editors also contained disclaimers about change inaccuracy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jonathan_Turley#Re-emphasizing_that_Turley_is_not_a_conservative

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

Comments:

This editor is certain of the political views of the article's subject. Several people have reverted their edits but they continue to alter the article, albeit as a small change to the first line of the summary. In the most recent correction, the editor was directed to the talk page where the subject's political views were made clear with sources. Note that there was already an existing talk notice on this issue, so there has been confusion about this topic for some time. Rather than engage in discussion, the editor reverted the article again. I assume they are acting in good faith, so it may be best to just temporarily suspend their access to the article.

User:Wiki.arfazhxss reported by User:LucrativeOffer (Result: )

Page: Bangladesh genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wiki.arfazhxss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC) "This is the current consensus as of December 10, 2023"
2. 08:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1189185696 by Nomian (talk) this is not the status quo"
3. 07:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1189184366 by Nomian (talk). This is in accordance with the current status quo."
4. 10:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC) "Reverted due to constant Vandalism Attempts, Disruptive Edits by Nomian and A.Musketeer"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC) on Talk:Bangladesh genocide "/* Disruptive edits by Lionel Messi Lover */"

Comments:

Edit warring to remove sourced contents from the article in a POV dispute. Engaging in personal attacks in discussions and edit summaries which is making all the discussions futile. A very new account (created on November 25) and boosted his edit counts through mostly automated edits. Looking at his recent edits, user is now starting new edit-wars in other articles [23]. LucrativeOffer (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Diffs of the other user Nomian's reverts:

1. 08:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) (reach a consensus before removing longstanding contents)
2. 07:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC) (maintain the status quo, you are literally destroying the article and editing against the sources)
3. 07:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC) (Undid revision 1188990598 by Wiki.arfazhxss (talk) let's keep the status quo and have a consensus before removing large chunks of sourced contents)
4. 06:16, 09 December 2023 (UTC) (Restored revision 1188709483 by Nomian (talk): Restore sourced contents)
5. 20:31, 08 December 2023 (UTC) (Restored revision 1188709483 by Nomian (talk): Restore sourced contents)
6. 05:01, 07 December 2023 (UTC) (as requested in the talk page, supported by sources)
7. 04:59, 07 December 2023 (UTC) (Reverted 3 edits by Lionel Messi Lover (talk): WP:DE)
8. 08:05, 06 December 2023 (UTC) (Reverted 3 edits by Lionel Messi Lover (talk): Further disruptive edits)
9. 19:34, 05 December 2023 (UTC) (reverting other unconstructive edits by Lionel Messi Lover)
10. 05:51, 03 December 2023 (UTC) (Undid revision 1187946370 by Lionel Messi Lover (talk) Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources)
11. 03:57, 02 December 2023 (UTC) (Reverted 3 edits by Lionel Messi Lover (talk): Edits doesn't the match what the sources say, use the talkpage to discuss)
12. 04:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) (Restored revision 1184728745 by FrescoBot (talk): Revert POV)

My Explanation:

There has been consistent vandalism attempts in changing the history on the [page] to show one minority as the sole victim of a war. This is a comparison on all the edits made after June 2024 by Nomian and A.Musketeer which has repeatedly added claims and sources that puts the "Bengali Minority Hindu" as the focal point of this article. Persecution of the Bengali population happened irrespective of their race, creed, religion, but the users are constantly trying to insert articles and resources that aren't reliable while removing important sources, citations, articles.

Added this as part of Bengali Hindu Genocide Series

Removed that this is part of the history of Bangladesh

Added the targets by the perpetrators as only Bengali Hindus

Removed the targets by the perpetrators as Bengali Intellectuals and Bengali Civilians

Added 'Bengali Hindu Women' to the rape allegations instead of 'Bengali Women'

+ more

There have been 4 different discussions by different users over this issue where the majority agreed that this was an attempt of vandalism. I myself have consulted these users over and over again. But they are claiming that I am removing resources by reverting back to changes that have been made. The users have also vandalized several other pages related to the history of Bangladesh as a whole (including vandalizing the page Rape During The Bangladesh Liberation War). Please look into the discussions for more details.

I have already filed complaints in Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (under Bangladesh Genocide) and have explained everything I have said in my explanation. Arfaz (chat) | 11:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Additional Remarks:

LucrativeOffer seems to be another account (sock) for Nomian since, both of these users have their account opened around the same time, and have edited the same articles related to the same topic throughout the time. I had no interaction with LucrativeOffer throughout my edits, but seeing another account popping up and reporting me for this is confusing at best. Arfaz (chat) | 11:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

My Explanation:

LucrativeOffer has Arfaz (chat) | 11:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalisms, see WP:VANDAL LucrativeOffer (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I know what WP:VANDAL is, and have submitted my dispute with the knowledge that this is not vandalism from my part. I have been constantly trying to revert back the changes made by a couple of groups that have been making edits throughout Bangladesh's history pages. Arfaz (chat) | 11:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

LucrativeOffer is reporting on behalf of user Nomian by posting their comments and reverts. I wonder if they both have the same account. Arfaz (chat) | 11:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

If you know what a vandalism is then you should also know that falsely labeling edits as vandalism is a form of personal attack. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry without evidence is another. If you have doubts, feel free to file a case in WP:SPI. LucrativeOffer (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)