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:Grand Cohen, User:Kurcyusz reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Both blocked indef as NOTHERE)

Page: Holocaust studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grand Cohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Kurcyusz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. See all 14 rv's in article history [3]

 // Timothy :: talk  15:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of indefinitely as single-purpose edit warriors. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Vrhunski reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: Partially blocked)

Page: Srebrenica massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vrhunski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]; [10]; [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:
Editor edit-war on highly sensitive article and topic, in scope under WP:ARBEE, with complete disregard of WP:consensus requirement and uses edit-summary to give simple justifications of his rv's like, "explained thoroughly on talk (...)", "I'll assume your message on my tal1k page was meant as a joke (...)". He was informed by me and by User:Pincrete that his POV needs both RS and consensus, that mere expression and explanation of his POV and opinions is not enough, especially on such a sensitive topic under ARB enforcement provisions for Balkans and East Europe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Partially blocked from the page and given their first CTOP notification. Courcelles (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Truffle2022 reported by User:Czello (Result:Partial, 24 hours )

Page: Reform UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Truffle2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 12:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 11:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 09:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Reform UK."

Comments:

WP:IDWAR behaviour. First edit was outside of the 24-hour window, so 3RR has not technically been broken. However the user is engaging in ideological edit warring despite several warnings and attempts to communicate on their talk page. I do not believe they have any intention of stopping. — Czello 12:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Waivered between this and a straight indef, but... meh, let's try the lighter approach? Courcelles (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:SLBedit reported by User:Sol505000 (Result: let's hope this will be settled amicably)

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

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]

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: [16]

Comments:

The user ignores Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Other languages. IPA transcriptions of Portuguese which use the IPA-pt template must agree with the Help:IPA/Portuguese guide. They also don't seem to understand that the ⟨l⟩ symbol used in the context of European Portuguese means [ɫ]. Portuguese, like any other language, is not spoken with cardinal consonants nor vowels. Their actions strongly suggest that the 3RR rule is going to be broken so I may as well report it now. Sol505000 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ignore anything. I added a reliable source showing that IPA for "Silva" is ˈsiɫvɐ, not ˈsilvɐ, while you ignored the reliable source I added. Now you make this WP:FUTURE report, so I don't revert your edit and you "win". Laughable. ˈsiɫvɐ has been in the article for years, and now you change it without discussing it first in the article's talk page? You are the one edit warring: [17] [18] [19] SLBedit (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You should probably read User:Nardog#Misconceptions. IPA for "Silva" is [ˈsiɫvɐ], not [ˈsilvɐ] tells me that you don't know much about this alphabet. Sol505000 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Sol505000, I appreciate you re-reverting yourself; this means I won't have to think about which version to protect or restore, so I'm not going to do either one. I also think you opened this too soon. I am sure that I am not the only admin who would be hesitant about throwing around blocks for one or the other of two experienced editors. I will say that the Wikipedia user page you pointed at is of course not a reliable source, and isn't particularly helpful here; I'll also say that, SLBedit, infopedia.pt is also not a reliable source. Y'all really need to discuss this on the talk page, and I hope that you all will do that. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: Please don't use results like "let's hope this will be settled amicably". It ruins the reputation of this board and possibly all administrative noticeboards. Thank you for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm just trying to appease lost souls like AttackTheMoonNow... Drmies (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Eusébio but after all of this I don't have high hopes. Sol505000 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"infopedia.pt is also not a reliable source". How so? It's not user-generated, it's a dictionary by Porto Editora. SLBedit (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

SLBedit, thank you for the correction. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:201.182.251.142 reported by User:CastJared (Result: Declined)

Pages: Wikipedia:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Draft:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 201.182.251.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]
5. [25]
6. [26]
7. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [29]

Comments:

• This user keeps vandalizing and warring over these 2 related articles.
• Declined CastJared, please find something more productive to do than joining an edit war in a sandbox and reporting others for participating. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

User:たたたたたたたたったポンタ reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked from the three articles for a week)

Page: Battle of Noryang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Battle of Noryang

[31] - «Where is my edit against MOS? Now Qinshufang has made a clear swearing at me.»
[32] - «No edit summary»
[33] - «No edit summary»
[34] - «No edit summary»
[35] - «If you have any objections, please state your opinion in discuss page.»
[36] - «No edit summary»

• Battle of Busan (1592)

[37] - «It's "Disputed" when consensus is not reached despite using mutually reliable sources. Also, wikipedia is not a place to verify historical facts, so there is no need to refute your personal research.»
[38] - «No edit summary»
[39] - «Expressions such as "Japanese internet rightists" are unsourced, non-neutral, and discriminatory. If you think there is a problem with this edit, please explain the problem in the talk before reverting.»
[40] - «No edit summary»
[41] - «Please join discussion»
[42] - «No edit summary»
[43] - «The goal of the Korean navy in this battle was to occupy Busan, but the Korean navy failed to do so and withdrew. This is a strategic defeat.»
[44] - «No edit summary»

• Battle of Myeongnyang

[45] - «There is no rule that a non-Japanese source must be used to indicate that something is "Disputed". If the sources disagree about winning or losing this battle, it's "Disputed." It is not neutral to describe it as a one-sided victory.»
[46] - «It is not neutral to describe only “Joseon victory” when, in fact, there are reliable sources that this battle was a Japanese strategic victory.»
[47] - «All issues raised have been resolved. If you still claim there is a problem, please explain on the talk page before reverting.»
[48] - «Sorry, I pasted the wrong source.»
[49] - «No edit summary»
[50] - «No edit summary»
[51] - «No edit summary»
[52] - «The Korean Navy succeeded in inflicting damage on the Japanese Navy, but its retreat resulted in a strategic defeat.»
[53] - «No edit summary»

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54], [55], [56],

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57], [58], [[59]]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [60]

Comments:
Tendentious edit warrior making repeated reverts to push military conflict infobox results on multiple pages related to a Japan-Korea war. WP:IDHT in talk page discussion. Stopped responding and decided by themself that all issues have been resolved. Qiushufang (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't decide for myself that all the problems were solved. The neutrality issues, MOS issues, and source issues raised on the talk page are not present in my last edit (although not for the previous ones). Rather, it seems to me that you do not even acknowledge the existence of claims that Japan won the Battle of Busan and the Battle of Myeongnyang. I took your claim seriously and tried to resolve the issues raised by writing "Disputed", but you ignored the words I wrote in the editorial summary and reverted. The editorial summary of the Battle of Noryang clearly insulted me. You've said many times that you need a consensus. Isn't that only because of you don't agree with my edit? It seems to me that you have abandoned the argument when you only base Revert on "consensus". たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@たたたたたたたたったポンタ I see on the article's talk page that Qiushufang has raised legitimate concerns about your edit that you have not rebutted. Your next actions should be to provide the sources requested or request a third opinion to get more voices in the discussion, not to edit war the material back in. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@たたたたたたたたったポンタ I've reverted your edits on Dynasty, it's clearly something hoaxes or disruptive edits. Please cite reference when you add something to article. -Lemonaka‎ 15:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week from all three articles, to encourage greater use of the talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Old houses reported by User:Ɱ (Result: Blocked)

Pages:
List of the oldest buildings in Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Buckingham House (Milford, Connecticut) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Old houses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: complex, see below

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. link. This has been going on at the 'oldest buildings' article since seemingly 2018, 5 years of sparring edits.
2. link for Buckingham House reversions.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and link

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

Comments:

I warned the user repeatedly about edit warring and 3RR, as they had reverted three times within 24 hours by that point. Their response was "I'll wait 24 hours, no problem, but I'm justifiably editing and citing properly". ɱ (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring on various pages including List of the oldest buildings in Connecticut. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

User:The Anonymous Earthling reported by User:Haoreima (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Dzüko Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Anonymous Earthling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts: I will be honest. I assume reverting vandalism more than three times is not the violation of 3RR. I am providing both his as well as my edit diff, with proper honest explanations.

1. 1, 2, 3 - first time revert by him (unexplained, undiscussed, re adding unsourced contents and contents backed by unreliable sources, & removing contents backed by multiple reliable sources)
2. 1, 2 - my edit of reverting him because of unexplained and undiscussed
3. 1, 2 - his edit repeating again the unexplained and undiscussed revert (at this time, he is already warned in his talk page as well as pinged in the article's talk page)
4. 1 - my edit reverting his unexplained and undiscussed revert
5. 1 - he again reverted my edit, still unexplained and undiscussed, still not responding to the talk pages
6. 1 - me reverting his vandalism (repeated unexplained and undiscussed revert is obviously vandalism)
7. 1 - again he's repeating
8. 2 - again and again
9. 1 - my final edit requesting him to stop but I am reverted, so, I stopped myself

Besides, I have been recommended by another editor to go in this admin noticeboard, when I complained about him in the WP:VIP at here Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

1. Here - I pinged him to talk first before reverting but no response
2. I warned him first time - no response
3. I warned him second time - no response
4. I warned him last time - final warning - no response

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

1. here, I told him

Comments:

• Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Anonymous Earthling/Archive too for the past behaviours.
  • Fixed page link (typographical issue), behavior as yet unevaluated. Courcelles (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• This user has lots of warnings and evidences from other editors in the past for his behaviour of reverting improperly like here, here, here, etc. Additionally, he is been remarked frequently for copyright infringement issues multiple times by multiple editors like here, here, here, here, here. He's also remarked for unsourced contents addition like here, here, here. He's remarked for promotional behaviour like here.

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ordinarily I might just have blocked them from the page. But ... since the reverting here was so determined and stubborn, and the edit warring was in part over the sort of thing covered in ARBIPA, I felt a sitewide block was called for.

This is one of those situations where I would have liked the ability to set up a longer partial block for after the sitewide block applies, and should this user disrupt the article again this way I would certainly endorse a long partial block from it.

I have also put the CTOPS notice on the talk page, and I will be logging this as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Muqale reported by User:Goddard2000 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comments:
I would like to point out that the first Diff isn't directed towards the user but i used that diff to show that this edit is what started it all. He put the Ingush section above the Chechen section based on chronology (i.e the first nation the earliest source connects to is represented first in the article). Me, this editor and Muqale talked in the talk page for days and even contacted an admin. We agreed on the rules of "Earliest source that connects either nation to the tribe Orstkhoy = that nations section is first in the article". I found the earliest source from 1771, i posted the source and the map and as per the rules i put the Chechen section back up (where it was originally). Then Muqale decided to delete the map, delete the source, delete my other edits and tried to discredit my sources in the talk page despite me already posting and explaining them. I would like for an admin to get involved so we could solve this and stop Muqale from edit warring. Now this user is mocking my source by distorting its text in the article and removing the map entirely. Please read the last section of the talk page to understand the context, the "On the topic of oldest source" section. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe I may reply in my defense, since I am tagged. User:Goddard2000 has altered a whole section while a dispute was ongoing in the talk page of mentioned article. He even admitted first that the sources were valid as menioned by the admin he himself tagged in the discussion: see here.--Muqale (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Moving up the section that has the oldest source was an already established rule, just ctrl + f the talk page and search "Chronologically", the sections changed based on chronology without the consensus of others. You and the other Wikieditor agreed on this, you had no issues with Wikieditor moving the Ingush section above the Chechen section due to "chronology" since you clearly said "instead of a chronological order of the sources which makes more sense," (just ctrl + f this sentence in the talk page). When i objected and said it should be alphabetically or at the very least should stay in its original form you yet again disagreed and used the Chronology argument. So i did research and found the earliest source that supported the "Chechen section" which automatically makes the Chechen section Chronologically first and should be moved up. I did this while adding the 18th century sources to the Chechen section and keeping other 18th century sources (as they were) in the Ingush section. What did you do in response? you deleted the map i uploaded, you deleted my text and maliciously distorted it to the point where it said something completely different from the original source.

I don't understand your Diff where i said a source was valid, what is your argument here? i didn't change that source or text or said that it was false, show me one diff where i removed that Gottlieb source or distorted other sources. In fact you have kept all of my edits yet distorted 2. You also have a tendency to take back on your words, you included the text from Shteder's source where he says "Karabulaks and Chechens became enemies" AFTER telling me in talk pages that we should not mention these political differences because it does not contribute to the article, here is your exact quote "Even Städer said that Karabulaks and Chechens became enemies. Best to leave aside politics for this one, since it does not contribute to the article". Well? why did you go back on your word? was it because i dared to write that Shteder said Chechens and the Karabulaks have one origin?

We clearly need an unbiased admin here to look into this. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I've not deleted any of your sources, except for the map where the the actual Karabulaks or Orstkhoy or not even designated on. You should provide a map that actually shows them. Also, you changed the section of the Ingush origins, whilst there was a dispute ongoing, meaning no consensus was reached. The phrases you added were selective, so I expanded them with was was actually in the sourced material because you choose to ignore parts of the books like Guldenstäds which is in fact the earliest (1770) since he himself literally states he was present when the the treaty of these Ingush villages to join Russia took place in 1770. See talk page for more. Please refrain from accusing me of malicious editing only because you disagree and want the article to look a certain way. Muqale (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The map you deleted had a source which described the people and rivers inhabiting in that land. I already explained this in the talk page while using the source. I did not change the Ingush section, i moved the Chechen section above the Ingush section due to the already agreed upon chronology rule. In fact the only thing i changed in the Ingush section was removing the texts that included Chechen and moved them to the Chechen section. Before that i moved a text of Reineggs that did not include Chechens but Ingush to the Ingush section, Wikieditor disagreed with this move since the text did not argue for Ingush-Orstkhoy relations so i let that be. Muqale, explain to me how Guildenstedt source is from 1770 when he on page 242 mentions an event in 1773 2 pages after he talks about a 1770 event. Explain this to me in the talk page, we can continue there, it is no use in writing here anymore. Let the admins read this. Goddard2000 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

User:OlaLj reported by User:ScienceFlyer (Result: First 24h, then indefinitely)

Page: Infectious Diseases Society of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Lyme disease treatment guidelines */"
2. 18:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Lyme disease treatment guidelines */"
3. 18:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Lyme disease treatment guidelines */"
4. 23:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Infectious Diseases Society of America."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC) "/* Fringe edits */ new section"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC) to 23:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC) on Talk:Infectious Diseases Society of America

Comments:

4th revert just outside 24 hours but this user has been reverting over and over since the 21st. An IP user 213.89.130.79 introduced baseless WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories with no reliable sources on March 21. Less than an hour later, this WP:SPA was created and has been continually reverting any attempt to remove them. I discussed why the references weren't suitable on the talk page and warned the user. Some of the edits and reverts this user made were inappropriately marked as "minor".

It doesn't look like this page is being watched by anyone else. I did report to two other noticeboards but it didn't help. Let me know if this report can be improved since it's my first edit war report after editing for over 5 years. ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @ScienceFlyer: IP has already been blocked, but in the future please note you must give a warning specifically for edit warring. The only warning given in this instance was for vandalism before they were informed of this discussion. Heavy Water (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean the named user, not the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Not to step on @Drmies:'s toes but I've NOTHERE'ed for clearly misrepresenting sources and agenda-pushing. Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

User:199.188.117.49 reported by User:Iseult (Result: )

Page: Roger Benitez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 199.188.117.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]
6. [72]

Note none of the reverts have an edit summary; this user has made no attempt at communication.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74],

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [75]

Comments: