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:Badakhshan ziba reported by User:SdHb (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: Ethnic groups in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Badakhshan ziba (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. 21:04, 26 June 2025. Quote: "Ethnic groups: Replacing false information from unreliable sources. Extensive changes and sabotage of ethnic information have been made compared to 2022 and 2023."
    2. 20:49, 10 August 2025. Quote: "Preventing data vandalism in favor of the Pashtuns. The user named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SdHb extensively altered the ethnic information of Afghanistan on June 9, 2023. restore the information to April 2023 based on reliable international sources"
    3. 20:21, 11 August 2025. Without any comment.
    4. 18:08, 13 August 2025. Again without any comment.
    5. 20:17, 16 August 2025. Again, no comment.



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 09:10, 14 August 2025. Quote: "We now come into edit war territory *sigh* ... (see in the discussion page for more information)"

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ethnic groups in Afghanistan#Vandalism

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [1]

    Comments: For all information see the discussion in the talk page linked here. In short: Badakhshan ziba continually reverts sourced edits without providing policy-based arguments. My edits were consistently based on well-established and reliable sources (CIA World Factbook, Library of Congress, Asia Foundation, Encyclopaedia Britannica, etc.). Instead of engaging with content and sources, his reasoning is based on personal claims (along the lines of "I am from Afghanistan, I know what's going on", alleged nationalism (like "this is part of Pashtunization policy by the Taliban"), or he claims I'm sabotaging things, which falls under WP:OR and WP:ASPERSIONS and has no valid editorial justification.

    I already tried to clear the dispute by requesting WP:3O, but this did not help as nobody answered a call for a third opinion. Instead, it was pointed out that there is a need to follow WP:CONSENSUS and avoid accusations of vandalism. However, Badakhshan ziba continues to disregard this advice, reverting to his "true" version and dismissing sources such as the Asia Foundation by saying they “cannot” be used while relying himself on older or distorted sources that fit his view (keywords: intentionally misinterpreting language identity with ethnic identity). This is WP:IDHT behavior. Therefore I ask you, the administrators, to review this case as an edit warring and conduct issue. --SdHb (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tito Omburo reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: The Birth of a Nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tito Omburo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [2] (August 15)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1. [3] (August 15)
    2. [4] (August 15)

    • I solicited third party input from the Film project: [5]
    • Darkwarriorblake and Tompadompa joined the discussion on the talk page. The discussion eventually arrived at unanimous consensus i.e. Darkwarriorblake, Tompadompa, Tito Omburo and myself: [6]. The agreed text (proposal #3) was installed in the article: [7]
    • Another editor called Ladtrack joined the discussion and made some sensible suggestions: [8]
    • After making headway it seemed like it was all winding down, and then it all kicked off again as Tito Omburo unilaterally re-wrote the lead: [9] (August 19)

    3. [10] (this description was explicitly removed by proposal #3)

    • Tito then started an RFC, to effectively challenge proposal #3 which he agreed to on the talk page: [11]
    • At this point, it would have been wise to leave the lead alone, but instead he added back the white supremacist text with the gross mischaracterisation that I had agreed to it: [12]:

    4. [13] (this was directly after I had explained that I had REMOVED the text because proposal #3—which we had all agreed to—had removed it)
    5. [14]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See descriptions above which link to relevant parts of the discussion

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

    Comments:

    There was a disagreement, followed by a discussion, followed by a consensus that we all agreed on (including Tito Omburo). Once the new text was installed he unilaterally re-wrote the lead!! This is not how "consensus" works. He then starts an RFC to challenge the newly agree wording which is a massive waste of time and community resources because we had a discussion involving several editors and agreed to the wording. Parallel to this he is now edit-warring a description of the Ku Klux Klan into the article that was explicitly taken out by proposal #3, and is also not present in any of the RFC alternatives. He is an extremely uncollaborative editor and WP:NOTHERE IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure why you're determined to have someone block me, and I note that this is cop behavior. Very unseemly. In any case this diff may invite some useful speculation as to your motives. My advice is that you walk away from this article. There are now other editors present with cooler heads who seem to assume good faith in others. Tito Omburo (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tito Omburo, I am certain that you are not helping your case by making this kind of thinly-veiled accusations. Also not helping your case is that you were blocked a month ago for edit warring on a different article. I implore you to engage in some self-reflection here rather than carrying on. TompaDompa (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tito Omburo is making an insinuation about my so-called motives regarding the above revert. Please note that it was ME who originally added this text. Tito is aware of this, but is attempting to paint my actions in a negative light. This text was removed after the discussion achieved unanimous consensus i.e. we all agreed—including Tito—to a version that did not include this text. The revert simply restored the version we had all agreed on. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having been summoned by bot to the RfC mentioned above, it was immediately clear the RfC was fishy, which I explained at the RfC. I saw what looked like edit-warring on the article during August 2025 ([17]), and I restored the article to a previous long-standing stable version. That edit has held for now.
    Since then, I have researched and confirmed some of the behavior described above and at the RfC by Betty Logan and TompaDompa, particularly the creation of the highly questionable RfC by Tito Omburo that was designed to undermine a consensus agreed to by a number of editors--including Tito Omburo. Explained here at the RfC.
    IMHO, given that Tito has not continued edit-war since then, I believe if Tito admit to the disruptive behavior and agrees not to continue it, and receives an appropriate warning from an admin, I don't believe a block, topic ban, or similar sanction is necessary at this point. But if there is no acknowledgement and the behavior continues, a sanction may be necessary to protect the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kalpesh Manna 2002 reported by User:SaintPaulOfTarsus (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: 3rd Army Corps (Ukraine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 20 August: most recent version excluding disputed content

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10 August
    2. 18 August
    3. 20 August
    4. 15 August (potentially)

    User repeatedly reverts to restore preferred version which contains extensive use of a website deprecated by WP:RSN as well as nonsensical placement of irrelevant citations, despite repeated warnings against doing so through edit summaries and user talk page.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Kalpesh Manna 2002#3rd Army Corps (Ukraine)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (user talk page) User talk:Kalpesh Manna 2002#3rd Army Corps (Ukraine)

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:Kalpesh Manna 2002#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

    SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 10:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User SaintPaulOfTarsus has reverted 9 edits made by multiple users on 18th August on the page of 3rd Army Corps (Ukraine). Removed over 6500 bytes of content and supporting refs without proper explanation. Has not followed the conventional format of organizing army formation for subordinate units in his edits. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So I take it you have no explanation for your repeated use of a source deprecated by WP:RSN and adding sources that have nothing to do with the sentences they are meant to support? I reverted you when you did this because it is in gross violation of policy. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 10:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unreliable sources has already been removed and replaced by sources from other websites and articles. Also you have removed vital contents from military infobox of the article such as unit size, unit type, headquarters etc. without any explanation.
    In the structure section you have repeatedly vandalized the content by removing subordinate units and not following the structures of other corps of the Ukrainian Army in their pages.
    You have also been heavily reliant on the first hand sources such as interviews of the unit commander and other officials for your reference, which I've not removed though as they are constructive edits. But most of your activity on the page, sorry to say this has unfortunately been non constructive in nature. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything that I removed (subordinate units, headquarters, etc.) was removed because it was something you referenced from MilitaryLand.Net. It has already been explained to you that this website is entirely unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 11:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There were multiple official government and news sources such as these https://mod.gov.ua/en/news/latvia-supplied-patria-armored-personnel-carriers-will-strengthen-the-third-army-corps-units https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/03/14/7502925/ that you have removed without explanation. These are not militaryland.com sources as you are claiming to be. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You added the second source, published in March 2025, in this edit and in this edit, after the sentence In an early August interview, lieutenant colonel Maksym Zhorin said that the 3rd Army Corps had managed to stop the offensive operations of Russia's 20th Combined Arms Army and 22nd Army Corps, claiming that on certain sections the front, the Russians had been pushed back 4–5 kilometres (2.5–3.1 mi) and 8 kilometres (5.0 mi).. The source you added has absolutely nothing to do with the interview with Zhorin or with the activities of the 3rd Army Corps in August. Why did you add that source there?
    • In this edit you also added the same second source after the sentence In May, Ukrainian military journalist Yurii Butusov [uk] wrote that once all the bureaucratic processes relating to the formation of the corps were completed, it would be able to deploy its forces to stabilize the Kupiansk and Lyman front.. The source you added has absolutely zero to do with what Butusov wrote in May, or anything about Kupiansk/Lyman. Why would you add that source there?
    • What sources do you have besides MilitaryLand.Net which support the 53rd and 63rd Brigades, the 21st Regiment, and the 25th, 122nd, 525th Battalions, et al., being subordinate units of the 3rd Corps? Besides MilitaryLand.Net you have added no sources supporting this.
    SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 11:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Units such as 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment, 4th Medical Battalion, Repair and Restoration Batallion, Support Battalion, Technical Intelligence Unit, 21st Regiment of Unmanned Systems, 311th Electronic Warfare Company, 525th Security and Maintenance Battalion, 25th Anti-Tank Battalion, 122nd Communications Battalion were all part of 3rd Assault Brigade even before the creation of the 3rd Army Corps. Therefore they are also automatically part of the the 3rd Army Corps now as it is based upon the 3rd Assault Brigade of the Ukrainian Army.
    As for the 53, 60, 63 mechanized brigades their official participation in the 3rd Army Corps has been published in their own official websites or facebook pages such as https://60brigade.mil.gov.ua/ for the 60th brigade. Please look up to those offical sources. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are going to have to look for those sources and add them yourself instead of asking me to look for them, if you want them included in a Wikipedia article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 11:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are already included in the article. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect. There is nothing in the article which supports, for example, the 53rd and 63rd Brigades, except the deprecated MilitaryLand.Net. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 11:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the official sites and news sources https://www.facebook.com/63ombr https://english.nv.ua/russian-war/zhorin-russia-steps-up-front-line-pressure-amid-talk-of-trump-putin-meeting-50536439.html https://censor.net/en/resonance/3567339/the-third-army-corps-has-achieved-significant-successes-on-the-front Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After having this conversation with you today I now understand you are not really committed in improving and expanding this vast free place of knowledge called Wikipedia. Instead most of your past edits on Wikipedia has been reverting added content, removing content and other user talk page discussions such as this. You have made no positive contribution of either added content or sources neither finding them yourself.
    I'm very disappointed and heartbroken seeing this type of attitude to belittle or disrupt others while contributing so little in overall Wikipedia contents in a Wikipedia editor. Very negetive outlook and motivation you have. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep the philosophizing to yourself and commit to using non-deprecated sources like the ones you just found to support your edits going forward instead of edit warring. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 12:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been inactive for 9 hours, let's see what happens next. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2A0D:3344:182:1310:81A3:A04B:1285:5FAE reported by User:Danners430 (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: West Coast Main Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2A0D:3344:182:1310:81A3:A04B:1285:5FAE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC) "Fixing Errors."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 08:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Voyagers */ new section"

    Comments:

    /64 IP has been edit warring the image change since yesterday. Warned on a different IP talk page - don’t necessarily think they need a full block, just direction to the talk page to discuss the edits. Danners430 tweaks made 11:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]] reported by User:Slacker13 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

    [edit]

    Page: Zak Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sariel Xilo (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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&action=history

    1. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]



    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=0&title=User_talk%3ASariel_Xilo

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

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

    Comments:
    User Sarial Xilo seems to have a history of edit warring this page. Information was removed and I was asked to start a new topic on the talk page. Sarial Xilo has not engaged in discussion but instead keeps reverting edits.

    Angrysct0tsman12 suspected edit warring via IPs (Result: declined / page protected)

    [edit]

    Page: Battle of Đồng Hới (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Angrysct0tsman12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Possible IPs 14.231.172.181, 2402:9d80:879:1130:b800:9fed:4951:d193

    Previous version reverted to:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21][22][23]


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

    Comments: I'm suspecting that user:Angrysct0tsman12 is conducting edit warring via IPs 14.231.172.181, 2402:9d80:879:1130:b800:9fed:4951:d193 on page Battle of Đồng Hới. There's a correlation between the comments of the user and the IPs on the talk page.[25] On the article page, the user and IPs continuously conduct mostly identical reverts.[26][27][28] I kindly ask if any measures can be taken, either by me or any admin. 95.252.72.125 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mztouris
    Can you please weigh in here? We are clearly separate individuals as evidenced by our disagreement on the talk page. Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mztourist
    tagged the wrong user. Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the disconnect here is that I’m a relatively new editor and I’m not familiar with the lingo here which is causing some friction. So allow me to try to articulate where I’m coming from as best I can.
    Issue: In the aforementioned article, I noticed a lot of back and forth on an article describing the attack on US warships by North Vietnamese aircraft during the Vietnam War. Particularly who “won” in the infobox since it was flipping between “North Vietnamese Victory” and “American Victory”.
    My entry into the situation: Since I was curious, I looked into where this claim was being sourced and found it was taking an opinion and conflating it as fact (the specific passage in question was: “The twenty-minute attack was hailed as a great moral victory”). Now given that this book exclusively looks at personal accounts of North Vietnamese pilots, I don’t think it’s incorrect to assume that this statement reflects the OPINION of those involved and is not trying to pass this off as an immutable fact that can be measured. Thus my thoughts here were to edit the info box to be more reflective of a neutral position that is supported by the RS (i.e. battle damage). Since I have no reason to doubt that material damage occurred and there is visual evidence to corroborate this (pictures exist of the aftermath, not sure how to properly incorporate into the article). This is where we are at and I’ve made an effort to maintain the articles neutrality.
    Where we stand now: Now the debate here seems to revolve around whether or not this statement should be taken at face value and passed off as an immutable fact vs. whether or not it should be included at all since the source is biased.
    I have a potential solution that would satisfy all parties involved (remove this block entirely since it has been the focal point of contention for the past 16 years) and then contextualize the quote from the reliable, yet biased source in the body of the article itself. The challenge here is that I do not believe the IP user is engaging with what I am actually trying to convey. While I agree that we should not editorialize, I think it is reasonable to recognize differentiating an opinion from something more empirically measurable.
    I believe this is in line with policy regarding proper attribution of biased sources as well as policy for representing what the author is actually saying.
    My goal here is to strike a middle ground that captures the factual reality (material impact) while avoiding the current back and forth (Very relevant since that is the ONLY discussion that is being had on the topic at the moment). I don't think it is consistent with policy to pass of opinions as facts. However I think this is a valuable perspective and should still be included in proper context. Angrysct0tsman12 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined Suspected sockpuppetry can be reported at WP:SPI, but checkusers won't connect IP addresses and accounts publicly and this is unlikely to be useful in the current situation. The page is semi-protected now, though, to prevent further disruption in general. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A report by a 2 day old IP account should be given zero credibility. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DaringViper reported by User:OceanLoop (Result: Already blocked)

    [edit]

    Page: No. 105 Helicopter Unit, IAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Memorabilia */"
    2. 16:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* 2009 President's Colour Presentation */"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 16:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC) to 16:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
      1. 16:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Commanding Officers */"
      2. 16:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards and Recognition */"
    4. 16:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Commmanding Officers */"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 15:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC) to 15:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
      1. 15:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* History */"
      2. 15:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards */"
      3. 15:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* 2009 President's Colour Award */"
    6. 15:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "/* History */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "General note: Adding inappropriate external links."
    2. 15:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on No. 105 Helicopter Unit, IAF."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:AnthonyThirtyacre2000 reported by User:Magical Golden Whip (Result: P-Blocked one month)

    [edit]

    Page: Jack Griffo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: AnthonyThirtyacre2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "We get it we literally get it quit emphasizing it"
    1. 22:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC) "We know that the Griffo was in the spin off we get it just quit emphasizing it"
    1. 04:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC) "We get it He was in the spin off WE GET IT like we know he was in it we get it"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Edit warring on Jack Griffo for the past several days and over the last few weeks [29], [30], [31] and [32] have hash wording in summaries. Given several warnings. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1307190381"