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:Bravehm reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:19, 24 May 2024
2. 21:56, 24 May 2024
3. 23:22, 24 May 2024
4. 23:31, 24 May 2024
5. 13:58, 20 June 2024
6. 15:20, 7 July 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [2]

Comments:

Bravehm did it again - more manipulative long term edit warring. After their block expired (see their previous report here [3]), they resumed edit warring and their dishonest/manipulative edit summaries ("Please do not change the location of the contents", they're the ones making the chance though...). This user has countless times engaged in this type of dishonesty/manipulation (eg [4] [5]), which I think shows that they are WP:NOTHERE. Granted this time they reverted much less, but it's still very concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Bbb23! HistoryofIran (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:47:4D01:3580:69FC:A34F:9804:7A85 reported by User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (Result: /64 blocked 2 weeks)

Page: African-American Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:47:4D01:3580:69FC:A34F:9804:7A85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Although this article is blocked the IP engaged in edit wars with other users, it even went to far as to create an account named Userace1117o engage in an edit war with an another IP SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Bbb23 has blocked Userace1117. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, the report is a bit hard to parse. I had to guess that the "o" at the end of the username is a typo, the specific reported IPv6 address has last edited over 5 days ago, the third link is not a diff, the page is semi-protected et cetera.
• /64 Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ao192 reported by User:ShovelandSpade (Result: One blocked, one warned)

Page: Battle of Agios Dometios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Manolis Bikakis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ao192 (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. 17:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2. 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [User talk:Ao192]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [User talk:Ao192]

Comments:
User has made multiple POV and borderline nationalist edits, a few users including me have warned him against his actions but he continues, if we look at his talk page, its riddled with warnings by other editors on these pages and he doesn't listen, continues to disrupt. Whats more disturbing is a particular comment he made on an edit where apparently it was ok to decapitate people and put them in mass graves, (This happened in the Battle of Agios Dometios talk page, Ive never reported anyone before so I have no idea how to link and all properly but here it is in quotes) "Decapitating a dead body and throwing it into a grave isnt a war crime either. They atleast had the decency to make a mass grave, they could've just let them to rot in the open.", he said this in his edit on July 6 2024. I tried communicating this to him in his talk page, instead he blanked me and went and reverted my edit again on Agios Dometios. He has since issued a rebuttal saying things like "The Greeks were begging and crying to the United Nations for a ceasefire, which the dumb turks agreed on...", "I havent said "cutting heads off" is ok, mutilating a dead corpse is not a serious war crime is what i've said...", at best, the immaturity of the user in these topics warrants at least a topic ban and as just seen, he has previously been blocked by User:ToBeFree for disruptive editing.ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Im just going to reply to you the same way i did in the DMs:

- "1) As to the 498 dying in the invasion, the only source that claims that is the Turkish government which is an unreliable source in and of itself when it gets to Cyprus, the numbers by some have been estimated to be between 3,500 - 6,000 so that whole argument is moot."

Yes while that is a Turkish claim, Multiple 3rd party accounts back this claim up, putting TAF casualties to be 498. https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/Books-by-topic/MCUP-Titles-A-Z/Phase-Line-Attila/ Like this one here. Id love to see where you got the "6,000 dead". and if you are talking about civilian casualties, then we can figure greek losses to be around 12,000 or 6,000 aswell.

- "2) ELDYK was 950 people at the begining of the invasion not at the end."

Considering ur sources say 105 mainland greek soldiers died in the war, with 30 of them being members of the 1st raider squadron or whatever its just at around 900 then, no wonder i have written 4000-4500 there, its not exact.

- "3) As to Manolis Bikakis, it is not only the Greek ministry of defense (Which until recently never officially recognised actions on Cyprus), there are multiple eyewitness accounts from different battalions in Cyprus which all make the same claims about Bikakis, the only one disputing it, is the Turkish government (No surprise there)."

Show me a single non partisan, non greek and a 3rd party source telling this, plus the "multiple eyewitness accounts from different battalions in cyprus." There isnt even a single page made about manolis in Turkish, let alone the government for christ sake.

- "4) As to the Mongols claim, it is historically true so again I dont see where your issue is."

add it into the main invasion of cyprus then. Mongol invasion of cyprus.. The same article has "But the defenders of the camp stand firm and send the souls of the agarine dogs back to Allah." written. Agarine dogs.

- "5) If you think cutting off heads and throwing them in mass graves is ok because in your own words "They atleast had the decency to make a mass grave, they could've just let them to rot in the open" is something that makes me think you should maybe not be editing on wikipedia if this is your line of reasoning."

I havent said "cutting heads off" is ok, mutilating a dead corpse is not a serious war crime is what i've said, neither are mass graves of dead enemy troops. Infact putting your enemies into mass graves is a sign of respect instead of leaving them to rot in the open. Which in my opinion is justified after all the Greek and Cypriot troops have done against the Turkish Cypriots peacefully living on the island (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Christmas_(1963) ) Again, its just a claim made by "eldyk members"

All the pages ive seen you in are using greek sources only (some a part of the government), im yet to see a single 3rd party account thats in a foreign language.

Your 4th sentence clearly shows who youre biased towards and what you are. Wikipedia is a place of original research and objective people, not for the likes of you. If you continue this type of behaviour your account is probably gonna get IP-suspended and all the pages you have worked on nominated for a deletion.

Battle of Agios Dometios

- "600+ Turks were killed"

Already disproven considering only 498 had died with the link i have just sent.

https://www.anixneuseis.gr/%CE%B7-%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%87%CE%B7-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83-%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%BA%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%B1%CF%83/ This link here also says only 60 Turkish troops were killed or wounded by greek troops A. Dometios.

- "Only 83 Greek soldiers were killed"

An additional 60 were killed as the same reference says above, totaling a number of 143. The same link above also says "dozens" of Greek soldiers were captured by Turkish troops.

- "6000 turkish troops were present"

Again, an unreliable partisan source, which refers to turks as mongols and agarine dogs, claiming this but we can still put it as an extra "Greek Claim"

- "1850 greek troops were present" Ive read every link there, not a single one mentions that. Putting all the units present like i said, 1 battalion is roughly around 1000 soldiers, ELDYK totaling up to 1000 and a squadron consists of around 50 to 500 men. we can roughly estimate the size around 3500 to 4500.

- "It was a greek victory"

The Greeks were begging and crying to the United Nations for a ceasefire, which the dumb turks agreed on and the ceasefire happened right before Turkish forces properly setting an attack on Nicosia and capturing it, which includes Agios Dometios, thus resulting the Greek victory on A. Dometios, not because they bravely fought against the invading "agarine dogs", it was because of the forced UN ceasefire which halted Turkish advance. The turks also captured a bunch of fortified locations and positions https://www.protothema.gr/greece/article/558431/elduk/ including the grammar house and the ELDYK camp, plus half of nicosia, i dont know how those doesnt sound like a victory to you.

Also half of agios dometios was captured by turkey before, again, due to the UN ceasefire, they could not capture the rest of the town.

- "Why are there so many "greek media claims"?"

Because every single article used as reference and as a "reliable" source happens to be greek which obviously

Whats so borderline nationalist about these? I havent used a SINGLE Turkish source while all the references in the page is made up of greek sources Ao192 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

also my opinion on what the turkish soldiers do against greek soldiers literally doesnt matter as it has no effect on the page itself. yet you tried to get me banned for my opinions about turkish soldiers mutilating greek soldiers, instead of the "disruptive" editing i've done on the page LoL. Ao192 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Gonna let admins deal with you cause not only have I tried youre just digging yourself deeper holes. "My opinion on what the turkish soldiers do against greek soldiers..." alone isnt a good start. ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

One blocked, one warned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:FellowMellow reported by User:Fm3dici97 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: Patriots for Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FellowMellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

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

Comments:
The user constantly reverted modifications to the page, even those meant to reach a compromise, proposed irrational arguments in the attempted discussion in the talk page not rally meant to reach any meaningful agreement with the other users, and vandalized the main table in the page by adding a column which is absent in all the equivalent pages for European Parliament groups and was only functional to supporting their changes. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

please explain to me why MZH2020, Braganza, and IIiVaiNiII were not reported, when they engaged in similar activity. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Because you're the only one who's willingly ignoring the information provided by the highest autority over electoral affairs, the electoral commission, to push his own changes and that refuses any attempt of compromise (like Braganza's idea to list Turek as independent). Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That is false information. I am not willingly ignoring the information provided by the highest autority over electoral affairs. I have persistently encouraged talk page use (and you can see in the edit history) and if most agree with Braganza’s option, I will not revert it. However at the time of revert, there was no consensus. @Fm3dici97 is not being truthful and is not interested in reporting the other violations.

If I wasn’t interested and was really willingly ignoring information, then I wouldn’t be engaged in the talk page, yet I am. The accusation is baseless. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"he is not at an independent." Braganza (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

[17] check this edit @Braganza. It was restored after consensus was agreed on your idea. FellowMellow (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not "restored after consensus was agreed" since there's been barely any discussion about that yet. It was an attempt at reaching a compromise that was immiediately reverted by you (and when I say immediately I mean in less than 5 minutes), and that you restored only after this discussion had been started and that your behaviour towards the talk page and towards the aforementioned compromise attempt had been highlighted. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it was. You are not being truthful once again. It was restored after most users agreed with @Braganza‘s idea of using independent. You are saying that I wish all choices that are made by me to stay as is. It’s not true. If I really wanted that, I wouldn’t be on the talk page.

Also you aren’t being truthful here either. "You restored only after this discussion had been started and that your behaviour towards the talk page and towards the aforementioned compromise attempt had been highlighted." That is false. After looking at the talk page, most user’s disagreed on how the edit on the table was placed. That is why @Braganza choice was restored on the page after it was reverted. That is called consensus. So you pay attention to your own behavior, as you are willingly allowing other user violations to slide. It was not restored after this discussion started. That is not why it was restored. You are lying on purpose. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Also @Fm3dici97 is mistaken. He uses the word "irrational", however this is quite false. Instead of refusing to talk on the talk page, I have consistently spoken on the talk page and have gathered users to find compromise and consensus. The user is not being sincere and using words that are illegitimate such as "vandalized"

@Fm3dici97 has barely engaged in the talk page and jumped into conclusions, without any effort to even talk and provide input. My edits were not intended for vandalism purposes and he for some reason hasn’t reported the others users, also engaged in reverts. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I use the word irrational because engaging in multiple edits to add information in open contradiction with an official source and trying to justify those with sources whose vaildity is lower than that of an electoal body is, to me at least, an irrational behaviour. And the reason why I engaged with only a single message in the discussion in the talk page is because to me the focus to the discussion should be entirely different. If, between members A and B of a two-members electoral coalition, the electoral commission links the candidate with A, there's no discussion that has to be held about whether he's instead linked to B. However, as I specified in the talk page, there is the ground for a disucussion about how strong the ties of the candidate to A are, and if he should instead be considered as an indepedent candidate endorsed by A. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I guess I can say I find it irrational behavior to accuse someone of things that aren’t true. I suppose I can make a similar report.

Also the example you bring up. It was reverted because consensus and compromise were not reached. After most users agreed with @Braganza‘s idea, I restored it, as most users liked that idea. That effectively contradicts your false claim, that I am editing without engaging with others users. Yet I am one of the most active on the talk page. I have engaged in similar discussions with the ideology and with the political position.

That’s how it works. If most agree with one over the other, then that’s what it will be. You are not being truthful. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's put things straight: you reverted Braganza's compromise attempt at 21:09 [18], and you reverted it back at 21:45 [19] because you claim "consensus had been reached in the meantime". During that time window, no comment has been added to the talk page regarding the "indepedent" status, so either your initial revert was unjstified and the consensus was already there, or the reason behind the second revert is made up. Furthermore, all the reverts linked in this edit warring date back to AFTER the discussion in the talk page had started: if you were really interested in that discussion as a mean to reach a compromise, you woudln't have kept reverting any change that disagreed with your version even while the discussion was still ongoing. Fm3dici97 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually the discussion is still ongoing. Your refusal to engage in the talk page and provide input of your own raises concerns. When I had reverted it (as you described), consensus was not reached (at least not when I saw it). When I went back to check about any further discussion, to me it seemed there was consensus (not by everyone, but by most users engaged in the discussion). That is why I restored @Braganza‘s edit. Neither one of your allegations are true (in terms of the reverts).

Also yet again, you are not being truthful here ("if you were really interested in that discussion as a mean to reach a compromise, you wouldn’t have kept reverting any change that disagreed with your version even while the discussion was still ongoing.") If I wasn’t interested in having a discussion and finding compromise, I would have repeatedly refuse to engage in the talk page. You would be correct in that instance and I would be wrong. However, that is not the case. My discussion that I have on the talk page (and still is ongoing) strongly, contradicts your allegations.

Also, I personally do not think it’s fair for me to have all of my preferred options in the article. I am perfectly aware of that, that will not always be the case. That is the reason why there is a talk page, which I have persistently engaged in. You, on the other hand, have barely engaged in it, which makes your allegations even more illegitimate. If most users agree with what I propose, then it should be on the article, if majority say no, then it shouldn’t be. Most users did not agree with the table I had proposed to resolve the dispute between two users. After most users said they were against the table, it has not been re-added ever since. Your arguments are untruthful. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Also I would like to add, that the table that I proposed on the article has been reverted. As

most users do not agree with that table (based on the talk page), the table will not be used (since most users agree not to have it). @Fm3dici97 is not telling the truth that I am only seeking my own edits and don’t care about other user’s edits. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours The extra 12 are for the fifth revert in that time. The material reverted does not have to be the same as all the other reverts. I will be putting a CTOPS notice on the talk page because it seems like this can come under ARBEE; everyone should be mindful of that next time (if you let there be one), especially in situations like this where discussion that really should have taken place on the article talk page or, better yet, some DR forum, took place here (Not that it seems likely to suddenly become productive, I agree—you need to get cooler heads in this, since you're not arguing about the article so much as you're arguing about the argument). Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

User:L.S. WikiCleaner reported by User:Michalis1994 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Niki (Greek political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: L.S. WikiCleaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]
5. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Removed by user [[38]] Michalis1994 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The user Michalis is much more experienced than me on these pages(strange thing for a 15-days account) but i will try to say my truth and hopefully someone will read it.

I said many times to Michalis, I have no intention of accusing him to any adminstrator. My goal was to find a solution through the Talk page and that's what I did.Instead he is going on Adminstrators Talk Pages and begs them(?) to punish me.I made it clear that i didnt want him to get punished or something and i still dont.

He created an IP address to revert for 4th time so he would not break any edit rules (something that shows how experienced he is).He as Michalis already undo 3 times.

He was warned by an Adminstrator because he claimed I was vandalizing.Instead of apologizing in my Talk page as requested by the administrator, he left a message on my page calling me a vandal again.

Also there are quite a few complaints about the way he editting articles.And some warnings to be more constructive on Talk Pages.

Im not even going not to talk about the topic of our confrontation(if im not asked to), which has already been discussed on RFC and all the editors agreed with what I say (that the article is neutral), however, Michalis continues and changes it in his own way. L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I will not respond further to this issue, as my provided explanations and diffs are clear. The reported user shows no intention of finding middle ground. By the time the IP address appeared, L.S. had already reverted the article for the fourth time. I could have reported them then, but I chose not to. Now, after the fifth revert, they have returned to accuse me of actions I neither understand nor can rationalise. They have reverted the article five times and accused me of using an IP address without any evidence. Oh, and it's worth noting that the so-called "complaints" they refer to resulted in another user, who reported me, being blocked. Please see the section and judge for yourselves. Michalis1994 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me kindly add here that how even up to this moment as we speak im still waiting for his answer on the Talk Page:)

He obviously doesn't want to talk he just want me to get punished in order to...leave him alone editing(?) L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can see in this section

that the user is attempting to mislead others by claiming (with a smiley face) that I have not responded to their questions. However, I asked three times for them to provide diffs and specific sections they disagreed with after they reverted a 3,000-character edit that is fully backed and cited with reliable sources. I rest my case; this is simply meaningless and sad.

Michalis1994 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)