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:Deusestlux reported by User:MrThe1And0nly (Result: )[edit]

    Page: Demography of the Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Deusestlux (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]
    5. [6]
    6. [7]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] But also on user talk page: [10]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

    Comments:
    We haven't edited since the warning, but since we may have both engaged in edit warring beforehand, and since he has been totally unresponsive in attempting to discuss the issue, my only way forward is to seek admin help via reporting, for the alternatives are a) keep reverting, surely risking a block, or b) give up the issue entirely. My goal here is to simply get them to engage in a discussion of the matter.

    Soooo, it seems going back to reverting Deusestlux (talk · contribs) is all I can do? No response from them, and no response here. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cali Farah reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Indefinitely blocked)[edit]

    Page: Demographics of Somalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222938168 by Apaugasma (talk)"
    2. 21:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222933437 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 12:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) to 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
      1. 12:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222849023 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
      2. 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 05:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Clan structure */ Restoring vandalised content"
    5. 16:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Clan structure */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Demographics of Somalia."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 12:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Genealogical tree */ new section"

    Comments:

    Also edit warring at Somali people. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also on Samaale. Knows how to edit talk page [12] but does not respond to messages like [13]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raúl Quintana Tarufetti reported by User:Onorem (Result: Blocked one week)[edit]

    Page: Argentina–Brazil football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Not a siingle porpose account. And if I were, that´s not a reason to remove well referenced information from the articles. I started the discussion, I gave 7 neutral and serious sources (2 from FIFA), and the other user reverts and reverts."
    2. 05:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "The one who removes referenced content from the article is YOU. And FIFA´s official sources you are removing..."
    3. 04:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222797415 by Svartner (talk) 7 serious sources (2 from FIFA, one of them with the list of matches) are enough. Please, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Argentina%E2%80%93Brazil_football_rivalry#Count_of_matches"
    4. 23:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222795920 by Svartner (talk) Officiasl FIFA sources are enough. Go to the discussion."
    5. 22:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC) "Taking out all the vandalism"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 08:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
    2. 21:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "/* May 2024 */ You are both edit warring. Look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I have no interest in this topic."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Affinepplan reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: )[edit]

    Page: Later-no-harm criterion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1222974899 by Aydoh8 (talk)"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 01:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) to 01:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
      1. 01:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "removed irrelevant and unrigorous political commentary"
      2. 01:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "removed irrelevant and unrigorous speculation about election strategy"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 02:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "/* This article needs serious revision */"

    Comments:

    Likely use of anonymous IP edits in attempt to evade 3RR. –Sincerely, A Lime 05:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @Aydoh8 who warned @Affinepplan. Sorry you got dragged into this :(
    I believe users @64.112.229.118, @47.230.61.20, @Affinepplan are the same person.
    Short timeline:
    1. @64.112.229.118 attempts to delete portions of article. Reverted by @Ankermast.
    2. @64.112.229.118 responds by adding a disparaging Template:Multiple issues message insulting authors of the page. Reverted by me @Closed Limelike Curves.
    3. @Affinepplan (believed to be same user as above) reverts to restore the template. (1st revert.)
    4. ~1 week passes, with intervening edits from unrelated users.
    5. I notice the restored template and revert.
    6. @47.230.61.20 (believed to be same user) reverts to restore the template. (Second revert, first in 24 hour period.)
    7. I notice the unusual activity and request page protection, as well as warning @Affinepplan. I do not restore.
    8. @Aydoh8 takes notice and restores the previous version of the page. @Affinepplan restores (Third revert.)
    9. @Aydoh8 reverts again and informs @Affinepplan their actions may constitute edit warring. @Affinepplan nevertheless reverts a fourth time, ignoring warning.
    –Sincerely, A Lime 06:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Closed Limelike Curves I was going to bring this to AN3 anyway if they kept going. Looks like they've stopped. I also recommend you file a sockpuppet report at WP:SPI as well. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:서아7 reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

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

    User being reported: 서아7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 06:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "Wikipedia pages with editing battles are unreliable articles. It was a correct point that it was mostly remanded, and the history remains.Controlling speech just because it's a new account damages Wikipedia's credibility.You should stop remanding and creating stupid articles. Wikipedia loses its value if it posts incorrect information."
    2. 04:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "현재는 돈을 weverse에게 지불하면 사무소 소속자 이외에도 누구나 개설할 수 있다"
    3. 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "나는 사실을 지적하고 있다

    kpop에 익숙해져라 나도 BTS는 좋아해"

    1. 14:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "낡은 정보를 싣지 마라

    원래 한국의 기사는 틀린것이 있기 때문에 소스에는 불충분 원래 영어 원어민은 거의 한국 콘텐츠 안봐"

    1. 13:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "-"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 08:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC) to 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
      1. 08:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "o"
      2. 08:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "o"
      3. 08:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "The organizer pays weverse"
      4. 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "It is currently being used by people other than hybe members, so it has been removed."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Aoidh (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reywas92 reported by User:PaulGamerBoy360 (Result: Stale)[edit]

    Page: Buchanan Corner, Indiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Reywas92 (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:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This User Has Been Edit waring With Me, I Have Tried to Keep it Civil, & I Am No Longer Editing The Page Due To It, I Need Administrator Intervention to Stop This User From Undoing Constructive Edits, A Source is Still A Source Wether it Is One Sentence or Multiple Pages. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Reywas92 - Why are you reverting when WP:3RRNO does not apply? Poor sources are not vandalism.

    • Two of these edits were removing copyrighted content copied and pasted from findagrave.com. These others were of his readding of unreliable and inappropriate sources, but I understand I should have just let them stand until Paul actually understood WP:RS. Reywas92Talk 15:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they were not copyrighted, i used quill bot to change them, if you did a side by side comparison you will se that they are not the same. also i have just found more sources for the cemeteries, but im just going to post them in the afd not the article because aparently we are going to make up guidelines stating that family cemeteries cannot be listed. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using a tool to paraphrase would still seem to be in violation of WP:PARAPHRASE EvergreenFir (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I compared them. The first passage was identical to the entire findagrave.com text, the second consisted only of the first sentences of its findagrave.com entry. I have requested revdel. NebY (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @PaulGamerBoy360 - You are in the wrong here. Reywas92 is correct regarding your sources and edits. A sources it not "still a source" if that source is not reliable. Why are you edit warring with Reywas92? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I have read the guidlines & it says you may still use an "unreliable source" as long as you can find more sources to support the facts, there were more sources to support the fact on the intro paragraph, and only one of the sources on the intro paragraph was "unreliable" all the other were reliable, i was in the proccess of finding more sources to support the cemetaries, no guidelines state that family cemeteries cant be listed, I have stopped editing that page. besides even the small "generally unreliable" sources add up with the same information shows that the information is most likely true, they all support eachother, i am in the proccess of finding more sources, but for ofline sources to be found, people need to see that the offline sources are needed. Removing the paragraphs from the article will prevent others from finding the needed sources. (And it seems the discussion about the reliablitiy of Find-a-Grave revolved areoud the people side, and not the Cemetery Side of the Site) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PaulGamerBoy360 where on WP:RS or WP:V does it say that you can use unreliable sources? At WP:USERGENERATED on WP:RS it specifically lists FindAGrave as one of the "[e]xamples of unacceptable user-generated sources". EvergreenFir (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll close this as stale, but I wouldn't object to the discussion above continuing a bit. Not excessively, though, as it's no longer about edit warring. PaulGamerBoy360, if something remains unclear about copyright or verifiability, the Teahouse is a good place to ask. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skibidi36 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)[edit]

    Page: Ail al-Kahiay Campaign (1798) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Skibidi36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC) "I'm reverting this edit for vandalism again, majority of historians as well as the arab wikipedia agree that this is a Saudi victory."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Resuming same edit-warring that's been going on for weeks after previous block Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:عبدالرحمن عراق reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked indefinitely)[edit]

    Page: Ail al-Kahiay Campaign (1798) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: عبدالرحمن عراق (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:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Resuming same edit-warring that's been going on for weeks, after previous block Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1223225907"