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:Objectivescholar reported by User:Moxy (Result: Pblocked from article)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "This section referenced the United State's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/nigeria/). The information on the Factbook is different from that which is in the page. According to the Factbook, the ethnic composition of Nigeria is as follows Hausa 30%, Yoruba 15.5%, Igbo (Ibo) 15.2%, Fulani 6%, Tiv 2.4%, Kanuri/Beriberi 2.4%, Ibibio 1.8%, Ijaw/Izon 1.8%, other 24.9% (2018 est.). lock the page and block the vandal please!"
2. 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "This section referenced the United State's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/nigeria/). The information on the Factbook is different from that which is in the page. According to the Factbook, the ethnic composition of Nigeria is as follows Hausa 30%, Yoruba 15.5%, Igbo (Ibo) 15.2%, Fulani 6%, Tiv 2.4%, Kanuri/Beriberi 2.4%, Ibibio 1.8%, Ijaw/Izon 1.8%, other 24.9% (2018 est.). lock the page and block the vandal please!"
3. 09:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "This section referenced the United State's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/nigeria/). The information on the Factbook is different from that which is in the page. According to the Factbook, the ethnic composition of Nigeria is as follows Hausa 30%, Yoruba 15.5%, Igbo (Ibo) 15.2%, Fulani 6%, Tiv 2.4%, Kanuri/Beriberi 2.4%, Ibibio 1.8%, Ijaw/Izon 1.8%, other 24.9% (2018 est.). lock the page and block the vandal please!"
4. 00:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "This section referenced the United State's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/nigeria/). The information on the Factbook is different from that which is in the page. According to the Factbook, the ethnic composition of Nigeria is as follows Hausa 30%, Yoruba 15.5%, Igbo (Ibo) 15.2%, Fulani 6%, Tiv 2.4%, Kanuri/Beriberi 2.4%, Ibibio 1.8%, Ijaw/Izon 1.8%, other 24.9% (2018 est.). lock the page and block the vandal please!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation."
2. 20:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC) "/* April 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Let's just restrict the one page....get them talking about mass copyright copy pasting Moxy- 20:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you know what you are taking about. The edit has nothing to do with text talkless of being regarded as a violation of copyright. The edit was to reflect the correct data from the cited source. I explained all that in my edit summaries. A vandal keep reverting the change. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivescholar (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Objectivescholar Your edit summaries did not completely address the change. Specifically, they did not address the insertion of the three paragraph blockquote. Also, please do not call good-faith editors vandals. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:Undue... but mass copy pasting ...[1] is the main concern here.Moxy- 21:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Please go through it again to understand the situation better and properly. It is about the ethnic composition of Nigeria. The page cited the CIA World Factbook, but the information on the page is different from that of the Factbook. So, I edit it to reflect the correct data.

There is something I am not understanding. Joe is this a violation of copyright? The data is in numerical form and not even a sentence or a paragraph.

Go through it again and reverse that unjust block please. Objectivescholar (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Objectivescholar Have you looked at the diff of your own edit? I get the feeling you don't realize what all you've been putting back into the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The portion of the edit that had to do with CIA Factbook data on ethic populations was a valid edit, and I have reinstated that part of the edit. It's the rest of the edit—the typo in "163rd" and the blockquote—that are problematic. I endorse Black Kite's block. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the actual content of the CIAF was not the issue; it was the edit-warring and copypasting. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I get it. I am not the one who made that 163rd edit. Check it again Objectivescholar (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Objectivescholar I did. It was in your edit. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The edit was made by a user called Altoumulus on April 1st at 07:56. The page history is there for you to see.

Seems I now understand the problem. I am not the one that added that quote. I just restored a former version of the page which coincidentally contain the quote already fixed by the user Moxy. All is well. Objectivescholar (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from editing Nigeria, indefinitely. Far too many problems here. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Talking to them now.....all done in good faith...just new ...will help. Moxy- 21:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm a bit late to this but I think this should extend to all content on Nigerian ethnic groups, half of this user's entire history is adding questionable content or data for or against certain ethnicities. Watercheetah99 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

User:MatewH reported by User:GMH Melbourne (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Liberal Party of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1147766208 by GMH Melbourne (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Liberal Party of Australia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring following a two week ban for edit warring ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 09:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

User:SLBedit reported by User:Sol505000 (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: S.L. Benfica (youth) (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: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:

[nj] is not how a syllable can end in Portuguese, the correct transcription is [ʒuˈnjɔɾɨʃ] in isolation and [ʒuˈnjɔɾɨʒ] in the context of the phrase Juniores do Sport Lisboa e Benfica. Per the linked talk page, they see no difference between the palatal approximant and the close front unrounded vowel, which is an amateurish mistake.

Now, onto the voicing of the final /ʃ/. Per Cruz-Ferreira (1999:128), Syllable-final /ʃ/ occurs as [ʒ] before a voiced consonant (except before /ʒ/ itself, where it is deleted), and as [z] before a syllable-initial vowel both within and across word boundaries, as in [ku̯al duʒ doi̯z ɛɾɔ] qual dos dois era o 'which of the two (m) was the (m)' in the transcribed passage. Her [ku̯al duʒ doi̯z ɛɾɔ] translates into our [kwal duʒ ðojz ɛɾɐ ɔ] per Help:IPA/Portuguese and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Other languages. In the context of Portugese, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian, Polish etc. we transcribe how the whole phrases are pronounced, not just individual words (not even robots speak like that). This information was available to the editor at Portuguese phonology#Consonant phonotactics even before they started reverting me.

Previous report, about the transcription of /l/ in European Portuguese:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive466#User:SLBedit reported by User:Sol505000 (Result: let's hope this will be settled amicably). I'm tired of dealing with this to be honest. Sol505000 (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week from the article. The last couple months' edit history show that Bedit has consistently reverted a variety of editors, in the process likening them to children and disparaging their knowledge. In this context it is thus rather ironic that they have counseled others that "If you are blindly reverting my work, you are not trying to reach a compromise."

Yes, there has been discussion on the talk page of the most recent flareup (about which I want you to step back and consider: In an article about a sports team, you are edit-warring over IPA characters. Hardly a substantial aspect of the article. But that's not unique, unfortunately).) But all it has established is that SLB has their mind made up. As their block log indicates a history of actionable edit warring and disruption (a history which, to be fair, ends six years ago), a weeklong enforced break from the article seems to be most appropriate.

However, Sol, this does not leave you entirely faultless. You should (and still could) have availed yourself of other dispute resolution mechanisms, like DRN or 3O that would have brought in other editors to forge a stronger consensus (or at least convince SLB that he was sailing into the wind).

Also, if making reports here in the future, leave out the substantive discussion. We are interested here only in whether an editor has breached 3RR (not in this case) or blockably edit warred. The only time the content of the edits is relevant is when the exceptions to 3RR/EW are alleged, which they are not here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Itsmehiimyourbestieitsme reported by User:Edwordo13 (Result: Blocked one week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]
5. [13]
6. [14]
7. [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 keeps on adding numerous large plot additions to the article, and were reverted as I seem that these are good faith edits. In addition, the user has also verbally attacked me and accused me of being "disruptive" on my talk page, as seen here [17] and here. [18]

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

User:142.67.89.165 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Colonial empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 142.67.89.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26],[27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28],[29],[30]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

Comments:
[32],[33] Editor indicates they have no intention to stop. Has been on a slow revert war since 28 March [34], which has escalated in last 24 hrs. Please note that I stopped at 2RR yeterday but they reverted an earlier edit of mine given the impression of 3RR [35]. See edit history [36]. WCM_email 07:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours If they carry on edit-warring after the block expires, let me know and I'll issue a longer block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Has now registered an account Mario98765 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and carried on in the same vein [37],[38]. Notified Ritchie. WCM_email 07:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Tekrmn reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Declined)

Page: 2023 Covenant School shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tekrmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2023-04-06T04:19:48
2. 2023-04-06T04:50:15
3. 2023-04-06T05:08:12
4. 2023-04-06T06:13:01

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2023-04-06T05:09:44

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2023_Covenant_School_shooting#Deadname

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [39]

Comments:

Given their short editing history here, and the fact the account was created a few months ago with one edit, I have to wonder if this isn't just a sleeper troll account/WP:SPA and if we should just skip to an indef block for WP:NOTHERE. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This user did certainly pass 3RR after having been given a warning, but the accusation of being a sleeper troll or WP:SPA is wholly unsupported by their contributions thus far. All have been constructive — this is an edit war over a disagreement in the reading of policy in which you are the other party, but there is no evidence that it is motivated on their part by trolling or editing with a single purpose. To that end, an immediate indef block is absolutely not a sensible next step. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:2C3E:9128:A991:DBC1 (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I did not understand how important this rule is to Wikipedia's functioning until doing more reading after my latest revert. I have seen a lot of templates on articles and did not realize the seriousness of this particular template at the time. While I think that the edits I made reflect the MOS, I have edited the article again to show Hale's birth name where Locke is arguing it belongs. I understand that editing in the manner I did is considered an edit war and is not an appropriate way to handle disputes. I will not do this again in the future and will continue to do my best to follow all of the rules of Wikipedia. I created this account to make what I feel are positive contributions that fall within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I am not trolling, I am not single-purpose editing, and I am only interesting in using Wikipedia as it was intended. I apologize for engaging in an edit war and for taking up time with this report. Tekrmn (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Tekrmn partially self-reverted at 06:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC). ––FormalDude (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Fully self-reverted at 07:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC). 2600:1700:87D3:3460:2C3E:9128:A991:DBC1 (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Declined per above discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Batreeq reported by User:Leechjoel9 (Result:Both blocked 24 hours )

Page: Asmara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batreeq (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:

2023

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

2022

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

2021

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [53]

Comments:
Persitent one topic edit warring. User did not reach consensus in 2021 in adding arabic as native language in the info box, has been consitent with edit warring the article since then. User has been reported before for the same issue.Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ad this is happening yet again, and you're both edit warring. You're also both now fully aware of CTOP procedures, and I will be putting a formal warning in the WP:AELOG for both of you. Courcelles (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)