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:2601:140:9180:EEE0:6D26:1C5F:E624:F72F reported by User:73.162.155.65 (Result: )

Page: Steven Dillingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:140:9180:EEE0:6D26:1C5F:E624:F72F (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. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

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

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

Comments:

User:2601:484:C100:304E:D5D:E062:EDA3:35E3 reported by User:Mattplaysthedrums (Result: Protected, 72 hours)

Page: Turning Red (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:484:C100:304E:D5D:E062:EDA3:35E3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
2. 02:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC) to 02:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
   1. 02:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
   2. 02:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC) to 02:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
   1. 02:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
   2. 02:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
5. 02:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content blanking (RW 16.1)"
2. 02:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
3. 02:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: After the mobile editor is blocked, it might be best to semi-protect the article. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

If this is the only article the IP is warring on, a block isn't necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected. The IP is unblocked, so they may participate in discussion at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

He's moved onto to another article List of Pixar films, btw. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/2601:484:C100:304E:0:0:0:0/64 for two weeks. The disruption goes back to July 24.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Brackenheim reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Protected; users warned)

Page: Multiple chemical sensitivity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brackenheim (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:

I have no idea who is right, but being right or wrong is not a reason to edit war. If wp:fringe is invoked it is down to those who want to add it to make a case, they have not tried to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is troubling. Brackenheim has violated 3RR, yet ScienceFlyer in this edit on August 13, which set the article back to March 29, 2021, "triggered" subsequent events. Slatersteven has not helped the situation by reverting Brackenheim, not because they think Brackenheim is in the wrong, but for the purely procedural reason that they believe that Brackenheim must follow WP:BRD, which in this instance is not clear, and certainly not a good reason to revert. Meanwhile, although there has been some bickering on user Talk pages, there has been no discussion on the article Talk page. I have fully protected the article for three days so the participants may resolve the content dispute, which is not a trivial one, on the article Talk page. I am also warning the users that any attempts to edit the article after the protection expires unless a clear consensus has been reached may be met with blocks without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, Brackenheim's ownership behavior is troubling, as is their original addition of massive amounts of disputed and undiscussed fringe and undue content. They have been made aware they have no consensus, yet they have edit warred. That content should be removed and discussion started. The article is currently protecting a dangerously wrong version that has zero consensus. -- Valjean (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Can you point me to a formal consensus?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
      • That's part of the problem. Brackenheim knows their content has no consensus and is disputed, yet they edit warred. The article needs to be reverted to before their large additions. -- Valjean (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
        • I suggest you go to the Talk page and begin a discussion on the changes. And, frankly, it should have been done well before now by whoever objected to the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
          • Lack of consensus was demonstrated by the first user to revert their edits. And WP:ONUS does not say it's down to those who remove content to defend their actions, its down to those wanting to include it. Now if you mean it should have been reverted well before, yes I agree, but some users may only pass by a page occasionally.Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:JimmyCrow reported by User:Oblow14 (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: FC Barcelona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1038817665 by Oblow14 (talk)"
2. 23:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1038817433 by Oblow14 (talk)"
3. 23:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1038817234 by Oblow14 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

(Non-administrator comment) The username is obviously offensive (Jim Crow refers to racial segregation laws in the United States and a blackface character), but I see no evidence that they are editing in bad faith. I can't comment on who's right or wrong in this dispute, but JimmyCrow obviously violated 3RR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Abigblueworld reported by User:StarryNightSky11 (Result: )

Page: Motion capture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC) "Grrrrrrr... 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡 GIVE ME A CHANCE TO SHINE! LISTEN! I AM ANGRY AT YOU, SToP..."
2. 02:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC) "How though? Oh gosh, stop the edit war or it will be world war 3!"
3. 02:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC) "Does, we need info, stop it right now,,,"
4. 00:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC) "Extra, tell me what's wrong too."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15] untemplated edit warring notification

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also WP:EW at Motion capture and Autodesk Maya — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryNightSky11 (talk • contribs) 02:54, August 15, 2021 (UTC)

• Indef'ed for disruptive editing. Meters (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Meters Noted, can revert any edits that need reverting that haven't already. Best StarryNightSky11^(talk) 03:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Yoisi210 reported by User:Lullabying (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Chiaki J. Konaka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yoisi210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1038181691

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1038808690
2. 1038865597
3. 1038869501
4. 1038871718

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 1038824234 (brief mention to discuss on talk page in edit summary}
2. 1038869963 (warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1038871641

Comments:
Chiaki J. Konaka released a work earlier in this month that mentions politics, which was controversial to some and met with backlash. There are concerns on how neutral the wording of this article is. Yoisi210 has been continuously reverting edits and removing/inserting statements that were not stated in the sources or have been agreed on by other editors of the page. lullabying (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:FantinoFalco reported by User:Natanieluz (Result: Partial blocked, indefinitely, from article)

Page: Opinion polling for the next Polish parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FantinoFalco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user started arguing with me on mine talk page: [16]

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

Comments:

That user is not ready to discuss the matter and has been doing his edits even after receiving warnings many times. Despite repeated requests and mine explanations, he still continues to remove those edits and attacking me, even despite my pleas to stop and seek a compromise. He violated the three-revert rule. Natanieluz (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from this article only, indefinitely. Since they are simply reverting and not using the talkpage, yet they believe (from the message on the reporter's user talk) that they have the right to remove anything they don't like, that pretty much means they shouldn't be editing it. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:HIAS, User:Echo1Charlie reported by User:Alpha3031 (Result: Two editors warned)

Page: CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported:

HIAS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Echo1Charlie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the users' reverts:

HIAS:

10:36, 15 August 2021‎ mentioned both statements

10:29, 15 August 2021‎ rv, per WP:RSOPINION

09:12, 15 August 2021 rv, Unverified account.

08:33, 15 August 2021 rv, WP:RS does not mention JF-17

Echo1Charlie:

10:38, 15 August 2021 misquote, the part you're trying to add is pakistani military spoke person's press release

10:31, 15 August 2021 Biased, illogical, neutrality of the content restored

10:23, 15 August 2021 neutrality restored

09:24, 15 August 2021 Listed on the official website here https://martin-baker.com/news-events

08:39, 15 August 2021 Undid revision 1038872095 by HIAS (talk)confirmed by Martin-Baker

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:33, 15 August 2021 Templated warning from HIAS to Echo1Charlie

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute )on article talk page:

Comments:

4hr old 3RR violation brought up on IRC -help channel. No recent ARBIPA warning on either user. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not an exception if my revert was not reasonable I'll accept any action taken against me. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Evidence= edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder&diff=1038884822&oldid=1038884568) user HIAS was trying to add content not in the cited source, I was preventing misquote, original research and possibly vandalism please check whether it's true or not. Thank you.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  
• Evidence 2= edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder&diff=1038876816&oldid=1038876658) User HIAS was trying to remove cited content —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The controversial statement was introduced to the article by Echo1Charlie (talk · contribs) [17]. The source clearly mention that the version of Pakistan Army is different from Indian army, I tried to achieve neutrality with the inclusion of both versions per WP:BALANCE. While Echo1Charlie's intention was to deliberate modify POV statement belonging to the official spokesperson of indian army as fact. India maintained that pakistan army missed the intended target while pakistan maintains that the target was the empty ground. HIAS (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't adding any official statements on the article (even though quote by Indian official was present in the cited sources), and the statement is not "controversial"; at least not in India and in rest of the world). The statement is supported by two citations ——Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that both editors broke WP:3RR on 15 August so both could be blocked for edit warring. The sourcing on both sides is at least plausible. The two editors could be well intentioned, but breaking 3RR is a serious violation in the India-Pakistan domain. Admins should take sufficient action to ensure that the problem does not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

My Apologies @EdJohnston:, I have never been blocked since last 5 years. I assure you that a warning will work for me and i have no intention to repeat this behavior again, please consider my apologies for the last time. HIAS (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, I'm a newbie here, but I know that's not an excuse, if you found that I've violated the policy then I'm morally obliged to accept the punishment. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:HIAS and User:Echo1Charlie are warned for edit warring. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Wadamarow reported by User:Dabaqabad (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25]

Comments: This user is preventing me from improving the Awdal page. I added sourced content while at the same time removing the excessive blockquotes in the demographics section per WP:Quotefarm however he keeps reverting it every single time, rejecting these sources stating: "I won't have to rely on your source, I have my own".

He has during our discussion at the article's talk page repeatedly accused me of "tampering" with references (which I haven't) and of breaking WP:Mainstream (which does not apply in this situation at all). I reminded him respectfully that he was breaching 3RR and also warned him on his talk page. He then proceeded to accuse me of breaking Wikipedia guidelines ([26]) simply because I warned him on his talk page for breaking the 3RR rule (something that you have to do).

Overall, I don't think this person is here to build an encyclopedia at all and is refusing to accept sources and facts that contradict his POV.
Dabaqabad

Just to follow up from earlier, as per the Wikipedia guidelines, you would need to add several sources to change the demographics, as Gadabursi being the majority clan in Awdal Region is an established and well known view. While Isaaq presence in "Eastern Awdal" isn't, so please add several sources if you wish to justify this claim. I also saw you tampered with a source and claimed it stated something it didn't which is why I reverted your edits. I did not remove your edits for no good reason and even left you several messages in the talk section of the page to explain my reasoning and why I believe you're in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I hope our dispute can be resolved amicably via a 3rd party instead of going back and forth aimlessly. Please refer to the relevant talk page. Many thanks. I've left a link to our discussion below for the moderator's reference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Awdal#Awdal_demographics Wadamarow (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to add some further comments regarding my objection to the source used byUser:Dabaqabad and context around procedural claims.

The source used by User:Dabaqabad is titled Beyond Fragility: A Conflict and Education Analysis of the Somali Context. The source makes a number of factually incorrect claims which I will highlight below.

On page 158, in table 15 the report states that the city of Berbera is located in the Awdal Region. This is demonstrably false, according to the Somaliland government which is the ruling entity, Berbera is part of the Sahil region. This is also confirmed by numerous academic, NGO and other credible governmental sources listed under the Berbera city Wikipedia entry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbera

On the same page and also in table 15, the report then goes on to state that the district of Gabiley falls under the Awdal Region. This is again false, Gabiley district is part of the Maroodi Jeex region. This is again backed up by sources from the Somaliland government and other credible 3rd parties. The sources can be found under the Gabiley city Wikipedia entry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabiley Based on the facts established above, claiming Isaaq live in "Eastern Awdal" would be false since Eastern Awdal here is considered as Gabiley district by the report. This was my objection with User:Dabaqabad earlier.

Therefore, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, given the factual and demonstrable inaccuracy of the source, I suggested to User:Dabaqabad that he should bring another. As Wikipedia editors we have a responsibility to use accurate sources and uphold the integrity of the pages we edit.

I also reminded the User of Wikipedia guidelines.

Per WP:Exceptional, WP: Extraordinary and WP:Ecree, his content would require multiple mainstream sources to offset the 5 that have been on the page that doesn't factor or mention the point in which you are advancing. Given the factual inaccuracies of the report I've listed above, User:Dabaqabad has not satisfied the Wikipedia guidelines.

I hope that explains the crux of our disagreement and await judgement from the admin team.

Wadamarow (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I also wanted to add some more detail regarding the second source used by User:Dabaqabad.

The second source used can be found here. 

https://www.faoswalim.org/resources/Land/General_Survey_Somaliland_Protectorate_1944-1950.pdf

The report does not state Isaaq inhabit Eastern Awdal, when this report was commissioned in 1950 the Awdal Region did not exist in its current form. The Awdal Region was founded in 1984, when the North (now Somaliland) was still part of the Somali Republic under the regime of Siad Barre. It is impossible for you to claim this source states, Isaaq inhabit Awdal for that simple factual reason.

So not only is User:Dabaqabad adding sources which do not state what he claims, he is tampering with the source itself. Because a rudimentary search of the term "Awdal" in this document will lead to no results as Awdal is not mentioned in this 100+ page report about the British protectorate.

I hope that once again clears up my objections, and in future I hope User:Dabaqabad refrains from tampering with sources as that's a major violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

Wadamarow (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Awdal at the time was the Borama district with identical borders. You do realize the regions of Somaliland are for the most part based on the district boundaries of the British protectorate right?

Like I said earlier my edits do not breach WP:Exceptional, WP:Extraordinary or WP:Ecree since I did not dispute the mainstream and factual claim (Awdal is predominantely Gadabuursi). You're misusing and bending the Wikipedia rules to suit you. All I did was try to add the presence of another clan in a corner of the region, something you seem to be against.

Again, stop accusing me of tampering with sources when I have not done so. You need to assume good faith, self revert and discuss what you object in a respectful manner on the talk page. Dabaqabad (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: Is it possible to request a Checkuser? The way he writes along with the sources he provides and the topic he usually edits reminds me of banned sockpuppeteer User:Middayexpress. Just want to make sure. Dabaqabad (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, you should be responding to me on the talk page where I have left numerous comments outlining my objections to your edits. You have failed to address any of my points in a constructive manner and decided to report me to the admin team.

Secondly, your source does not mention Isaaq live in Awdal because it is simply a survey of grazing lands and water wells used by nomads. I challenge you to ad-verbatim quote the passage which states "Isaaq live in Eastern Awdal/Lughaya" which is what your edit says. This is a clear example of you tampering with sources which is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The Awdal Region borders and Borama district borders are not identical, this is the Awdal Region page not the old Zeila/Borama district, your edits here are unjustified with that source.

Thirdly, you removed perfectly legitimate sources on a number of occasions in your edits which is why I reverted them. This is another violation of Wikipedia guidelines you're not allowed to remove references without good cause which is why I reverted your edits. All the mainstream sources (from the 21st century I might add) state that only two clans inhabit Awdal, Gadabursi and Ciise. If you wish to update the demographics section you would need to add a number of highly accurate sources to overturn this as per Wikipedia guidelines regarding exceptional claims.

You also have failed to respond to the fact that one of your sources included basic factual inaccuracies such as adding Gabiley and Berbera to the Awdal Region which I have proven is demonstrably false.

Please respond to the comments I have left you on the talk page, we can come to an amicable agreement provided you stay within the Wikipedia guidelines, or we can ask a 3rd party to mediate between us. You have failed to respond on either points and hastily opened a case against me for no good reason.

Also do not accuse me of using sockpuppet accounts without justifiable reasoning, just because we have a disagreement doesn't mean I'm acting in bad faith. Our aim as editors should be to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia pages. Wadamarow (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Both parties seem to have violated WP:3RR at Awdal. I hope they will respond here and explain why they should not be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)