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:94.173.120.38 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked for BLP issues)

Page

Babar Azam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "content being removed again even though it is true and relevant"
2. 16:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid removal"
3. 16:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverting changes made by user ilnord"
4. 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverting changes made"
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC) to 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted page back from removal of relevant information"
   2. 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC) ""
6. 16:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Added back relevant content after someone decided to remove It"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"
2. 17:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Already blocked N.J.A. | talk 13:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Mi6pro reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Second Battle of Panipat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mi6pro (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Mi6pro has chosen not to use the talk page.

Comments:
Mi6pro is just another of a long list of editors/IPs that have been attacking India related battles. This nonsense has been going on since mid-November, involving multiple IPs, "new users", etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely N.J.A. | talk 13:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SwarSadhak reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Indian classical music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [11]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [12]

Comments:

User blocked on December 17 for edit warring on this page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User also edit warring on Amir Khan (singer). Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:Ms Sarah Welch (Result: No violation)

Page

Onam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[13] (first revert)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Second revert 01:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): These POV edits need consensus. stop edit warring. (TW)"
2. Third revert 01:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk (TW)"
3. Fourth revert 01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk page. stop edit warring (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Onam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Onam festival */ r"

Comments:

DBigXray has made four reverts within 24 hours. The later reverts were made while ignoring my explanation/comments on the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, you are adding pov content that has serious issues instead of working for consensus of your addition you are more intent on edit warring and filing block requests to get others blocked, first at ANI and next day here at ANEW This is extremely disappointing, coming from an experienced editor.

And where did I make 4 I see 3 diffs above.

@closing admin, in spite of the IP raising questions on her addition of pov content trying to convert it into a Hindu festival, instead of answering she is evading discussion /consensus. On top of that she is using offensive edit summary where she states "consensus with vandalism/disruptive editors is unnecessary". The filer has made an equal number of reverts. I think some action is needed here. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 01:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

1st: 08:49, 26 December 2019; DBigXray (talk | contribs) Your edit summary: (RV some major POV edits with cherry picked sources that shifted the WP:NPOV balance of the article, discuss this on the talk page.)

2nd: 01:17, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk page. stop edit warring (TW)

3rd: 01:22, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk (TW)

4th: 01:30, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): These POV edits need consensus. stop edit warring. (TW)

Not only that, your reverts deleted sources, sourced content and misrepresent the source in Cultural Festival section by inserting content that is not supported by the Ponnumuthan source. Your edits suggest you are WP:NOTHERE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ms Sarah Welch: DBigXray's edits do not suggest they are NOTHERE. No more personal attacks; they don't help you, and they may get you in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, you are falsely claiming that i made "four reverts within 24 hours.". The time stamps clearly show that this is a blatant lie. And FYI, trying to get others blocked with WP:NOTHERE doesn't  really work with established editors. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 02:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No violation. I count only three reverts in 24 hours (you need four to violate 3RR). But beyond that, this acrimony between you two is starting to become a problem. Do we need to implement an interaction ban, or can you two learn to work together in a collegial way? Please let me know. El_C 11:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

El_C Sufficient talk page warnings were given on User talk:Ms Sarah Welch [14] [15] [16] and yet she continued with her disruptive reverts [17], [18], [19] and after hitting 3 reverts she promptly filed this ANEW report with lies that 4 reverts were made. It is quite obvious that her intentions were to weaponize Admin Noticeboards to get the other editor sanctioned as a way to evade WP:CONSENSUS.  El_C she is continuously attacking me and then running to admin noticeboards for getting sanctions, this ridiculous and childish behavior has to stop. My only intention is to work towards a Consensus version and it is not me who is trying to get the other editor blocked, so this is false analogy about the two. It is obvious to see which one has malicious intentions. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You repeatedly use the word "lie," which further adds to the acrimony — I challenge that, rather, you should assume good faith that mistakes were made rather than lying outright. El_C 11:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright El_C, I agree that I must assume Good faith and I should rather consider that "mistakes were made" by her in counting the reverts. Now can you address this obvious one sided BLOCKSHOPPING that she is carrying out against me. As you are aware this is the second time, she has done this. Shouldn't this type of offensive behavior that is against collaborative editing be addressed ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am aware. And I hold a dim view of it. El_C 11:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

El C, ok lets see if the "dim view" helps the situation. A WP:BOOMERANG IMHO will certainly be more effective in discouraging these attempts for block shopping. regards. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Hunan201p reported by User:Beshogur (Result: No violation)

Page: Ashina tribe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hunan201p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
First time it was changed to "unknown" was made by an ip user. (here), since then Hunan201p is removing sourced content and saying "Leave it alone for now.", saying that I should leave an article alone like he is an admin. I added sources, however he is still not convinced. Also claiming Tengrism is "is a syncretic religion that may have been *altered* by Ashina.". This is nothing more but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beshogur (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The final sentence in this paragraph is inaccurate. I did not claim that Tengrism is a syncretic religion altered by the Ashina tribe; I suggested Beshogur's own source said that. My position has been that this is a very sketchy, grey area subject matter and that the article needs to be left alone until there is a discussion involving multiple users at the talk page (including Beshogur) until we reach consensus on the ethnic language of Ashina. He has thus far refused my suggestions.

Most of his edits appear to be geared toward the Turkicization of this ancient ethnic group. He initially attempted to delete several references from the page (on 20:45, 10 December 2019) which supported an Iranian origin for these people, by erroneously claiming their authors did not advocate such a position. He also added a flurry of "citation needed" tags ahead of statements related to these authors, which had in fact already been cited. After I reverted this, he tried it again, and another user (Wario-Man) then reverted those edits on December 25 for a second time, and suggested that he knock it off, as the article itself is being re-written anyway.

More recently, on 11:01, 28 December 2019, he falsified a reference to support the claim that these people spoke Old Turkic; something he apparently acknowledges having done, as he didn't put it back after I reverted it. Very suspicious behavior indeed, and I don't believe I violated the 3 revert rule, which should not apply in such situations, if I remember correctly. I'm confident my revisions were reasonable. Beshogur seems to be in a rush to complete a project that is under construction, all by himself, using very questionable building materials.Hunan201p (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ashina is not an ethnic group but a ruling clan and a tribe. I am adding sources and you are reverting it. I don't add false sources. You said: "In fact, page 64 of this book does not contain any reference to the Ashina tribe, and suggests the official language of the very diverse East Turkic Empire/Second Turkic Khaganate was Orkhon. Nowhere does it suggest that this was ethnic language of the Ashina tribe." Ashina is not an ethnic group as I said, it is a clan. Also where does it say that Second Turkic Khaganate is "very diverse"? I also added sources on the talk page that Orkhon inscriptions was made by the kaghans' itself. How can you claim that they never spoke Turkic? "...some scholars see this practice as amounting to a state religion, “Tengrism,” in which the ruling Ashina family gained legitimacy through its support from Tengri.", can you please tell me how this is not a valid text? This is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beshogur (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No violation. Only three reverts are listed — you need four to violate 3RR. Also, this is not the place to discuss the content dispute. Please pursue dispute resolution (and accompanying requests) to resolve the dispute. El_C 13:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Αντικαθεστωτικός reported by User:Cinadon36 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Αντικαθεστωτικός is trying to add a phrase commenting Orwell's work. I have politely asked him to get consensus at Talk Page and cited two points of disagreement with his addition (commenting sources in the middle of the main body of the text, and one of the two authors didn't "heavily criticizes Orwell as he claimed)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have tried to open a discussion at Talk Page on Orwell, [28], but Αντικαθεστωτικός was not too eager to talk.[29]. I also used an edit summary to inform him about WP:BRD [30]. Cinadon36 23:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Guilty! I have tried for years to participate in Engish Wikipedia. Unfortunately this user is constantly chasing me, and i can't participate. So, please ban me permanently. Cause if you don't i will do the same and the same. Happy new year 1984! Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute. Rather than take immediate action against either or both parties, I have reverted to the version from 21 December, before today's conflict. @Αντικαθεστωτικός and Cinadon36: Please work this out at the talk page before making any more edits to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. This is a haunt and you just gave right to his (Personal attack removed) and his outrageous excuses to revert me one more time. I have presented what historians had written. He is defending anonymous(!!!) contributions and George Orwell fantasy writings. This is a ban without the courage to typically ban me. So please ban me. I can't stand this injustice. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)+

@Αντικαθεστωτικός: I am not convinced that either of you are editing in bad faith. However, please focus on the content of the page, rather than making personal attacks against another editor. —C.Fred (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i am convinced that he haunts me. In the beggining he wrote "and one of the two authors didn't "heavily criticizes Orwell as he claimed" Now in the article talk page he accepted my edition but now he is finding a new excuse to find some obstacles. This is a bad joke. This is censhorship. This a haunt. Wikipedia voice is the voice of such users. Wikipedia voice rejected what historians had written and chose propaganda from anonymous users(!!) and from George Orwell. Wikipedia chose not to ban me typically but to revert everything that i am trying to add. No, this must stop. For the last time please ban me permanently. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Νο, pls do not misrepresent what I have said. a)I am not haunting you. The last three months you have edited several articles, I intervened in none. May Days was in my watchlist as I am interested in anarchism related articles. b)I have raised some concerns on some of your edits that have not been answered. c)Instead of answering at Talk Page, you are making personal attacks, on top of breaking 3RR. This is not the way forward. Your personal attacks about censorship are aiming in censoring my criticism of your edits. d)You are not addressing my concerns at Talk [31][32] Cinadon36 00:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Another example of haunting was 4 months ago in the article of Durruti. Since then i have written in Enlish WP in very few articles cause i knew that he will haunt me (In Greek Wikipedia he had been banned for among other reasons 3 months again for haunting users). He is doing the same here. Nobody cares. Leave Wikipedia with propaganda. I don't care. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Bottomline: Αντικαθεστωτικός broke 3RR, got away with it, and instead of using Talk Page, he start personal attacks (most notample exable) by misrepresenting facts, red herrings, strawmans etc. Way to go. Cinadon36 01:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest you both quit while you're behind. You were both edit-warring at the article and both should have been blocked. In addition, you both have an extensive block log at the Greek Wikipedia. It doesn't sound to me like either of you knows how to behave.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• • I have not edit - warred. My only 2 objections were a)that Graham is "heavily criticizing Orwell" and b)why should we be discussing Orwell on the main body of the article. I have tried to discuss at Talk page. Greek WP is totally irrelevant, it is a totally different wikiproject- I have zero blocks at en.WP. I try to be polite, address the points and questions of fellow wikipedians- and I expect them to do the same. Anyway, I am leaving this discussion, not even watchlisting this. Pls ping me if anyone wants an answer. Cinadon36 01:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely WP:NOTHERE, clear unwillingness to edit cooperatively. —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Bergsoni reported by User:SchroCat (Result: 60 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:26, 24 December 2019‎
2. 07:39, 25 December 2019‎
3. 08:13, 26 December 2019‎
4. 10:17, 26 December 2019‎
5. 10:16, 28 December 2019‎
6. 21:44, 29 December 2019‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34], [35], [36] and [37].

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

Comments:

A gentle reminder that this page is not just for 3RR edit warring, but also includes other disruptive edit warring. We have here an editor who is not in listening mode when he is told what he is doing is wrong, but logs back in every day to keep making the same edit (which includes changing a direct quotation). Despite requests to use the talk page and messages on his own talk page, he continues this slow-burn edit war. - SchroCat (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Indeed, communication is required. El_C 00:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)