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:The Blue Rider reported by User:RachelTensions (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Fiona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Blue Rider (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. Fiona: [1] - original large amount of content removal
2. Fiona: [2] - revert
3. Fiona: [3] - revert (editor was blocked after this one)
4. Fiona: [4] - right after after block lifted, redo of the same contentious large amount of content removal
5. Fiona: [5] - first revert after block was lifted
6. Tamara: [6] - original large amount of content removal
7. Tamara: [7] - revert (last revert before block)
8. Tamara: [8] - right after after block lifted, redo of the same contentious large amount of content removal
9. Tamara: [9] - revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: based on previous block being upheld for edit warring and conversation here: [10] and here, the editor is well aware.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tamara: [11] Fiona: [12]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments:

Editor was blocked for 1 week for WP:LOUTSOCK (they participated in contentious reversions while logged out, which was apparently an accident on their part.) On appeal, the 1-week block was kept in place by @CactusWriter due to the related issues of personal attack (calling people assholes), disruptive editing (I assume due to people's votes from RM discussions), and edit warring.

As soon as the 1-week block was lifted, the editor's first actions were to return to making the exact same undiscussed large amounts of content removal on Fiona and Tamara (name). The large amounts of removed content were restored and the editor again advised to reach consensus on the talk page before removing such large amounts of content. Instead of engaging on the talk page, the editor again removed the content from the two articles.

In a nutshell, editor's 1-week block is upheld for disruptive editing and edit warring (among other things), and the first actions they take after the block is lifted is to re-engage in the same contentious edits on the same pages. RachelTensions (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me correct your text:

Editor was incorrectly blocked for 1 week for WP:LOUTSOCK (they participated in contentious reversions while logged out, which was apparently an accident on their part.) On appeal, the 1-week block was kept in place by @CactusWriter due to the related issues of personal attack (calling one person asshole), disruptive editing (I assume due to removing people's votes from RM discussions), and edit warring. No administrator either accepted or rejected the appeal and it is still standing today if you go look into The Blue Rider's talk page.

As soon as the 1-week block was lifted, the editor's first actions were to return to making the exact same undiscussed large amounts of unsourced content removal on Fiona and Tamara (name). The large amounts of unsourced removed content were restored and the editor again advised to reach consensus on the talk page before removing such large amounts of unsourced content. Instead of The Blue Rider engageding on the talk page, the editor again removed the content from the two articles.

In a nutshell, editor's incorrect 1-week block is upheld for disruptive editing and edit warring (among other things), and the first actions they take after the block is lifted is to re-engage in the same contentious edits on the same page. The Blue Rider 21:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And don’t try to play the victim here. I’ve already provided the relevant policies to justify removing that unsourced, irrelevant, and indiscriminate disambiguation list from the article—it has no place on a page about a feminine given name.

Now you’re running here, reporting me for edit warring, which sure, I’m doing it. But let me make something clear: if I get blocked for it, so will you. You seem to think you’re so right, but you’ve been edit warring across three different articles—Fiona, Tamara (name), and antisocial personality disorder. You’re not going to get off just by painting me as the “bad editor” here. If administrative action is taken, don’t kid yourself—you’re getting blocked too. Have fun. The Blue Rider 22:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll point out that the editor in question is also editing the content of other people's comments on this very page: they've edited the content of my report here. Not sure what needs to be done for them to get the clue that editing or removing other people's comments is not kosher. RachelTensions (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And now they're reverting my efforts to restore my comment to its original state before they edited it: [14] RachelTensions (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above user is very purposely portraying misinformation about me on multiple occasions that I called people assholes that opposed the rename move, when in reality I called a single person asshole on a whole different page and the diff provided by Rachel clearly shows that it was in the singular and not plural. The Blue Rider 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The user continues to edit my comments and revert my efforts to restore my comment's original form. If you can believe it, they appear to be attempting to engage in an edit war on the Edit Warring noticeboard itself.

[15] [16] [17] RachelTensions (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

So, let's make it clear, you are very aware that you are spreading misinformation, you refuse to accept it, you revert my reverts to correct your misinformation and then act like a victim. Oh dear, you are also edit warring and you will also get block for it. Hope you enjoy your off-wiki days to watch some clouds. The Blue Rider 22:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with the way I worded my comment then say so in a reply (as you have), but you're not authorized to edit someone else's comments. WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS states you're never to edit someone else's talk page comments to change the meaning, and what's worse is that you've again shown willingness to engage in an edit war by continuously reverting my efforts to restore my comment's original form. RachelTensions (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's funny because WP:TALKNO states that a behavior that is unacceptable is misrepresentation of other people. The Blue Rider 23:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

User:KianS.r reported by User:Lone-078 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: KianS.r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC) "Removing unofficial names that are without any historical claim. Please add documents for claim if you want to edit"
3. 20:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Removing unofficial , without citation names if you want to add that please provide links that support tour claim"
4. 19:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC) "Used fake and unofficial name with no references so I removed it because of having no citation and references that support that claim"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC) "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
2. 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent removal of content from the lead with the claim that it is unsourced, when the sources are clearly present in the body of the article Lone-078 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Aoidh (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Dmoran0 reported by User:Tamzin (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Central Park birdwatching incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dmoran0 (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] After partial revert by Epicgenius
3. [21] Further rv of Epicgenius and also of Viewmont Viking
4. [22] Partial rv of me. 1st revert in the past 24 hours.
5. [23] Full rv of me and Dmartin969. 2nd.
6. [24] Partial rv of Dmartin. 3rd.
7. [25] Partial rv of me. 4th.
8. [26] Full rv of TheWikiToby. 5th.
9. [27] Full rv of Snowmanonahoe. 6th.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Central_Park_birdwatching_incident#Disputed

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

Comments: This user has been cut a lot of slack, and I and others have been very clear that they need to gain consensus for their edits, which are highly SYNTH and POV. I've warned them about edit-warring both on talk and on usertalk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2600:100F:A110:60E3:8C6C:172A:2627:CE30 reported by User:Artpine98 (Result: /64 blocked 24h)

Page: Interpipe Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:100F:A110:60E3:8C6C:172A:2627:CE30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

All revertions of the IP user have focused on removing any edits. The IP user claims that all of the contributions are COI without proper explanations. That IP user may be a competitor or worker of a PR agency because all revertions were made on Fridays exclusively. Artpine98 (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 2600:100F:A110:60E3:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), that is. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Livingstonshr reported by User:ParvatPrakash (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]: Here, the edit summary of the revert by the reported user shows that the reported user is aware of the 3RR and flouts it despite knowing about it.
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]

In reply to the above unsigned comment: - I did not go over the limit of 3 reverts on the page because I'm aware of the policies. I only added a fact with a precise statement that they were the author Acharya Yugbhushansuri's views, which was also verified by the source I had added, but it was reverted several times without discussion. When an editor is uncomfortable, they initiate the discussion. If I didn't, the other user also didn't and fully flouted the 3RR rule, but I didn't. The source I had added quoted the subject's most popular work and how it was rejected by the other sect in discussion. I am only involved in promoting addition of well-sourced information on pages related to Jainism. I do not promote any sectarian wars. If I have protected Digambara-related pages from vandalism, I have also protected Svetambara-related pages. I do not like the tone of the user who is trying to allege I've done something wrong when I'm well within my limits as the set policies bind me to. Please do not accuse me of something that I'm not involved in. Thank you. ParvatPrakash (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that the user accusing me of edit-warring just changed the whole report that was against him to one that's against me, without filing a new one. This page's edit history shows it. I request the administrators to please take note of that. Thank you. ParvatPrakash (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This report was changed by me erroneously. I note that currently it has been fixed by you. My apologies in this regard. Livingstonshr (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I request you to understand that the issue has nothing to do with any sect at all. You made an edit in the history section and deleted certain contents and gave an angle of sect. It is you who gave sectarian reasons for your edits. I requested you to get consensus on talk page of Jainism as the information was present since a decade (not your user talk page) so that others could give their views but you continued with your biased editing. Livingstonshr (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not delete anything from the section that was crucial to the essence of the text. I only deleted the verb "revered" because it made the statement non-neutral. Wikipedia is supposed to be free from hagiographic content, which is why I deleted that verb and corrected the sentence to prevent loss of information. Apart from that, I've only added content and haven't deleted anything that was crucial to the understanding of the subject. If you think I did, please point to specific parts from the section that I deleted. From what I remember, I only added content about Yugbhushansuri's and the other sects' views. Kindly understand that I did not bring sectarian mindset to this conversation. You accused me of being biased, so I refuted it by stating facts. I've reverted vandalism on pages like Pulaksagar as well as Sthulabhadra. There's nothing sectarian about my contribution to Wikipedia and I don't think this is the place to discuss that. This noticeboard is only meant to report users flouting the 3RR. ParvatPrakash (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

User:ParvatPrakash reported by User:Livingstonshr (Result: )

User being reported: ParvatPrakash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Page: Jainism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1. [45]

2. [46]

3. [47]

4. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [50]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]

Comment:

The user was constantly edit warring. It deleted info from history section of Jainism page (a good article tagged) present since more than a decade ,and added sectarian and biased agenda driven content backed by unreliable sources. I requested to open a discussion on the talk page of Jainism and reach consensus multiple times in the edit comments, however it continued with edit war and stopped only after I initiated discussion on user talk page. However, he still appears to justify his actions and continues to push sect wars using phrases like Svetambara and Digambara are the only two historical sects which is highly erroneous, misleading and non-factual opinion. Although there was no mention of sect anywhere in said context, the user continues to make edits through his narrow lens of sect. As per his talk page, the user has been involved in sect wars in past. I request the administrators to take note of this and take appropriate action. In the disruptive edit made by him given in 4th link, the edit comment exposes his sectarian agenda backed by sources which literally state the opposite of the edit made. Apart from this, I would like to add that I mistakenly edited a previous report and I take the responsibility of it. I just checked that it has been corrected now.
Livingstonshr (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

With due respect, I would like to highlight this point again that this noticeboard is to report users who have flouted the 3RR i.e. more than 3 reverts on a page. I don't think it has anything to do with an editor's mindset being sectarian or not. Well, in my defence, I've made it a point to not revert edits more than 3 times on the page because I'm aware of the policies. Thanks! ParvatPrakash (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, only to elucidate and highlight it for administrators examining this, the 4th diff given in this report is not a revert, but a plain edit backed by sources. ParvatPrakash (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

However, the sectarianism is ingrained in that edit comment. Would like the administrators to note that this isn't the case of edit war alone, the user was not making edits on technical grounds but out of pure lens of his/her sect. Would request the adminstrators to give attention to the comments of each and every edits made. The section simply states history of a notable figure without even any mention of the sect, however since it doesn't suit his sect's line, he chose to delete the information and continued edit warring. Livingstonshr (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The mentioning of the sect was necessary because the section is about Jainism's history alone. Not all sects are recognized as sects of Jainism, even by themselves. However, now, I would like to leave it to the administrators to decide upon the course of action because this noticeboard is not meant for this discussion. I reiterate that I haven't gone over 3 edits on the said page and tried my best to explain my edits/reverts in their edit summary itself. Thank you. ParvatPrakash (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The section simply mentions about prominent Jain figures in colonial period. There is no mention about his sect or any sect created after him. The section simply states some of Shrimad Rajchandra 's works and performances, and about him mentioned by Virchand Gandhi who represented Jainism in parliament of world religions. The sources you inserted initially & multiple times later had zero relation with the sectarian info you edited. Livingstonshr (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If your POV differed from my edits, it is still not reason enough to flout the 3RR. ParvatPrakash (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)