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:Gabrielasirwatham‎ reported by User:Metta79 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

    Page: Sinhalese people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Gabrielasirwatham (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. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]
    5. [5]
    6. [6]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

    Comments:

    The editor has also been filed for a sock puppet report here:

    [10]

    However, the edit warring seems to be continuing unabated, hence why I have also reported the user here. The user did 4 reverts on the 17 April 2024, and potentially much more if the sock puppet report comes back positive. Metta79 (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected – I've closed the sock case as Red X Unrelated but have put indefinite extended-confirmed protection on the article. (Neither account named in the sock case is extended-confirmed). Arbcom has just designated Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, though the templates for enacting those sanctions aren't set up yet. Let me know if this dispute spreads out to more articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • EdJohnston I've just indeffed Gabrielasirwatham for their response to my warning about casting aspersions on that talk page. I'm pretty sure we haven't lost a productive editor there. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LadybugStardust reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Page already protected)[edit]

    Page: Brendan O'Neill (columnist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "Primary sources are acceptable when they are used to cite the author's POV."
    2. 19:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "I will discuss this with you, but you had no right to remove the additional sources that I added to the other sections of the article."
    3. 18:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "What is the "flattery"? Describing him as pro-choice? Also, why did you remove all of my sources as well?"
    4. 18:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "I didn't use any "heavy-handed promotional language". There's nothing non-neutral about it."
    5. 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC) ""
    6. 20:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Changing some wording to appease PC language police. As for The Oxford Student, in what possible way is it not a reliable source?"
    7. 20:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219788559 by Buidhe (talk) - No, The Oxford Student is widely accepted as a reliable source."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Brendan O'Neill (columnist)."
    2. 19:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Brendan O'Neill (columnist)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 19:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring from LadybugStardust */ new section"

    Comments:

    Your complaint was regarding supposedly un-WP:NPOV language in the section that I added about O'Neill's views on abortion. However, when you reverted that edit, you also removed all of the additional sources that I had added to other parts of the article - sources which you had no business removing, as they had nothing to do with your complaints over my supposedly "flattering" language in the abortion section. In my last edit, I restored those sources, but removed the section about abortion until we can work something out regarding the language that I used.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained on both your talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page, the article's talk page is the place to discuss this. You do not have consensus for those changes and you should not be edit warring even if you think you are correct. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am discussing it on the article's talk page right now. You still haven't given any reason why you removed my additional sources from the other parts of the article, though.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that LadybugStardust is now up to 7 reverts (the most recent shortly outside the 24-hour window), this time restoring a self-published source about a third party (Greta Thunberg) that was criticized for his negative comments about her. Woodroar (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected (already protected) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • LadybugStardust, if this continues after the protection, I'd probably block. Page protection was a very generous, optimistic response. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fuzheado reported by User:Cryptic (Result: )[edit]

    Page: Portal:Current events/2024 April 19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fuzheado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 15:30, 19 April 2024‎

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:40, 19 April 2024
    2. 20:17, 19 April 2024
    3. 18:04, 20 April 2024
    4. 18:34, 20 April 2024



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As an administrator who's blocked others for edit warring in the past, I'd think he wouldn't need one.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Portal talk:Current events#Dispute over Taylor Swift album in Current events page

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

    Comments:
    Reverts 3 and 4 are just outside the 24-hour window, so I'm bringing this here for a second opinion. Normally I'd protect, but that's not really an option for recent P:CE subpages. —Cryptic 20:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The question of whether to include the Taylor Swift material is also being discussed in a thread at Portal talk. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disappointed in this being reported when the editing cycle was stopped and a discussion was initiated at Portal_talk:Current_events#Dispute_over_Taylor_Swift_album_in_Current_events_page. My words:
    "instead of undoing each other, can we please discuss this in a civil manner here."
    The first editors that were removing content were either IP editors or had a very sparse/odd editing history, and were leaving non-useful two word edit summaries, including ones that gave no valid policy reasons: "not important" or "not notable." I treated them as drive-by vandalism. Only when editors such as Alsoriano97 were actually engaging in dialogue did I consider it start verging into "edit war" territory, which is why we stop editing and start a discussion. No 3RR action is warranted or needed. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The discussion was opened to talk about the inclusion or not of that content. It is disproportionate to open a report. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TylerBurden reported by User:WeatherWriter (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

    Page: Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TylerBurden (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. [12]
    2. [13]
    3. [14]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

    Comments:

    • Edit warring on a Contentious Topic page. Attempts to diffuse the situation, which resulted in concerns of a CTOPIC map being unsourced were ignored or disregarded. The map in question has nearly 300 talk page discussion regarding it over the last 2 years (Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War & Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 1). User was aware of these talk page discussion and sources from this reversion of the WP:BOLD removal as they were directly linked. User is very much aware it is a contentious topic as they gave me a CTOPIC alert. User was kindly asked to gain a consensus for the removal, but ignored this request and continued to edit war to remove the map. Bringing here before a 3RR violation as the topic is a contentious topic and all attempts at reason have failed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment: Their third removal of the map in question was just reverted by Czello, an editor not previously involved in this dispute. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      TylerBurden, I have no idea why you believed it might be acceptable to start a one-vs-many edit war by making and repeatedly restoring one of the possibly most controversial changes to the RUSUKR topic area I have seen so far, removing the map of the conflict from the infobox over two years after its introduction to a highly active and visible central article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned: Logged Arbitration Enforcement warning ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Warning accepted, though I do feel the need to comment that it wasn't a "one-vs-many" edit war, the other party made the same amount of reverts as me (2) despite claiming to be attempting a "0RR" on their user page, so I find it a bit strange I am the only one affected. The "first" diff they included isn't a revert, it was my initial edit that they reverted. Not sure if you misinterpreted something.
      TylerBurden (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Paper-Ringer reported by User:Rusty4321 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)[edit]

    Page: Vivienne Martin (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Carl Weathers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Paper-Ringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220073979 by Jkaharper (talk) revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
    2. 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
    3. 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
    4. 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    5. 17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    6. 17:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    7. 17:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    8. 17:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    9. 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    10. 17:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    11. 17:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    12. 17:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    13. 17:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    14. 17:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    15. 17:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    16. 17:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
    17. 16:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.5)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:136.52.0.191 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: )[edit]

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

    User being reported: 136.52.0.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 02:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 01:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Level 4 warning re. Pagoda (HG) (3.4.12)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Cjhard reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: )[edit]

    Page: South Park: Joining the Panderverse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ another reliable review according to this article MOS:TVRECEPTION"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 01:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) to 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
      1. 01:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219715594 by SanAnMan (talk) content farms are not due - you have previously attempted to restore this content against a different editor. Stop edit warring."
      2. 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Reaction */ Forbes"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on South Park: Joining the Panderverse."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User removing critical reviews from majorly sourced critics under claim of “content farming”. User given 3RR and removed it stating “don’t edit my talk page” then blatantly adds a WP:SELFPUB to try to prove his point SanAnMan (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. You both have 2 reverts. You're both edit warring. Ponyobons mots 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:85.249.162.249 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

    Page: Fairport, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 85.249.162.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220152184 by Marleeashton (talk)"
    2. 03:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220151876 by Marleeashton (talk)"
    3. 03:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 03:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Fairport, New York."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User: Crampcomes reported by User:Mistamystery (Result:)[edit]

    Page: Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Crampcomes (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]

    Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [21]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]

    Comments:
    Editor is restoring POV OR items not remotely supported by citations. Is also casting baseless aspersions/accusations, and other uncivil behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistamystery (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems more properly an AE matter since reporting not only a 1R breach but behavior. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Selfstudier In cases like this, do you recommend posting on ANI concurrently, or awaiting the outcome of the above action first? Mistamystery (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You started here, may as well wait and see if someone will deal with it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The article in question has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms [24][25], then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through both IP and account [26] [27] and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected. Please note that I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question[28]. I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals[29], but he uncivilly refused[30].Crampcomes (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor is evading the central issue - which is clear violation of 1RR and complete refusal to self-revert.
    Otherwise, all of the above are complete falsehoods. The content removed was POV OR and not remotely supported by any of the sources provided (which is also why *other* editors have removed it as well). Also, I did not in any way violate 1RR (my reverts were almost four days apart), and talk page discussions were initiated as per BRD.
    Mistamystery (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Buzzy123 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Pblocked indefinitely)[edit]

    Page: Nick Di Paolo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Buzzy123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Updating image to a more recent 2021 image that has FULL permissions under CC license and took out the space between the I and P in last name in case that is the reason you keep reverting back to the old picture from 2017."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) to 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
      1. 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "This is an updated, approved and cleared profile picture"
      2. 21:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "I changed the date of the most recent profile image to reflect the year the photo was taken."
      3. 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "I entered Nick Di Paolo's actual birthdate. I am siting this website https://thevogue.com/artists/nick-di-paolo/"
    3. 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Infobox image change */ new section"
    2. 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruption 3."
    3. 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nick Di Paolo."
    4. 21:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Nick Di Paolo image */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    • User claims to be Di Paolo's wife and manager. I have therefore left a WP:COI notice on their Talk page and pblocked her indefinitely from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jack4576 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

    Page: Black War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jack4576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [31]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [32], rv [33]
    2. [34], rv [35]
    3. [36], rv [37]
    4. [38], rv [39]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40], Please see editors reply to warning here: [41] , editor has rejected the warning responding to @General Ization: warning with Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure. Apparently the only way to get their attention is a post to EWN.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42], see second discussion at [43] under "Your edit to Black War".

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [44]

    Comments:

    Editor has an unfortunate history of battleground behavior, from their response to the warning, they have no intention of stopping, re: Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure. [45] Regardless of how, this editor needs to understand what they are doing is edit warring.  // Timothy :: talk  06:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. - Aoidh (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BottleOfChocolateMilk reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: )[edit]

    Page: 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported:

    Previous version reverted to: Instance 1, Instance 2

    Diffs of the user's reverts: Instance 1:

    1. 13:25, 20 April 2024 (NZST)
    2. 15:51, 20 April 2024 (NZST)
    3. 16:58, 20 April 2024 (NZST)
    4. 18:05, 20 April 2024 (NZST)

    Instance 2:

    1. 04:01, 23 April 2024 (NZST)
    2. 10:01, 23 April 2024 (NZST)
    3. 13:53, 23 April 2024 (NZST)
    4. 13:55, 23 April 2024 (NZST)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (has been warned previously for other edit wars)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none)

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notified User:BottleOfChocolateMilk, the IP, and User:BottleofStrawberryMilk

    Comments:

    Two separate instances of 3RR violation on the same article by multiple parties. No discussion at all between the users on the article talk page. The first instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP on 20 April, the second instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP + User:BottleofStrawberryMilk today. Despite the username similarity I'm pretty sure it's a different user, as someone else dropped a note on User:BottleofStrawberryMilk's talk page saying that they suspect sockpuppetry by User:HeftyWizard.

    Note that the page is already semi-protected currently, preventing the IP and the non-autoconfirmed User:BottleofStrawberryMilk account from editing. However though, it appears that User:BottleOfChocolateMilk has a lack of regard for the WP:EW policy here, given that they've been editing for nearly eight years with over 16k edits, and they already seem to know and even point out some Wikipedia guidelines like WP:ENDORSE.

    (excuse the NZST dates I have my wiki settings set to display timestamps in my local timezone and it's a bit of a hassle to convert them to UTC.) — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've indeffed BottleofStrawberryMilk for impersonation and blocked the IP range for one week for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I've dug through some history and found five prior edit warring warnings from last year: 17 April, 21 June, 7 July, 10 August and 22 August. I also found this old ANEW thread from 8 July last year, where the user and the other involved party were both warned for their edit-warring behaviour. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be worth pointing out this legal threat made by 2601:805:8681:A140:D014:8FD5:E240:3B41. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rahio1234 reported by User:AlphaBetaGamma (Result: blocked for 72 hours; blocked the IP for a week)[edit]

    Page: A Thousand Times Repent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Rahio1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220365915 by The Herald (talk): Stop disrupt this page"
    2. 10:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk) to last revision by Rahio1234"
    3. 10:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk)"
    4. 10:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220364686 by Rahio1234 (talk)"
    5. 10:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 158.140.53.34 (talk)"
    6. 09:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220361201 by Wikipedialuva (talk)"
    7. 09:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk)"
    8. 09:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220359822 by Rahio1234 (talk)"
    9. 08:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk) to last revision by Explicit"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 10:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Wikipedialuva "/* A Thousand Times Repent vandal */ formatting"

    Comments:

    This thing... has gotten completely out of control. No comments as I'm inexperienced at this ani. The edit war is also affecting Downthesun and Rahio1234 is seen continuing the ew after logging out. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I wonder if the person behind the 158.140.53.34 IP is WP:LTA/BKFIP, considering the argumentative nature of the edit summaries, and the blatant disregard for the edit-warring policy of course. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong location.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, did I malform my reports again? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It is also worth noting that the editor in question has removed the warning and their reply on the user page. I have been seeing a lot of activity from this editor in Recent Changes and I think I seen this pattern before. CpX41 (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah I dont live around there, and the only reason why I was 'argumentive' was because I was genuinely trying to improve the page and the user did not get the hint that the source was not only unreliable but also said NOTHING that the sentence was claiming to. The user did stop reverting me until ABG had to step in. Reason why he obsessively kept reverting me I still dont know I tried to explain why his version of the page was wrong but he still persisted adding this fake info with a false source. Despite all this I know what I did was wrong I guess - even though id consider his edits vandalism - I will take a block if it needs to happen. I dont find myself the aggressor here though as I was just trying to edit pages for the sake of improvement and I didnt appreciate that he was just reverting me for what appears to be no real reason. Nevertheless I have since disengaged and stopped the edit wars altogether. Others can take it from here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.53.34 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) PS: As stated above I found it very weird that he also ended up logging out and continued to edit war with me using his IP address as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.53.34 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JabSaiyaan reported by User:Hineyo (Result: Both editors blocked 24 hours)[edit]

    The user is persistently adding puffery in Shreya Ghoshal and is engaging in edit war. Diffs of user :

    [46]

    [47]

    [48]

    [49]

    See this [50]. He has originally add this POV content and is working hard to retain the POV content at the expense of WP:NPOV. Kindly look into this. Hineyo (talk)

    As you can see I am only reverting the disruptive edits done by this user. The user is removing well sourced content which is approved by several experienced editors from several Wikipedia pages which you can check in their edit history and I've made a report about it on this page as well. Thank you. JabSaiyaan (talk)

    Differences of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:-

    [51]

    Hineyo (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aoidh (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hineyo reported by User:JabSaiyaan (Result: Both editors blocked 24 hours)[edit]

    The user is continuously removing the content which is well-sourced and approved by multiple experienced editors from several Wikipedia pages like - Sonu Nigam, Shreya Ghoshal, Arijit Singh and when edits are reverted they are engaging in edit war.

    Few Diffs of user :

    1. Sonu Nigam - [52]

    2. Shreya Ghoshal - [53]

    3. Arijit Singh - [54]

    These are few of the many examples and also the reason why this user is doing this is because - [55], here you can see the user first broke the WP:NPOV rule and actually added this "POV" content where singer Arijit Singh which I suppose is his favourite was called "Greatest of All Time" and none of the sources attached were actually supporting that claim. So when the edit got reverted the user started damaging the Wikipedia pages of other artists. In fact the user started removing the edits which are supported by the sources which clearly mentions the statement or sentence added on those respective Wikipedia page. For a fact Every source or reference had a "quote" but the user is just being unprofessional. Please look into this. JabSaiyaan (talk)

    Notice posted on user's talk page: [56] JabSaiyaan (talk)

    Reply:- First of all the aforesaid user is not aware about Wikipedia works. No edit is permanent or is permanently approved by established user. This is an encyclopedia which will undergo constant evolution. He seems to be fan of Shreya Ghoshal which is why he is indulging in senseless edit war and is trying to retain puffery in the lead. Well I have removed only unsourced content and content which are backed by tabloids and weak sources. Reliable sources in Indian context is the Indian Express, The Hindu and Times of India. However the aforesaid user is citing non-reliable sources to justify puffery in the article of Shreya Ghoshal as he appears to be her fan. The user appears to dislike and have strong views against Arijit Singh he have added false information of him marrying and divorcing a women without provide reliable source. [57] This is quite dangerous for the said women's social dignity therefore I had to remove it. And the information about Singh's step children was disputed as it was not backed by multiple reliable sources therefore I considered it best to remove it. And it is a fact supported by reliable sources that Singh is considered currently India's top singer see [58] and Singh is the most streamed artist in Spotify for year 2023, kindly see [59] and even the internationally credible and reliable source like Forbes supports the statement [60] so it cannot be considered as POV pushing as credible RS exist for it. The aforesaid user removed that statement backed by Reliable sources, to which I have no problem as it can be seen in the edit history that I haven't indulged in edit war on Singh's page as I consider Wikipedia to be community driven encyclopedia and not my private property. My concern regarding Shreya Ghoshal is that it's status is of a 'Good Article', the persistent POV pushing by the aforesaid user without being backed by the reliable sources would lead to its eventual disqualification of 'Good Article' status. For instance in the 'Artistry' section in Ghoshal's article there is a line which says that 'Ghoshal is noted for wide vocal range's and the source provided is the Saregama website [61], which is not even a news media, it is a audio streaming website and the other source provided is [62], which is not RS. While removing the POV content I have explained in the edit history that the said content which also features in the lead of the article is not backed by reliable source, however the user User:JabSaiyaan kept on aggressively reverting the edits [63][64][65][66][67] since he appears to be diehard fan of Miss Ghoshal. In order to avoid edit warring, I discontinued editing the page and brought the matter here in good faith with a hope that the concerned administrators would preserve the articles 'GA' status. I would pray for administrative level protection over Shreya Ghoshal article in order to preserve its GA status. Thank you.


    Hineyo (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply:- How can you teach me how Wikipedia works when you removed content from Shreya Ghoshal's page by giving vague reasons like "Source do not talk about versatility or vocal range" when the sources clearly talks about that and it's quoted in reference and also sources are "possibly written by a fan" like are you saying fans are writing for The Recording Academy (Grammy's). The sources from publications like Times of India, The Indian Express and The Hindu are also their along with the several other sources supporting same things or statements but yet you removed the content. Now lets come to Arijit Singh, even Forbes article anywhere isn't calling him a "GOAT" so that just ain't supporting the claim, and him having Spotify streams also has no corelation with the claim, the Spotify thing is in fact already mentioned in the page. On the other hand when same Forbes clearly calls Shreya "prolific" and "popular" in their article you conveniently removed that content. You started damaging the Wikipedia pages of other artists which includes Ghoshal and Sonu Nigam when misleading content from Singh's page was removed that says it all. Also about his wife, I was about to revert it myself because when I was searching for source I found that was just a rumour. There's no need for playing moral card because you are now removing a lot of previously added well sourced content about Singh's personal information from his page which is again vandalism and disruptive editing. You could've discussed about it in the talk section if you actually knows how Wikipedia works. Thank you. JabSaiyaan (talk)

    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aoidh (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1220458230"