Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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.

Feed-icon.svg 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.
  • 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:CROIX reported by User:Peter Ormond (Result: )[edit]

Page: Antigua and Barbuda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CROIX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff reverting this
  2. diff partially reverting this
  3. diff reverting this
  4. diff reverting this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2][3]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4] (my talk page)

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

Comments:
This user doesn't understand WP:BURDEN, and engages in WP:OR. I'm tired of explaining him the issue on my talk page, but he still doesn't understand. Also, he creates ridiculous redirects: GGAB, PMAB, FAWST .... Peter Ormond 💬 05:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We didn’t just resolve this? Also, the majority of those edits you mentioned were either me making the article look cleaner, considering you spammed citiation needed on every single language, even though all those languages had the same source. And one of those edits was accidental, and I immediately reverted it. And, some of those edits were made before we even spoke. CROIX (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources explicitly support your argument. This, I have told you so many times. You don't understand. I told you to read WP:BURDEN, but from edits it gives a view that you don't understand it. Anyone can read this thread, and see that you are parroting the same thing, and don't understand. You create ridiculous redirects, and if one challenges that with sources, then you say they are wrong. I told you to not cite those two sources at Antigua and Barbuda, as they didn't support the content, but you are happy to revert my edits again and again, without actually trying to improve the article and making it factually correct. You just don't understand and keep edit-warring and this prompted me to open this discussion here. Peter Ormond 💬 11:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually correct, they are languages recognized by the government. Once again, the Belize article and the Jamaica article do the exact same thing. CROIX (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CROIX: "It is factually correct" is not an exception to the three revert rule. You need to discuss the situation at the article's talk page and wait for consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. CROIX (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, I do not recall you saying that I should not use government sources, may I have a link to when you said that? CROIX (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I told you so many times that your sources don't explicilty support the content [5] [6] [7], and now you don't "recall" it. Peter Ormond 💬 13:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not what I said, what I said is that you never explicitly said I should not use government sources. Which are clearly more accurate. CROIX (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say to you to not use "government sources"? Peter Ormond 💬 04:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On your talk page. CROIX (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diff, please? Peter Ormond 💬 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[8] CROIX (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can be clearly seen that I commented on those particular sources that didn't support the content. I didn't say to not use government sources at all. You misquote, misrepresent, and are wasting everybody's time by WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you said those sources were not reliable. CROIX (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop wasting my time. If you don't understand the English language I can't help. If this isn't the case, read the earlier reply carefully and understand what is being said to you. Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to reach an agreement with you so we can end the argument? Did you not see it? CROIX (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ormond What do my redirects have to do with edit warring? I thought this was the place to report edit warring, not report that someone made some redirects. CROIX (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did report edit warring, which is the main issue. Also, I think other issues need to be highlightled too so that admins can see what to do with you. Peter Ormond 💬 04:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not see how my redirects broke any rules, because I did discuss them, and I never interrupted their process of reviewing them. CROIX (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Antigua and Barbuda's Governor-General referred to "GGAB", the Prime Minister as "PMAB", and the National anthem as "FAWST"? The answer is nowhere. Don't create nonsense on Wikipedia. Peter Ormond 💬 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Antiguan media regularly refers to the prime minister as PMAB, so with the governor-general GGAB. This is very prevalent on political campaign signs on the island. This is the same with FAWST. Do your research before coming to conclusion. CROIX (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did my research dear. I find no source on the web supporting your view. Repeatedly making WP:OR edits is disruptive. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How am I supposed to add a source to a redirect page? CROIX (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you source it at the redirect's target article? Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I do not see why you are bringing them up, when these issues are being resolved/already been resolved. CROIX (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because you don't understand Wikipedia policy. Your disruptive editing doesn't end. And I know it would not stop, if I hadn't opened this thread. Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How was I being disruptive? I did not disrupt the process when the redirects were being reviewed, if you can prove I was interrupting the process I would love to see the evidence. CROIX (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’m tired of continuing this argument, I’m on vacation, let’s make a deal that instead of adding a citation needed tag, we can add a better source needed tag. Also, I do not see how my redirects broke the rules, as I did discuss with the users involved, although I do not want to debate that. And finally, I’ll agree to remove the recognized languages as long as you are aware that there is no legislation that creates an official language + de jure capital city. CROIX (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are parroting the same thing. If there is "no legislation that creates an official language + de jure capital city", then high quality sources must be cited that explicity state that thing. If the soucres don't exist it is WP:OR. Also, nowhere it is written that legislation is must for establishing a capital city. No legislation makes London capital of UK. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the definition that is said here: [9] CROIX (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cannot be used as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a source, that's a definition. CROIX (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you make that definition? Peter Ormond 💬 10:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:LemonPie00 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked indef )[edit]

Page: Adrian Zenz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: LemonPie00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 12:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Optional method, not mandated by Wikipedia policy. You seem to be pushing your own agenda."
  2. 12:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "The author's own views and opinions were "challenged by several editors"? Stop trying to defend him. The article is supposed to keep an unbiased and neutral point of view, which the edit provides."
  3. 11:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Could you stop vandalizing the page?"
  4. 11:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Avoid bias. You don't get to paint only one side of the story whilst ignoring Adrian Zenz's homophobic views."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 12:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Adrian Zenz."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Note as well this [[10]] and their last edit summary, they are clearly not interested in obeying policy or in not edit waring. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note as well similar attitudes (and false accusations of vandalism) at other pages. Strong signs this is a wp:nothere account. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a lot of their edits seem to be whitewashing the CCP or other totalitarian regimes,[11] including genocide denial,[12] I'm inclined to agree that they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 13:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mausebru reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mausebru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19:16, 24 May 2022 and 19:17, 24 May 2022
  2. 21:27, 24 May 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  • Proof that the user was aware of discretionary sanctions on the article
  • My warning that they should not revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The article in question is under WP:1RR. Pahlevun (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. It looks to me like you both violated 1RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I made one edit and one revert. Pahlevun (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you think of this as your "edit", but it was a change to the map and a removal of the date of the conflict, which previously were in dispute. That is a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know i violated 1RR because I wanted to revert but Pahlevun reverted it back. So sorry for breaking 1RR, but Pahlevun, I have left a message in the Talkpage. I gave you sources Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 01:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pahlevun, I have put this in talk page. Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 10:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Result: Both User:Pahlevun and User:Mausebru are warned for violating WP:1RR on this article. You are both risking a block if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berry stark reported by User:Ab207 (Result: blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page: Prashanth Neel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Previous editor changing details about living person called Prashanth neel, Prashanth neel's father was working as a bus driver & migrant in Andra Pradesh editor seems to be telugu person claiming after the success of a KGF chapter 2 movie . Haven't seen when editing after KGF chapter 1 release."
  2. 15:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Some people tried to malign the information of living person called Prashant Neel, Giving wrong information about family, Caste I fixed it with reference please consider my edit."
  3. 13:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Added a language"
  4. 11:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "He is not telugu, He is from ediga community which can be found in Karnataka. He was born in Andra Pradesh's Neelakantapuram but raised in Bengaluru."
  5. 11:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "He is from ediga community ( Kannada caste ) he just revealed has special connection with Andra Pradesh he born in Neelakantapuram but raised in Bengaluru."
  6. 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Prashanth neel is from ediga community there is no source that he is reddy"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 16:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 16:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Ethnicity */ new section"

Comments:

The new users is edit warring over the ethnicity of a WP:BLP subject. Removing reliably sourced content and adding WP:SPS sites to support their changes Ab207 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Continues to edit war despite stronger EW notice by other editors
  1. 05:01, 26 May 2022 "Bot spotted : Fixed the content"
  2. 04:50, 26 May 2022 "Warning: This editor is giving wrong information. Bot content"
  3. 17:57, 27 May 2022 "In telugu article there is no full name mentioned. Just mentioned Subhash."

Indistiguishable from vandalism and personal attack at this point. If same user is editing as an IPv6, the disruption is worse and might need a page protection as well -- Ab207 (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Jayron32 12:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wildhorse3 reported by User:Abhishek0831996 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Awan (tribe) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wildhorse3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 20:19, 24 May 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ 11,547 bytes +226‎ rv
  2. 15:54, 25 May 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ 11,547 bytes +226‎ Reverted 1 edit by Abhishek0831996 (talk): Rv
  3. 22:20, 25 May 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ m 11,547 bytes +226‎ Reverted 1 edit by Orientls (talk) to last revision by Wildhorse3
  4. 08:20, 26 May 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ 11,547 bytes +226‎ Reverted 1 edit by 122.170.45.88 (talk): Reverting vandalism
  5. 12:26, 26 May 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ 11,546 bytes +195‎ reverting vandalism, restoring stable version, discussion: User_talk:Wildhorse3#Awan

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

Comments:
The last 4 reverts came under 21 hours. He has made 0 attempts to discuss any of his edits, despite consensus against his edits on the talk page.

You can also see how he is falsely labeling the edits as 'vandalism' even after being warned. He is confident that whatever he is reverting is actually vandalism per User_talk:Wildhorse3#Awan

Since this editor is a SPA, largely dedicated to promoting "Awan" tribe, I think an indefinite page block or topic ban from this topic would be more effective because of his falsification of sources, WP:CIR, edit warring and inability to gain consensus. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Wildhorse3's claims that they are reverting vandalism are quite unjustified. They also continued to revert while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:151.197.236.78 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Partial block)[edit]

Page: Free people of color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 151.197.236.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "gente de color libre) are people of mixed .I change were to are Because original people of color still exist . do you think all first nation people no longer exist too?"
  2. 16:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC) ""
  3. 15:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "please change your post to are people o f color i am a free person of clolor i still exist and so does my culture please leave it as are not were"
  4. 10:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 16:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Free people of color."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

IP continues to edit war to change the tense in the section about slavery (in the past) to being current and refuses to actually engage in discussion on their talk page PRAXIDICAE💕 16:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • And now they've continued for a 5th time. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Partial block only so that they can continue to make their case on the talk page, though a quick review of discussion there makes me think they don't likely have the language skills to effectively communicate their case. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:BryanAJones reported by User:PAVLOV (Result: Partial block)[edit]

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 18:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"
  2. 18:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"
  3. 07:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 18:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on RTFM."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 07:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC) on User talk:BryanAJones ""

Comments:

Edit war against different users after discussion PAVLOV (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Note that this is only a partial block. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newimpartial reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [long history, not sure where to link, but the reverts are all simple]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  5. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Same-sex_marriage#Gender

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

Comments:
There is an ongoing discussion on the article talk page over the appropriate definition of 'same-sex marriage', which occurs in the lead of the article, and whether that definition is compatible with how the term is used in our various sources. The debate includes whether the words 'legal' and 'gender' belong in the definition.

Recently, I noticed two sources had been added for the definition, and wondered if they might shed some light on the issue. However, neither was a source for the definition. I therefor removed them and added a 'citation needed' tag.

User Newimpartial replaced the tag with a better source. However, that source doesn't fully support the wording of the definition as Newimpartial wants it. I tried both changing the definition to conform to the source, and marking it as 'failed verification', but Newimpartial has reverted me each time, claiming they're "pointy" edits, and that it doesn't matter if the definition doesn't match the source even though it's the point of the ongoing discussion. They also claim I'm the only one who has a problem with it, though others have brought up some of these problems on the talk page and Newimpartial has responded to them. It wouldn't matter even if I were the only one, as failing verification is failing verification, and if they can't correct that themself they should at least leave the tag until the issue can be resolved. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No violation. Newimpartial has reverted only twice in the last 24 hours. I strongly urge an RFC on the definition.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23, while that is true, I do think both editors have displayed edit-warring behaviour so I'd recommend a formal warning. The reverts/interactions between the two editors have extended throughout the week, and I don't think they should be cut slack thanks to gaming the 3RR limit. I do agree RFC is the best way to actually resolve the conflict, tho. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Bbb23, Newimpartial did in fact do three reverts (May 22-23) in 24 hours although this diff is not a revert through the undo button but a manual one. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't come here for a 3RR violation, but because I was following the instructions on the main ANI page. I went there to file my complaint, and it said that if the issue involved edit-warring, I should file it here instead. So I did. There's nothing in the ANI instructions about needing to be a 3RR violation to file here. If I should've filed there, please let me know for next time.
    My issue isn't about gaming 3RR (I don't know that either of us were doing that), but that tags should remain in place until the issue is resolved, unless there is consensus that the tag is not needed. They shouldn't be removed just because the other editor doesn't like them, no matter what the dispute. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the issues of this filing (especially the WP:BOOMERANG question) might be better addressed at ANI: in particular, Kwamikagami's on-against-many templating crusade - including their placing templates against text that they added to the lead themselves and that they repeatedly supported on Talk - could be addressed there as a WP:POINT issue, though it is out of scope here. Newimpartial (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, there is no WP:POINT issue. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how else to describe the repeated insertion of an fv tag against text that was originally added by the same editor placing the tag, text which that editor has also repeatedly supported on Talk, other than WP:POINT (making edits with which they do not actually agree to score a point). What else would you call it? Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You added a source that did not support the wording. It doesn't matter if it's my wording: sources need to support the claims they're used for. If a source does not support the claim, then it fails verification. I'm puzzled that you still don't understand this. — kwami (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't actually what happened, though. You changed "sex" to "legal sex". Later, I changed "sex" to "sex and gender". This was questioned, and eventually I added the current source. In parallel to this, I asked you on Talk whether changing "sex" to "legal sex" - as you had previously done - would help with your concerns. You were generally supportive, which is why the resultant text read "legal sex and gender". You have never objected on Talk to "legal sex" but only to "and gender", which is why the source I added addressed only "and gender".
    Let me ask you clearly: what claim is it that you say has "failed verification"? Is it the statement that same-sex marriage is based on "legal sex"? That is amply supported in the body of the article, and your adding it to the lead was compliant with LEADFOLLOWSBODY. If that claim meets WP:V, though (as it does), what is it that supposedly fails verification? You have previously objected to the mention of gender in the lead (even though that was long-term stable content), but that is now given an explicit LEADCITE. So I still don't understand what your good-faith objection might possibly be. Newimpartial (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kwamikagami Newimpartial this noticeboard is not the place to relitigate the subject of the edit war. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kwamikagami and Newimpartial: I suggest you take this to ANI as the main issue here is the removal/addition of the fv tag. M.Bitton (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another editor removed the unsupported wording as having failed verification, and Newimpartial hasn't reverted them. If that continues, then I have no reason to take this to ANI. Perhaps we can instead work on making the article reliable and consistent.
    Another editor is pushing a definition diametrically opposed to Newimpartial's (biological sex and gender identity rather than legal sex and legal gender), so there will certainly be more work to do. — kwami (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This last claim, like may of Kwamikagami's assertions about the article in question, is unsupported by evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's at the start of the very thread we're arguing in! Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You used the present tense but the discussion you were referring to took place several weeks ago. So your statement that there will certainly be more work to do doesn't seem to me to be supported by any relevant evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexispapp reported by User:Taxin609 (Result: Blocked one week)[edit]

Page: National Creation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 23:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) to 23:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    1. 23:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) ""
    2. 23:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC) ""
    3. 23:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 23:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.3)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 23:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Please Reach Consensus. */ new section"

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:WatanWatan2020 reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Herat (1793–1863) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WatanWatan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [27]
  2. [28]
  3. [29]
  4. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

Comments:

I have submitted a report because this user is constantly edit warring on the page, he takes to the talk page but continues to edit war on the page after and doesn’t provide any reliable sources to his claims usually either. I am reporting this user as he reverted Kailan’s edits, and mine, and another editor which told him to stop. A total of 3 editors told him to stop to which he ignored and continued edit warring, you can view for yourself on the page. Noorullah21 (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User Noorullah21 and Kalian are engaged in POV Pan Iranian pushing on such article. The sources provided do not show that Persian was the official language of the Afghan dyansty. Furthermore, and to add context to this matter, Afghan Empires, dynasties, and principalities had Pashto as their main language, since they were Pashtuns and had wanted to establish Pashtun dominance over their conquered lands. It is preposterous that such users who are engaging in POV pushing will try and conceal that. Along with this, they Use Iranian sources to try and make their case, but even then those sources do not indicate Persian was the official language of the principality. That is why the user Kalian tried to change the language from main to ‘common languages’ and then added Pashto to try and sweep the matter under the rug. Noorullah21 did not even contribute to the discussion that is ongoing still. His disruption is uncalled for and is taking sides when the matter is not finished from discussion either. Please check those sources they are pushing. It does not even go in line with their theories. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming it is a discussion when you are edit warring on the page rather then continuing to discuss? Noorullah21 (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are also not POV pushing, we provided multiple sources, some on the talk page, and even some were provided in the undo category for the revert, to which you simply replied saying to give a source that backed up our claims when we already gave you one, the person who reviews this incident can see the whole string of events and the talk page in general for context. Noorullah21 (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the last person to leave commentary on the discussion? Was it not me? And did YOU yourself ever contribute to that discussion? Of course you did not because it shows who made comments on that discussion. The sources inputted never indicated Persian was the official language of Herat principality, even when it was Iranian sources being used, which of course is not neutral and impartial either. The very “sources” you keep mentioning is actually working against your case. Because if anyone investigates it, they will find that the POV you have is not even back by those sources. It is high time that Pan Iranian POV is checked on articles. Improper sources are used to peddle narratives not only on Afghan Articles, but Turkish and Arab articles as well. This is becoming a major problem and is a major problem because such activity is left unchecked. The moment there is pushback against such POV, such individuals are quick to run to the admin boards. I hope that the Admin board and relevant individuals actually start investigating such POV pushing that is being pushed into such mass number of articles. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did contribute to the discussion, but you continue to ignore that, despite this, you go ahead and disregard Iranica as an unreliable Pan Iranian POV source, which is just blatantly being ignorant. The sources did show that not only were Persian speakers the majority in Herat, it is actually clear that they were even linguistically the most speaking out of the territory Herat held at the time, as stated on the talk page, but I am going to let an Administrator resolve this now rather then continue here, we can continue on the talk page. Noorullah21 (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not contribute to the discussuon per the time you first originally launched this dispute here.

I am also asking the notice board to take action against Noorullah21 at this point for stalking my edits and implementing wrong information. The stalking alone of my edits is uncalled for, besides continously POV pushing Pan iranian views on articles Please check the “Ghadir Khumm” “Jawad” “Eid Al Ghadir” and many more articles where he is stalking and undoing edits there. This is getting out of hand. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking action to your Vandalism done as agreed by multiple editors to your disruptive editing, there is currently an arbitration/incident against you, and I went on to remove your POV pushing as a result because it is vandalism it is right here [34]

"Their talk page is littered with warnings and block notices. Such edits therefore shouldn't come as a surprise." In fact, WatanWatan2020 is simultaneously at AN3 at this very moment over what appears to be an ethno-nationalist edit war regarding the official language(s) of Herat (1793–1863), coincidentally also defying the consensus of at least three other contributors.”

Noorullah21 (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • While the merits of the content dispute are likely fairly opaque to non-specialists, what is clear from the revision history is that WatanWatan2020 is aggressively edit warring against the tentative consensus of at least three other users—namely Kailanmapper, Qahramani44, and Noorullah21—and has already racked up an impressive record of ethno-nationalist disruption for a relatively new account (registered in 2020, hence the name) across a wide range of articles. Notably, WatanWatan2020 was blocked 24 hours for edit warring last October, his "talk page is littered with warnings and block notices" in the words of LouisAragon, and he is currently at AE for possible misconduct in the India–Pakistan–Afghanistan topic area. Furthermore, among his many reverts at Herat (1793–1863) WatanWatan2020 committed a bright-line violation of the 3RR ([35], [36], [37]).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both of these editors seem to are making inappropriate use of the accusation of vandalism against each other, alongside other charges. WP:VD has a WP-specific meaning that does not extend to good faith, but ultimately disruptive squabbling between disagreeing editors. This flippancy with language and accusations needs to be reined in by both. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: )[edit]

Page: 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and 2022 Sri Lankan protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC) to 17:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    1. 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089947806 by UtoD (talk) reliable sources to show that view"
    2. 17:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC) "https://isdp.eu/sri-lankan-crisis-between-debt-trap-and-strategic-trap-the-chinese-stake/"
  2. 12:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089885004 by UtoD (talk) there is two viewpoints on this https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/10/sri-lanka-appeals-to-china-to-ease-debt-burden-amid-economic-crisis"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 21:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC) to 21:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    1. 21:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089710003 by UtoD (talk)"
    2. 21:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089709968 by UtoD (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 14:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2022 Sri Lankan protests."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 15:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC) on User talk:FobTown "/* May 2022 */"

Comments:

User continuously attempts to add content involving China forcefully to pages 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis and 2022 Sri Lankan protests by continuous reverting rather than address the issues in the content. While 3RR is largely avoided in a single page the user engages in more drawn out edit warring and battleground behaviour in both pages simultaneously by continuing to revert to add the same content. - UtoD. 17:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there are reliable sources suggesting that it is a "China debt trap" [38][39][40][41], UtoD has labeled such content as misinformation and removed it. FobTown (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First you have added that "Hambantota port that ending up got leased to a Chinese company for 99 years after the loan could not be repaid." to both pages which I clearly showed as misinformation in your talk page yet you continued to revert and try to forcefully keep the same content in. Also in the 2022 Protest page I made it clear you are exceeding the scope and giving undue weight for a single country. The debt is already shown, adding another entire para around the same size as the para on summary on debt issues as a whole, exclusively about China is a clear example of undue weight. That page is about protests, not an analysis of debt by specific countries and again the same issue of adding misinformation about the port lease. WP:ONUS on addressing the issues is on you. Claiming sources exist thus it must be added is not satisfactory. Your only action is to use reverts to force through rather that actually address any of the issues. -UtoD 17:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the Guardian: [42] “The president pointed out that it would be a great relief if debt payments could be rescheduled in view of the economic crisis following the pandemic,”. China accounted for about 10% of Sri Lanka’s $35bn foreign debt to April 2021, government data shows. Officials said China’s total lending could be much higher when taking into account loans to state-owned enterprises and the central bank. Sri Lanka has borrowed heavily from China for infrastructure, some of which ended up as white elephants. Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for a port construction in southern Sri Lanka, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017.
How the "China debt trap" led to the current economic crisis and protests, therefore a mention of China is warranted in the protest article (the debt owed to Japan hasn't generated as much discussion as the debt owed to China). [43]: The Hambantota project followed on from that – but it hasn’t ended well. In 2017, the port was leased to Beijing on a 99-year debt-for-equity swap, after Sri Lanka failed to pay off the loan. Critics say Mahinda caused Sri Lanka to fall into the “Chinese debt trap”.
I'm okay with keeping the existing Lowry Institute argument that it isn't a "China debt trap", but that is not the only view. Here is commentary that debunks the argument that it isn't a "China debt trap"[44]: Calculating the volume of loans provided by other foreign nations and sovereign bonds/private commercial loans vis-a-vis that from China is an oft quoted argument to dismiss the theory of debt-trap diplomacy; however, it does not dismiss China’s strategic-trap diplomacy. FobTown (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are just trying justifying edit warring and forcefully pushing edits while ignoring any issues with the content. The only thing you are showing is how just because you have sources doesn't mean it should be added, for example all of your sources refer to the debt-to-equity swap which is the initial proposal which was not what was carried out. This is why I gave you the Chatham House report which clarify they CMPort thus only leased the port, not taking formal ownership, and Sri Lanka did not receive debt relief as part of the agreement. CMPort’s investment was used to stabilize foreign reserves and service non-Chinese debt. [1] So no it was not leased to because paying the Port's loan is hard but because there were other debt issues unrelated to the port. In fact they never stopped paying the loan for the port. There are many Sri Lankan sources on the issue for example according to Sunday Times Under the Concession Agreement for Hambantota port, CMPort agreed to buy 85 percent of the shares of Hambantota International Port Group Company Ltd (HIPG) for a consideration of about US$ 974 milion. HIPG then acquired 58% of the total issued share capital of a second company called Hambantota International Port Services Company Ltd (HIPS). [2] and here is the state-owned Daily News with the governor of the Sri Lankan Central Bank stating that the money from lease was used to shore up reserves as it was dealing with other debt obligations relating to sovereign bonds. Per WP:ONUS its is your burden to address these issues before adding them. While I mentioned it before you refused to and continue to avoid addressing these issues and instead continue to simply try to revert your way through. -UtoD 19:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the article Debt-trap diplomacy which includes arguments for and against. You are free to cite state-owned sources for your arguments, but I have reliable sources that meet the burden arguing that it is a debt trap.[45][46][47][48] FobTown (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FobTown: Why have you not discussed these sources on the article's talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:StN reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: Blocked one week)[edit]

Page: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 18:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Resumption of edit-warring (technically not a 3RR violation, but this is still obvious disruptive editing) within twenty-four hours of end of a previous block for, you've guessed it, edit-warring; on the very same page. Courtesy ping blocking admin @Bbb23: RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to another Wikipedia article directly relevant to the one I was editing is "edit-warring"? I don't think so. StN (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link which is already included (in the very next sentence) in an attempt to bring further attention to one's preferred point of view is disruptive, particularly when debate on the talk page has been pretty much against said stance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1090206591"