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:PadFoot2008 reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Decline)

Page: Kalash people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] (actually, reverted away from)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff first warning, diff second warning, User talk:PadFoot2008#Edit-warring in Kalash people.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Kalash people#"Ancient Hinduism"

Previously:

• Talk:History of Hinduism#"Ancient Hinduism"
• Talk:Maurya Empire#"Hinduism"

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

Comments:

Endless pov-pushing and edit-warring by this editor on multiple pages; see above. Check also their talkpage on the multiple threads on pov-pushing and edit-warring; this is habitual behaviour. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've self-reverted just in case, but I don't think I've broken WP:3RR. The first dif is neither a revert nor even a partial restore, I only added the term "ancient Hinduism" that had been changed alongside other changes, all without consensus or discussion. Check the reporting editor's edit history as well, the editor frequently indulges in undiscussed (mass) removals of "ancient Hinduism", and has engaged in long drawn out edit wars with other editors, clearly trying push POV. I don't think I have broken WP:3RR nor did I have any intention of breaking it. I am confused whether I've broken it on accident or not, and I have self-reverted just in case, but it would be kind if an admin shall let me know. Also, I've not (never) broken 3RR on any page, I know what 3RR is, and I do not intend to ever break it. PadFoot (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi PadFoot2008 and Joshua Jonathan, I think I haven't yet seen someone self-reverting in response to a self-revert ([2], [3]), and I'd say it's a good sign. I was also amused by the last section at [4].

You both demonstrably do know how to discuss, and there have already been conduct discussions such as [5].

In my opinion, there is no point in placing a short-term edit warring block or full page protection as it would be unlikely to change any disruptive behavior in your case. This is a long-term conflict between two experienced editors, and if other types of dispute resolution really fail, I personally see two ways out of such a conflict:

• disengaging from the other user and/or the topics voluntarily
• requiring community assistance in form of interaction or topic bans for disengaging involuntarily, usually after an ANI discussion

I'll have to decline this report, but there's one thing I can directly ask for: Please stop interpreting the edit warring policy as equivalent or limited to a "three-revert rule". If it helps, forget the 3RR and stop edit warring. Thanks for self-reverting, but please don't do it for the mostly-unnecessary, confusing bright-line rule. If you see someone disagreeing with your edit by reverting it, you should not respond to this by reverting the revert. At least not if you have a history of conflicts and the other user isn't an unregistered silent mobile app user who will never respond to your article talk page discussion invitations. So write one when it happens. See WP:DISCFAIL for the most helpful essay I have seen so far, explaining what you can do if the invitation is ignored. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I have left a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for responding; good to read that you were amused by the cup of tea. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

User:77.28.125.234 reported by User:NeoJade (Result: Page protected)

Page: Danela Arsovska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 77.28.125.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1242248744 by NeoJade (talk)"
2. 20:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1242248169 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
3. 20:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240353216 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC) "Note: Removal of content blanking (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No comments from the user to explain why their edits could be valid reason. Seemingly blanking a section because they don't agree with it. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 20:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Beshogur reported by User:Onoghuren (Result: Reporter blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments: Half of this user's edits have been reverts of unexplained, non-vandal edits. He reverted my edits, simply with 'rv' in summary, basically unexplained removals. This user has over 60,000 edits and behaves as though he is part of a Wikipedia mafia.

I tried to discuss this with him on his talk page, but he refused to engage. When I mentioned that I'd report him to the administration team, he reverted my edits again, saying 'rv, sure go on.'

Is this the behavior expected from autoconfirmed Wikipedians? I provided citations for the disputed Oghuric languages and added the Xiongnu language as a potentially disputed Oghuric language.

According to one theory, the Xiongnu language might have been Turkic. However, back then, Turkic was not yet split into Orkhon Turkic.

Proto-Turkic was an R/Turkic language, which is why I included it. This user could have discussed the details with me, but it seems he is confident that he will not face any consequences for his actions.

I'd like you to note that this person has been warned multiple times on his talk page about unexplained removals and eating the newcomers. His account also suspended many times before.

• I've blocked the reporter for 72h for edit-warring and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well done. This is not the first "new" user editing these kind of articles (Turkic related) claiming x mafia, etc. nonsenses. Beshogur (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Wikain reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Crankshaft

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

• Crank (mechanism)

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22][23][24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments:
Multiple unexplained reversions restoring WP:OR and WP:SYNTH while adding more original research in Spanish. Was explained in talk why it was original research. Response was that they will continue to restore because it was difficult to translate Spanish and the English source did in fact substantiate the claim. No substantiating quotation or translation have been provided as of this edit. They've restored again with page number spam as an addition. Their response to the 3RR warning doesn't seem to show they understand 3RR or how WP:VERIFY works. While the response seems cordial, their behavior described below seems rather vindictive and WP:HOUND.

Since I removed one of their additions (OR again) at Genocides in history (before World War I) ([27][28][29]), they have been reverting me at multiple pages they have had no prior history with while accusing me of vandalism and OR ([30][31][32][33]). The reasons provided by them for the restoration have no correlation to their prior deletion as pointed out by someone else.

The user also has a general history of poor editing behavior. Copyvios ([34][35]. A combination of shoddy citations (no page number), multiple citation spam [36], multiple citation formats, and incomplete citations that indicate copy pasting from other Wikipedia pages. Ex. using sfnp inline citations without adding the sources in the reference section [37] and multiple citations using multiple formats, some with page numbers while others do not [38]. This is not their first time with OR and SYNTH problems either ([39][40][41][42][43]). Qiushufang (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Some of their OR seems to arise from their views on WP:RGW history regarding race and genocide/colonialism by the Chinese: Muhammad was white[44] Genocide of Tocharians by the Chinese[45] Chinese colonialism[46] Taiwan colonization[47] Qiushufang (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Admins, sorry for this big text mess, I took 6 hours to do, it's very important for me as I love Wikipedia(and is faster than 6 hours to read), thank you for reading.

Extended material about content dispute by Wikain.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
===== Introduction --Qiushufang has a history of undoing my contributions, while claiming WP:OR or SYNTH. He also does this for other users and he's extremely prone to delete others' seemingly correct contributions, against wikipedia policy of adding is better than removing. Wiki says "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor". Note that our dynamic is that I add and Qiushufang undoes. There's some reversion by me against Qiushufang in the crank and crankshaft pages, but is a "reversion of a reversion" aka addition(-1 x -1 = +1), but maybe counts as reversion too, in any case deletion on his side is overwhelming. ===== He has broken against me several times the same 3 unedit rule he's accusing me of in my talk page: My talk page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Wikain --One: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=History_of_Taiwan&oldid=1209359844 https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=History_of_Taiwan&oldid=1209359540 https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=History_of_Taiwan&oldid=1209354673 --Two: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=History_of_Taiwan&oldid=1209359844 https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=History_of_Taiwan&oldid=1209359540 https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=History_of_Taiwan&oldid=1209354673 --Three: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=History_of_rockets&oldid=1208809591 https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=History_of_rockets&oldid=1209358473 --Four(current dispute): https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Crank_(mechanism)&action=history https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Crankshaft&action=history ===== Regarding copyright I have apologized and thanked mods every time I did it. The first time I was new and I didn't know I could not copy paragraphs(I've seen copied stuff on wiki a lot of times), I also tried rewording, restructuring and trimming the text but everything was still copyright violation, I understood and moved on. The second time I totally forgot about own-wording a phrase, it was an error for which I apologized and thanked again. I understand the importance of copyright and I apologize again now for both of them. It's noteworthy that I started copypasting from sources because I was scared Qiushufang would come after me claiming I was doing original research or SYNTH and deleting all the contributions, which are a pain to do, but which I gladly do to improve Wikipedia. ===== About the Genocides in history (before World War I) I redid because after many unedits by Qiushufang, I thought he was going after me. And while it's true the sources don't explicitly use the word genocide, it says they were massacred which led to their extinction. Since it's a big claim I guess the word genocide has to be present. Knowing this I gave up. I don't think an apology was necessary in this case, as is not the same big inconvenience that copyright violations is. I added back other of his undids because I thought he was deleting random contributions from other people as well, using the same WP:OR and SYNTH. ===== Qiushufang has posted a separate commentary where he implies I push narratives against Chinese people. Which I have to defend myself from. = About the Genocide of Tocharians by the Chinese, same issue as Genocides in history (before World War I), I talked about the Tang, not the Chinese and didn't even think of the Tang as Chinese, I was convinced they were one of the "barbarian" foreign dynasties that conquered China and neighbor peoples(Tocharians in this case), often with great losses for the natives, including the Chinese(and the Tocharians in this case). I was partially right, as I just read the Tang wiki article, says they were a dynasty of at least partial "barbarian" origin(Xianbei). = My edit of Taiwan's history was strongly motivated by the fact that's the only wiki page on a colonized place I know about, where there's no concern about the natives treatment by the (main) colonizers, or even mention of the (main) colonizers as such. It had nothing to do with me knowing about the Tang conquest of the Tocharian, which first I came to, drifting through the web(i.e. randomly) and Tocharians are mostly an unknown interesting fact about people who lived in "oasis cities" in the desert(a cool fact indeed). = Regarding knowledge about the white complexion of the Prophet, contained on the Hadith(repeated dozens of times). I always treated the Hadith as a primary source, such as: "the Hadith says this[source]...", I didn't edit as if it was a secondary source such as: "the Prophet had white complexion[source]". I tried to improve the edit, however it wasn't good enough and was deleted. The Hadith is very important and at first I could not believe it was being rejected, as the Hadith is very important and reliable for Muslims. I understand that wikipedia is not Muslim oriented and is religion neutral, that's the reason for the pictures of the Prophet(not offended by them), so when I was communicated that it was deleted for being a primary source, a wikipedia policy, I accepted and moved on(a bit confused I admit). ===== Let's now center on the main theme of this confrontation, the crank and crankshaft pages. Qiushufang claims in the edit summaries(copied and pasted in chronological order): In the crank page: 1.- remove SYNTH, none of the individual sources calls the described mechanism a crank 2.- none of the Spanish sources mention cranks at all, have no page number, and the English source mentions only the Hierapolis mill of a later date and its theoretical development up to that point 3.- none of the sources provided make any claim about cranks appearing in the (600 BC – 500 BC) era in Spain as has been explained multiple times and no supporting evidence in the form of a translation or quotation has been provided In the crankshaft page: 4.- none of these sources state individually (again) that mechanisms dating to this era were cranks - none of the Spanish sources mention cranks at all, have no page number, and the English source does not mention either the dating or the spread of cranks from Spain 5.- no contrary evidence in the form of a translated quotation or page number has been provided, as previously stated the English source does not state anything about Spain or the date and the Spanish sources do not say anything about cranks at all === Now I will address such concerns in order: == 1.- The Spanish source: "Moliendo en ibero, moliendo en griego»: aculturación y resistencia tecnológica en el Mediterráneo occidental durante la Edad del Hierro", here's the open pdf I used(I have no paywall access): https://accedacris.ulpgc.es/bitstream/10553/15002/1/0234500_00015_0002.pdf = --In this pdf, in Figure 1 C you can see a mill identical as the one which wikipedia itself calls a crank quern in both pages https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Crank_(mechanism)#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_135-BB-152-11,_Tibetexpedition,_Tibeter_mit_Handm%C3%BChle.jpg and https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Crankshaft#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_135-BB-152-11,_Tibetexpedition,_Tibeter_mit_Handm%C3%BChle.jpg In figure 1 D a mill with two cranks(a lever or "palanca") is shown. = --But it's not just pictures, in page 28 section 2.2.1 says summarized: the rotatory mill is made by 2 circular stones, the handle system with one or two upright handles. = --Spanish "mango" translates(and viceversa) to shaft or handle. It's noteworthy that when handles/shafts are used for rotation the word "mango" and its synonyms, are synonymous with "manivela" which itself translates to crank or handle depending on context(wordreference https://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=manivela). According to official Spanish language dictionary: https://dle.rae.es/manubrio "mango" and its synonyms are synonymous with "manivela" when rotation is involved(manivela is translated to crank/handle by wordreference). "Manivela", crank, is just a "mango",handle, used for rotation(as in the Spanish source). However "manivela" and "mango" are even listed as synonyms in Spanish regardless of rotation context: https://dle.rae.es/cogedero A proper translation isn't even needed as I will show in the following sections --These source also dates the mill to the 600-500 BCE == 2.- There was already a page range, however since he asked for more pages. When I detailed single pages, then Qiushufang accused me of "page number spam". = --About the English source: "A Relief of a Water-powered Stone Saw Mill on a Sarcophagus at Hierapolis and its Implications", Journal of Roman Archaeology" open here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283384268_A_relief_of_a_water-powered_stone_saw_mill_on_a_sarcophagus_at_Hierapolis_and_its_implications --In this point Qiushufang says: "the English source mentions only the Hierapolis mill", which is false as p 158 mentions the rotary mill, its origin in Spain, date(500 BCE) and spread Eastwards. == 3.- and 4.- The Spanish source mentions a rotary hand mill(a quern for wiki), human-powered by a crank/handle and depicts a device identical to the one shown in both wiki pages as a example of a crank. --The English source in p 159 says summarized: the handle of the rotary mill is the crank and the human arm the connecting rod. --The other English source Lucas 2005, p. 5, fn. 9 says something really similar about quern mills, summarized: A rotary quern is a crank. = --So every source names it individually and even if they didn't, worst case two sources say the mechanism described by the three sources, is a crank. 5.- Qiushufang asks for translations and quotes. I have never seen this thing done to validate citations in wikipedia(maybe I'm noob) and second, since both English sources are very clear for an excellent English reader and writer such as Qiushufang, I was convinced at this point that he wanted to fool me to put translations or quotes to accuse me of copyright violations and get me banned, which he has brought up here. === Important: Conclusion on WP:OR and the similar WP:SYNTH about crank and mills: --About WP:OR, "Wikipedia:These are not original research" says: "Not present in the cited source, but is present in other sources." Also says: "Content is only original research when no source in the entire world". Here I presented 2-3 redundant sources, about rotary mills being cranks, which reinforced each other even if a single source fails, due to poor translation for example, fully negating any WP:OR claims. --About the similar SYNTH, "Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not" says: "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition: SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." Note the plural sources, followed by: "Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition." Here we had 2-3 sources (plus both wiki pages) that say that a rotary mill(sources)/quern(wiki) is a crank, including depictions. Wiki also says: "SYNTH is not a rigid rule" and "SYNTH is not presumed", "SYNTH is not a secondary-school question"(a kid could tell the devices depicted and described are the same) and many more. Now I learned Wiki is rather restrictive about tagging SYNTH on others' contributions deletions. ===== Final thoughts ==== First I thought Qiushufang was after me because I was a noob making poor edits. However while expending so much time to write on this text, I realized something. Qiushufang deletions against me are all related to push the narrative China good/China first. He framed the Tocharian massacred by the Tang as a Chinese matter, the colonization of Taiwan as a Chinese matter too, instead of a native subject. However stronger proofs lay on other of his deletions against me: Archytas' "rocket bird" and the crank and crankshaft. === About Archytas: --I cited four sources https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=History_of_rockets&oldid=1208809591 none of which he liked. I had to find a NASA source, that said the same, to get the edit accepted by him. Since he left an informative message on my talk, which I appreciated as a newcomer(not thanked), I didn't think he was acting in bad faith. Why do I think now he deleted it at first?? Archytes' "rocket bird" was more than a interesting and fun anecdote for him, it meant non-Chinese "invented" the rocket first, as such he had to be more restrictive on such claims. Notice that he deleted earlier non-Chinese achievements while I didn't delete nor touch Chinese rocket achievements, so the anti-Chinese POV in which he tries to frame me doesn't hold. == About the crank and crankshaft pages: --I just realized that the picture of rotary mill / quern saying it's a crank in both pages, have the very SAME English citations I used to say a rotary mill (drawing included) was a crank. However he didn't remove the picture of the quern, despite having the exact same citations and the exact same supposed synthesis/original research. Why he didn't delete such pictures with WP:OR or SYNTH?? = --I know already, he throw WP:OR and SYNTH only at my edits, because the Spanish crank is earlier than the Chinese crank and that goes against his China first POV. Yes, Qiushufang is the one who added "The earliest hand-operated cranks appeared in China" in this edit: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Crankshaft&oldid=949699792 I haven't been able to find a similar phrase in previous edits. He's been acting knowing this all the time. Again I don't have an anti-China POV, I didn't remove anything relating to Chinese inventions, his framing is wrong, however he removed, again, non-Chinese achievements with an earlier claim. === If I have to add quotations or translations, let me know. I summarized to avoid possible copyright issues. Wikain (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Intellisighter reported by User:1995hoo (Result: Blocked as a sock)

Page: Captain (association football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Intellisighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This is a link to the version prior to this user's string of edits.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff 1, edit summary "soccer is irrelevant here as it's an association football article"
2. Diff 2 after diff 1 was reverted, edit summary "Unexplained change, use edit summary for future edits"
3. Diff 3 after diff 2 was reverted, edit summary "Unexplained change"
4. Diff 4 after diff 3 was reverted, edit summary "Unconstructive changes"
5. Diff 5 after diff 4 was reverted, edit summary "Unexplained change"
6. Diff 6 after diff 5 was reverted, this time no edit summary at all
7. Diff 7 after diff 6 was reverted, again no edit summary at all

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48] Here is the user's response: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50] (user failed to engage)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51] (Note that I didn't realize the template would post its own heading, so I edited my initial notice to removed the unneeded duplicative heading.)

Comments:
I have not reverted "Diff 7" seen above lest I violate 3RR myself. 1995hoo (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I blocked the account at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I saw that and I was about to delete the report here to save the admins the trouble, but you beat me to it. Have a nice day! 1995hoo (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)