Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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.

User:Gitz6666 reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: No violation; appropriate sanctions should be discussed at AN/I)[edit]

Page: War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gitz6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 23:39, 6 August 2022 - this is a revert to nearly the same version included by this user earlier [2]
  2. 00:01, 7 August 2022
  3. 00:42, 7 August 2022 (this is a revert of removal made in this edit: [3])
  4. 01:28, 7 August 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

This user made 4 reverts during 3 hours.

I did ask Gitz6666 to self-revert and use dispute resolution 00:20, 7 August 2022, but they continued reverts (diffs above).

This is especially concerning because they edit war over including the same content earlier: 15:39, 30 July 2022, 10:51, 29 July 2022 ,19:22, 12 July 2022. They edit war about other content on the same page. For example,

  1. [7], [8], [9], [10]
  2. [11],[12],[13],[14],[15]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I doubt the first diff, 23:39, 6 August 2022, is actually a revert. MVBW says nearly the same version included by this user earlier and shares a link to 15:39, 30 July 2022. "Nearly" is the key word. From 30 July to 6 August six editors discussed on how to report the incident in Stara Krasnianka (where 60 elderly people had died) in a thread I opened at 20:30, 30 July 2022. Four editors agreed on a modified version in order to address MVBW's concerns as expressed when they first removed the section at 00:42, 30 July 2022. The new version was presented at 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC), no editor objected for three days and I then published a substantially new text following a discussion that had apparently delivered a consensus. Is this a "revert"?
  2. The second diff is indeed a revert. In the edit summary I explain the process that led to the first diff.
  3. The third and forth diffs should be seen as two consecutive edits. The reason why I used two edits instead of one is that I noticed that MVBW (and not Volunteer Marek, as I erroneously wrote in my edit summary) had removed some contents reported by Washington Post without accounting for them in the edit summary. Please note my edit summary: Why did you just remove User:Volunteer Marek contents supported by the WoPo that have been in this article since ever? And with a misleading edit summary? The edit with the misleading/incomplete edit summary is this one by MVBW: 23:53, 6 August 2022, where the removal of WaPo (which is not related to Stara Krasnianka) was not explained nor accounted for. Therefore the third and fourth diffs should be considered as one single revert of that "clumsy" removal by MVBW: distinguishing between two different texts (Stara Krasnianka and WaPo) instead of putting different things into one single "basket" is a good editorial practice.
  4. One final note about "style", so to say, or perhaps Wikiquette. When in the recent past MVBW repeatedly violated the 3RR rule on that article, I wrote to them in their talk page and asked them to revert either in a polite and friendly way [16] or in a harsher way [17]. I did the same a few days ago with another user who is also involved in the dispute about Stara Krasnianka: 07:50, 30 July 2022. I see that MVBW behaves differently. Note, finally, that the "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" posted by MVBW was made by another editor, with regard to a different dispute, on 23 June 2022, and that the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" posted by MVBW is to the discussion I opened on 30 July, which delivered an apparent consensus on 3 August and to which MVBW did not contribute from 3 August until yesterday. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First diff is clearly a revert (same title, same link, same text in 2 diffs provided: "On 7 March the Ukrainian armed forces reportedly occupied..." versus "On 7 March the Ukrainian armed forces reportedly occupied..."). No, two last diffs are non-sequential edits. Gitz6666 tells about his edit made per "an apparent consensus". No, there was no consensus. And no, I respect 3RR rule on this and other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First diff is clearly a revert. No, we had a discussion after you had removed the text at the end of July; you gave your arguments, four editors told you that they had different views, a mediation was proposed by a fellow editor, the proposed text was modified accordingly by adding a new sentence; you had three days for replying in the t/p, which you didn't. Publishing that text is not a "revert" of your removal, it is collaborative editing.
No, two last diffs are non-sequential edits You had removed two unrelated texts (Stara Krasnianka + WoPo on Ukrainian warfare) with the same edit without giving any reason and without mentioning it in the edit summary. Am I wrong? Conf. my edit at 23:39, 6 August 2022 (adding Stara Krasnianka after a broad discussion in the t/p) and MVBW's removal at 23:53, 6 August 2022 (removing Stara Krasnianka + WaPo). When I noticed this, I immediately restored WaPo at 00:42, 7 August 2022 and, after 46 minutes, I restored Stara Krasnianka 01:28, 7 August 2022. In the meantime I left a message on the talk explaining why I was restoring Stara Krasniaka for the second time, as Volunteer Marek's edit summary was clearly wrong: 01:24, 7 August 2022. Separating your and Volunteer Marek's all-encompassing removals (Stara Krasnianka + WaPo) into two distinct edits was the right thing to do and counts as one single revert - in fact, I reverted this edit 00:28, 7 August 2022. So yesterday I made two reverts overall, and you reported me without any 3RR warning. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"without any 3RR warning" - are you saying you were not aware of 3RR rule? I already advised you what needs to be done here on article talk page [18], and it is not too late to follow this advice, i.e. self-revert. Arguing that revert was not a revert (when it was) is not really a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: The 3RR warning linked isn't about this incident, but from the 23 of June. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I left a 3RR warning on Gitz6666's page here. Overall Gitz6666's behavior both on the article and on the talk page has been quite tendentious and disturbing. In addition to the incessant edit warring, there's a huge WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem where Gitz6666 just ignores other users' objections and proceeds to try and implement "their version" via reverting. Worse, in some cases to justify inclusion of disputed text they resort to misrepresenting and even outright ... telling untruth, about what's in sources. This talk page comment is an example - when asked for sources which would support the notion that Ukrainian forces have committed a war crime by stationing troops in a nursing home, Gitz6666 provides sources... which state that Russians have potentially committed a war crime by bombing the nursing home. But the way they present these sources (in this case WaPo and TheTimes) seems to purposefully obscure that fact and Gitz6666s comment suggests the OPPOSITE of what the sources say. Honestly, this has gone long enough. Topic ban time. Volunteer Marek 18:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Result: [User:Gitz6666]] has been warned by User:Daniel Case. Struck out my prior comment in the light of Daniel's follow-up. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That was never intended to indicate that I warned him. VM did, as he said above.

    I do agree that something beyond the scope of this board must be discussed. Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Daniel Case, sorry, my comment above was meant only to indicate that Gitz6666 has been given prior warnings for edit warring including in this instance. It was not meant as a resolution of this request. Volunteer Marek 04:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: I have undone the closure ... sorry about that.

As for what I should be, I think, especially given your suggestion for a topic ban, see below.

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation It's beyond clear that Gitz's editing has much to be desired. But there are only two edits to the article in the last couple of days, both of which, yes, are reverts, but that's not a violation of policy. Given other evidence presented of user's tendentiousness, I strongly suggest this discussion be removed to AN/I where a discussion of more appropriate remedies, such as the topic ban mentioned, are more appropriate. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if I'm allowed to reply to the closer's comment here - if not, please revert. I agree with the closer that the situation at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (and perhaps elsewhere in the EE area) requires community discussion and a thorough review by admins. I have tried to provoke such discussion and review by opening a discussion at AN/I about VM [19] and by filing a complaint at AE against MVBW [20]; also MVBW recently filed a request at AE against me [21]. Perhaps as a consequence of these disputes, a couple more experienced editors have joined the discussions on the talk page and have started editing there, and I hope that their contributions will help containing VM's and MVBW's POV-pushing. Their tendentiousness is both blatant (MVBW publishes racist slurs about slavish obedience and cruelty in his talk page) and relentless (both editors were involved in WP:EEML under the usernames "Radeksz" and "Biophys" respectively), but it can be appreciated only by someone who has some familiarity with the discussions going on "War crimes in Ukraine": in an area as controversial as that, well-intended but hasty judgments by uninformed editors could be damaging and should be avoided as far as possible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I understand what happened, MVBW removed the(mistaken) 3RR warning, which VM left on my talk page a few minutes before MVBW filed this request [22]. Does this make any sense? I don't understand that point of removing from my talk VM's warning. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think four diffs above represented very obvious reverts, but I am not going to bring any further complaints about Gitz6666 as someone too involved. If behavior by a user is clearly problematic, I believe the community can handle it. As a side note, Obedience (human behavior) and Cruelty are legitimate subjects for discussion and improvement on WP pages, and they are obviously related to human culture. My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As a side note to your side note, I suggest you take a look at Cultural racism and at Racism#Cultural. If someone here were to start speculating about "Mediterranean laziness and corruption" or about "Anglo-Saxon arrogance and pettiness", I doubt that would be conductive to collaborative editing. That is such stuff as wars are made on. Your anti-Russian sentiment is so strong that it should prevent you from editing in any area related to Russia, as you yourself once almost admitted [23]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Neplota reported by User:Arorae (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28] and [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

Comments: I think it is the very first time I am reporting an editwarring so I am not very familiar with diff and reporting but I do really tried to friendly solve the conflict explaining to the other User that he cannot undo without any prior discussion, but he undid and then he (finally) open the discussion on Kiribati talk page after 3R. This user has made 3 plus reverts on Kiribati in less than 24 hours and refuses to engage constructively with other users despite being warned (but on diff comments). I even started a discussion on his talk page which he has not engaged with. I note he has also being engaging in similar behaviour on other pages. Please can someone intervene? thanks.

--Arorae (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arorae: You are required to notify the user of this report (see top of this page). Please do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will now. Done. Arorae (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The OP has been very disrespectful towards me claiming that I should be blocked instead of having a productive discussion. He/She claims that I merged the figures for KUC with KPC when in reality I didn't do it. I have raised a genuine concern that mentioning so many denominations with following accounting for less than 10% of the population has burdened the info box. They also claim that I have broken the 3 revert rule but I haven't. Regards Neplota (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just pointing out the OP has left false edit warring templates on my talk page as well. I don't think they understand the meaning of edit warring. Also pointing out this user reverted Neplota's edits 5 times in the last few days without any inclination of discussion. That is edit warring imo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just pointing out also that Sportsfan 1234 had left many false edit warring templates on my own talk page after his own repetive undoing of many of my edits. His comment just here seems like a sort of revenge.--Arorae (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neplota: says that « the OP has been very disrespectful» : here are the comments I wrote directly on his talk page before any kind of warning ⚠️ : « Religion in Kiribati
Hi. you have recently modified Kiribati by adding info that wasn’t exactly the same of the 2020 Census (files published June 2022), so I have reverted it and stated exactly what is written in the source. sorry for that and thanks again. Arorae (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You cannot merge because it is too long (for you?) in Infobox, by adding potatoes and carrots together.--Arorae (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC) »Reply[reply]
nothing disrespectful at all. Arorae (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Eastonio Thomasito reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked indefinitely)[edit]

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC) "There is a consensus. That is the dictionary definition. I dont understand why this tiny edit is being reverted"
  3. 19:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC) "in the United States as well, it has ALWAYS been defined as two quarters of negative GDP growth. There is no changing that. that is the dictionary definition of a recession in the United States of America"
  4. 19:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Recession."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 19:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC) "/* OECD definition of recession */"
Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely by User:Guerillero. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps not my place, but I don't understand how a user can get an indefinite block after just one violation of their first warning. (Just one minute before, perfectly reasonable that they didn't see it), and with an attempt to resolve the dispute after their last edit. AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm guessing because there were multiple other issues... PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were, but no prior warning was given before, and I don't think there was malice behind to warrant an indefinite block. AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Bythere reported by User:Quorra Rinzler (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bythere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bythere has several times reverted my version of the article on Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This new text is based on a version that was published in ru-Wiki two weeks ago. As seen from its edit history, some typos were fixed and some stylistic corrections were made, but in general, there was no hard criticism. And that's in Ru-Wiki, where battles over war-related articles are the hottest! As most sources were in English, I've decided to make a translation for en-Wiki. Unfortunately, user Bythere considers this text to be of 'unacceptably poor' quality. His revisions were twice undone by @JoaquimCebuano:, however, with no success. I do agree that I'm no native speaker and my grammar can be poor, but how can one deny the quality of official sources and respectable publications I've cited? Where's the bias he talks about? I'm in Wiki for more than 10 years and I know how to write, it's just I can't reveal my main account because the editors from Belarus and Russia are officially hunted by law enforcement since February 24. In the meantime, no contribution has been done by Bythere. That is why I ask my colleagues to help me with this issue. His repetitive revisions do not improve the quality of the article and in no way help to improve it. Thank you all in advance. --Quorra Rinzler (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Report was malformed, but 3RR was clearly violated and user was warned. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Daniel Case, this was a case of forum shopping after I had declined an AIV report and warned everyone involved for edit warring. I'm dissatisfied to see that Quorra Rinzler is now even, in bold formatting, using the block as an argument on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just gave context for all those who will join the discussion. Quorra Rinzler (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quorra Rinzler, you have provided an irrelevant argument that has nothing to do with the article's content. Please remove it from your comment, just as I had removed unnecessarily personal content from the original message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've edited, but I still think you're being too soft on the "newbie" editor with this pattern of behavior as Bythere demonstrate. Quorra Rinzler (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forum shopping or not (and yes, I see this happen here and at AIV too), there was a clear violation. 3RR IMO leaves less room for judgement calls. It needs to be seen as strictly enforced. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Cosmoid reported by User:HappyMcSlappy (Result: Partial block)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. An identical revert from August 5th
  2. Today
  3. Today
  4. Today
  5. Today
  6. Today
  7. Today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on talk page, also warned by Dumuzid.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33] Section was opened by jps on the 6th, Cosmoid did not post to it until around the time of their first threat to edit war over this (see below).

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34]


The user has repeatedly stated their intention to continue edit warring, here, here and here. Happy (Slap me) 14:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition: Two more reverts in the time between me noticing the 4th and finishing this report. Happy (Slap me) 14:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indef partial block from Kevin Knuth. Despite having less than 200 edits, this is not Cosmoid's first block for edit warring. A site-wide block may be necessary if they are not able to adapt and adhere to our policies and guidelines regarding content disputes and collaboration.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha ha ha! Firstly, I did not start the 'edit war' - in fact, if you bothered to review the logs, you'd see that I was the person repeatedly asking that this did not occur. The tag was repeatedly replaced after I had removed it, having stated explicitly why the tag was inaccurate and inappropriate. Yet there was no discussion before revert after revert (I was not even the first user to breach the 3 revert rule!).
Secondly, get your facts straight. I have not been blocked for 'edit warring'. I was blocked for an untrue accusation of 'meat puppetry' (I didn't even know what it was!).
Thirdly, the notability of the article was discussed on the AfD. It was not found that the article lacked notability - otherwise, it would have been deleted. To then tag my article regarding notability within days of the AfD discussion closing - despite there being no consensus that there is any notability issue - is quite clearly trolling. Hence, I removed the tag. I also demonstrated my willingness to compromise, by adding the Primary Sources tag back myself, absent the reference to 'notability'.
Yet, despite the evidence of what occurred here - including interaction by other users who appear obsessed with 'policing' any pages they deem as 'fringe' - I am the one who gets blocked? You refer to "collaboration"; where was collegial behaviour and collaborative mindset that sought to discuss any perceived notability issue on the article's talk page before plastering the tag on the article just days after the AfD discussion? Of course, there was none. It was, I believe, simply placed there to be provocative, since the article was not deleted as had been argued for. There has been collaborative 'pile-on' behaviour by those motivated to devote a quite bizarre level attention to this article. I wonder why ... oh so mysterious. A check of the some of the usernames involved and a studious review of their own edit history might prove enlightening.
In summary: The facts of what occurred here ever since I first published the article are clearly logged for all to see. However, it's obvious to me that a certain subset of Wikipedia editors are not interested in actually adhering in practice to the stated Wikipedia principles to which they pay lip service (and, of course, weaponise to further their own agendas).
I note the ban on this account is indefinite. Please don't bother lifting it. Apply the perma-ban hammer, I implore you. I'm done with Wikipedia. I've far better better things to do with my time than play these ridiculous games.
P.S.: As for your "site-wide block" ... you do realise how trivial it is to fire up a new account under fresh & totally unrelated residential IP, don't you? Luckily for you, I've neither the time nor the inclination to bother. Do your worst. Ta-ta. Cosmoid (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Lemonbisi reported by User:Zaian (Result: Blocked indef as SOA)[edit]

Page: Independent Online (South Africa) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lemonbisi (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. [35]
  2. [36]
  3. [37]
  4. [38]
  5. [39]
  6. [40]
  7. [41]
  8. [42]
  9. [43]
  10. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]


Lemonbisi (talk · contribs) joined Wikipedia 2 weeks ago and has continuously tried to edit the opening sentence of the article Independent Online (South Africa) and has not responded to multiple attempts to discuss this on their talk page and on the article talk page. The edit itself is questionable because it is poorly cited and is also part of a pattern of probable conflict of interest editing of this and related pages which I have raised separately at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Independent_Online_(South_Africa). Zaian (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: reported by User:S.G ReDark (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version related to [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]
  5. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54][55] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [57]

Comments: I trimmed the page and removed content that actually exists in the page but is down below in different sections (Early life and career, Political career 1999-2015, Prime Minister) and also in more detail, basically an almost copy of what is written later in the page. Because the content I removed as I said still IS in the page I made a small summary while keeping important information and as for result became easier to navigate (it was too long). The user started reverting my edits without explanation, even another editor restored my version and still got reverted. The user didn't respond to my message and the editor i mentioned sent a warning which both messages where removed by the user.

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: )[edit]

Page: Lion Capital of Ashoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Systematic reverting to own preferred version, this version evolving with time (documented below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Start at 09:07, 10 August 2022

  1. 1st series of reverts (continuous)
  • [58] (Revert of a photograph I added 2 days before [59]
  • [60] (Revert of a new sourced sentence from 3 hours before [61]) ES: "removing shameless Hindu nationalist anti-Islamic promotion."
  • [62] (Revert of images added 2 days before [63]) ES: "please don't replace these images with ugly cutouts to make some dubious point."
  • [64] (Revert of text added 2 days before [65]) ES: "removing silly promotion; no text please, especially not one promoting your monumental cottage industry adn where did the satvahana 24 spoked go?"
  1. 2nd series of reverts (continuous)
  • [66] (Revert of image size change from 10 minutes before [67]. Tag: Manual revert) ES: "please don't play this silly game"
  • [68] (Revert of text added 15 minutes before [69])
  1. 3rd series of reverts (continuous)
  • [70] [71] (Revert of new text and image added 1 hour before [72]) ES: "Please don't dicker around with the pictures such a blatant fashion and then go to ANI crying 3RR"
  1. 4th revert
  • [73] (Revert of text with reference and quote added 10 minutes before [74], Tag: Reverted) ES: "Reverted good faith edits by पाटलिपुत्र (talk): I will revert this because this is blatant anti-Islamism. I know you are baiting me to take me to ANI cring 3RR. Please dont play with fire. You are unable to understand his irony and are implicating a recently deceased art historian your islamophobia. Utterly shameful."

End at 15:32, 10 August 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [77]


Systematic reverts of my contributions and unrelenting battleground mentality, major WP:OWN. Utterly disrespectful of collaborative editing:

1) "the text, and the sources are all mine and all scholarly" [78]
2) " "Let us keep the article in its current state at the time of this post", a state in which "all have been added by me (...) and all have been paraphrased by me" [79]
3) "Here is an article that I have written from start to finish. You have done nothing user:Patiliputra but be disruptive." [80]

Outrageous and abusive edit summaries. Irrational, mistaken arguments and major abusive language on the Talk Page of the article [81]. Fowler&fowler apparently thinks he is above Wikipedia rules and civility standards. Something has to be done. Fowler&fowler was already Warned 2 times previously for similar behaviour [82] (by Admin User:EdJohnston) and [83], to no avail. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]