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:Nougat10 reported by User:Bearian (Result: Warned)

Page: Korenevo, Korenevsky District, Kursk Oblast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nougat10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

first revert here, second revert here, and Third revert here. I was previously an admin, and have been an editor for 17 years. I rarely use this board, but I think this is becoming necessary. Bearian (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC) Due to editing issues, I accidentally placed the report here, not on the actual bottom. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Rather than reporting users for removing fabricated narratives, editors should check and recheck their input and not use unreliable sources for edits.

There is a trend for Russian villages being changed to Ukrainian villages by users without any evidence whatsoever.

I'm not an experienced Wikipedia inputer and only learnt of the edit warring policy today.

The guy who reported me has done exactly the same as me and changed my edits 3 times! Nougat10 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have added temporary protection from vandalism, could someone with more experience confirm that His R done this correctly Please. Nougat10 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

1) I posted once. I reverted twice. Then I stopped.

2) The editor has seven years’ experience on here, so to claim not to know about an essential policy is untenable. If you’re here for seven years, you should know about the policy.

3) I never wrote that this village was part of Ukraine. Check the diffs.

4) I originally tagged the source, Newsweek, as potentially untrustworthy, but removed it on second thought. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I may have been here since 2018 but that was my 2nd edit.

I'm not here to argue with you. My first edit was removed as it didn't have a source other than personal family history (nothing to do with Ukraine in 2018).

I deleted your addition as it was incorrect. If I had known about "talk" at the time I would have messaged you. A learning curve for me, I'm just a fat retired farmer in Herefordshire, England.

I don't like confrontation so I'll probably steer clear of editing for another 7 years😬 Nougat10 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Nougat10 is currently not allowed to edit about this topic (WP:GS/RUSUKR) and has now been informed about this restriction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your censorship Nougat10 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I was only deleting fake news from bearian Nougat10 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  At least I achieved my aim and the fake History of Korenevo that bearian edited cannot be reinstated Nougat10 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is no page protection that would prevent Bearian from enforcing the restriction by re-adding the material, and it would not be considered edit warring. However, of course a consensus on the article's talk page would be preferable, especially given that a discussion is already running at Talk:Korenevo, Korenevsky District, Kursk Oblast § 2024 incursion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I got it. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:TVAroundtheWorld reported by User:Magical Golden Whip (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: 2003 in British television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Stop fucking saying unsourced"
2. 14:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Stop fucking saying unsourced"
3. 14:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Thomas made a comeback"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of programs broadcast by the Nick Jr. Channel."
2. 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been blocked for adding poorly unsourced information and back edit with edit warring. There also appears to be a past edit warring over the last few days including here [1]. In addition edit warring here [2]. Edits have been reverted in the past and keeps insisting on adding the information in, some include [3] and here [4]. In addition adding sear words to edit summaries and talk page [5] Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Aoidh (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note Updated to a checkuser block. Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Ellis Island Rejects reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

User being reported: Ellis Island Rejects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "edit made due to incomplete information missing contribution puerto ricans made to the creation of bboying"
2. 14:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "edited because description of the origin of breaking was inadequate and misleading.included reference."
3. 14:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Edit to an accurate description of the origin of said practice"
4. 14:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Edit to an accurate description of the origin of said practice"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Breakdancing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Penpengusa10 reported by User:CambrianCrab (Result: blocked from article and talk page, three months)

Page: Black people in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Penpengusa10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7] 02:53 August 9
2. [8] 10:08 August 9
3. [9] 23:02 August 9
4. [10] 00:18 August 12
5. [11] 03:42 August 12
6. [12] 13:01 August 12
7. [13] 09:09 August 13

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

Comments:
This is a spill-over of the Yasuke fiasco. I asked Drmies for help with this page on Friday (Aug 9) but it doesn't seem to have done much and it seems like it's crossed over into clear edit-warring at this point. CambrianCrab (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• OK by now this is pretty obvious. CambrianCrab, I want you to know that you also need to hold back: reticence is good. Fortunately for you, Gitz6666 and User:Toweli agree with you, and both also pointed at the RfC/consensus. The editor is P-blocked from the article AND from the talk page, because that combative attitude is uncollegial. If they want to protest this, I suggest they inquire about the talk page block first, which might give them an opportunity to prove they can be a productive editor in a collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh okay, thank you for letting me know! I kept going back and forth on whether this was an exemption under #4, but I'll lean more heavily on the side of caution from now on. For the future, would you suggest I file a report here (or elsewhere) sooner? CambrianCrab (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh duh, I just remembered I'm supposed to ask them to self-revert to the stable version when it starts getting close to edit-warring and it's not a clear exemption. Sorry again, the RfC was making me overthink it, won't happen again (and thank you again for your help, you were super quick with responses and it's very appreciated) CambrianCrab (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hello,

  > The editor is P-blocked from the article AND from the talk page

  There is a misunderstanding in your observation:

  My editing on Black People in Japan was done independently apart from "Yasuke fiasco".

  I haven't participated in the WP:WAR of Yasuke NOR Talk:Yasuke, thus I haven't been P-blocked either from the article or from the talk page of Yasuke.

  The reason why I haven't participated in there was already told here.

  I will submit unblock requirement for this soon. Penpengusa10 (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User:King Ayan Das reported by User:Nomian (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Non-cooperation movement (2024) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: King Ayan Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ I edited according "The Independent" and "NYTimes" source not just state what the source says"
2. 17:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ As per AJ, "Al Jazeera reached out to sources in some of these districts and discovered that the attacks on Hindu households were not driven by religious identity but by political affiliations." and below ‘Attacks politically motivated, not communal’ heading is just from the staement from leter mentioned singel obderver's statement. And why replaced reliable "The Independent" source" with a local Bangladeshi source?"
3. 16:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ if "many" used in "The Independent" then "Al Jazeera" also reached out to sources in "some" of these districts(out of 20 districts while 52 districts are affected)"and if The Independent and NYT are quoting the same single observer then Al Jazeera is also quoting the single observer"
4. 15:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ "The Independent " also spoke to a few Hindu families in Bangladesh"
5. 14:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ most attacked Hindus were with non political background as per "The Independent" and the "NYTimes" article and delete Dhaka Tribune source to fix overcite"
6. 14:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ most attacked Hindus were with non political background as per "The Independent" and the "NYTimes" article"
7. 13:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240090709 by Za-ari-masen (talk)come to Talk page , don't revert reliable-sourced information without discussion"
8. 11:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ as per The Independent " and NYTimes sources most of them are ordinary Hindus"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Non-cooperation movement (2024)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* King Ayan Das edits */"

Comments:

The user has been edit-warring with multiple editors to restore a POV and potentially WP:OR content along with several prose issues. The edits are mainly concerned with changing the particular sentence "According to most observers, most of these attacks were politically motivated, as the victims were primarily Awami League leaders, activists, and police while many Hindus with no political affiliation were also attacked." into "According to most observers, some of Hindus whose homes were attacked may be directly involved in Awami League politics, but most of them were ordinary Hindus with no political affiliation." Multiple editors have raised concerns about their edits as it is seen here. Still, they are not willing to listen. Mentionable, there is also an ongoing misinformation campaign on India media pertaining to this event as detailed in the article. Nomian (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Montigliani and User:D.S. Lioness reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: )

Page: Super League Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported:

• Montigliani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• D.S. Lioness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of Montigliani's reverts:

1. 19:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Canvassing is not allowed though. Anyway, I'm glad you recognize that you're bringing something back that isn't yours."
2. 19:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Because you are re-editing a blocked user. That's what it's called Canvassing."
3. 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of D.S. Lioness's reverts:

1. 19:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240143181 by Montigliani (talk) you don't even know what canvassing is..."
2. 19:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240138672 by Montigliani (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_and_blocked_editors It is permittable"
3. 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240133558 by Montigliani (talk) why?"
4. 18:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* History */ restoring content with some changes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• See the block logs of both users and the following warning:

1. 18:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Montigliani "/* An unproductive battleground */ new section"
2. 18:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC) on User talk:D.S. Lioness "/* An unproductive battleground */ new section"

Comments:

I'm tired of this. I'd now indefinitely block both accounts for persistently misusing Wikipedia as a battleground, but that might be because of their constant attacks against each other including on my talk page,* so I'd prefer to let someone else decide. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*Search User_talk:ToBeFree/A/6 for their usernames for an overview if desired ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, my number 4 is not a revert. I just adding content who immediately removed

See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#I_am_prevented_from_adding_content D.S. Lioness (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 13 August 2024‎ (UTC)

It is a revert of Special:Diff/1215075851. However, if that's your point, the edit war has a longer history than 24 hours and my concern is unrelated to the three-revert rule. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look again and D.S. Lioness's accusations seem to have been exclusively directed against Michalis1994 who did turn out to be a sockpuppet. I'd say the persistent battleground behavior is from Montigliani, not D.S. Lioness, despite their edit warring, current partial block and previous edit warring block. The warning linked in the report is primarily about Montigliani's behavior, and the persistent accusations on my talk page are not "against each other" but rather one-sidedly from Montigliani against the rest. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised by this comment that I did not see yesterday. If I understand correctly, you are accusing me of attacking everyone else! Let it be. Now I am forced to defend myself. The user I am now in conflict with had called me first when he had a dispute with a known puppet. Then they turned out to be partners. It's tiring to give links all the time to prove myself right. They even tried to delete my clipboard. I won't say any more. I am only sorry for this comment from ToBeFree. Montigliani (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has not ended here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evangelos_Marinakis#Request_for_comment and the other user adds to the input of the entry, what he himself disputed!

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_League_Greece&diff=1240144883&oldid=1240143181 brings back a puppet contribution apparently for revenge.

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_Step_Sideways#Article_in_sandbox_page trying to delete my clipboard

Meanwhile the puppet silences him from behind https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evangelos_Marinakis&diff=prev&oldid=1239915156

These few to give you an idea. Montigliani (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

And here to see who she really is

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:%CE%9C%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1_%CE%B7_%CE%86%CF%83%CF%87%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B7

In translation:

i'm stuck in the b.p. from the wretched Glucken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NikolaosFanaris I'm afraid to talk here now because if he discovers me he'll make me a bully and maybe cause me trouble and I don't want to. let's wait for the user check to finish and we'll see.. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Montigliani (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Kelvintjy reported by User:Wound theology (Result: )

Page: Soka Gakkai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kelvintjy (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. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

On the perennially WP:NPOV article and edit-battlefield Soka Gakkai, Kelvintjy (talk · contribs) has been engaging in a slow-burn edit war, generally restoring laudatory prose and trivia. There are too many edits to really get a sense for what's going on here, so I'll focus on one very strange edit: adding back these numerous superfluous citations. There's probably more but as I said, the page history is a wasteland.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

Comments:

• Seeing as this is not a WP:3RR violation given that the edits are spaced months apart, I looked at the edits to see if they were really doing something odd. And, while [23] 1 and 2 merely appear to refbomb a particular line to death, and 3 also refbombs a line to death, 4 appears to not have the same pattern. I'm struggling a bit with how diffs 1 and 2 could be considered NPOV issues more than style issues, since they don't change the article text.
  @Wound theology: I noticed that you submitted this without including a diff containing an attempt to resolve dispute on the article's talk page. Have you tried opening up a talk page discussion on these points before coming here?
  @Kelvintjy: Would you be willing to discuss the aforementioned edits on the article's talk page? I think there might be some style-based objection to the amount of citations needed for a particular line, and it might be helpful if you explain why you believe they improve the article so that editors can come to a consensus on whether or not to include them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, 4 seems to have been an error. About NPOV: this is more so a general problem on the page and with Kelvintjy's edits that I haven't listed here. Here is Kelvintjy removing a controversy because "the investigation went nowhere" (source: SGI). On this page in particular, for example, prose he added claims that [24] that SGI is supported by the United Nations instead of being just another NGO with consultative status. Prose similarly states things like "[SGI] is not only dedicated to personal spiritual development but also to engaged community service", which is flatly laudatory. Most of the citations given there are directly from SGI-affiliated organizations like the Toda Institute. The reason I have not discussed this on the talk page is simply because Kelvintjy does not generally discuss content but prefers to simply revert edits or manually roll things back without explanation. It should be noted that Kelvintjy is an SGI member. wound theology◈ 13:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that there have been general problems with the neutrality of the page's content, then I would suggest opening discussions on the talk page around the specific parts that you find to be non-neutral, or boldly making edits with the idea that you will discuss them if they are objected to. This noticeboard is not for mere content disputes (the article talk page and WP:NPOVN are), nor is it for allegations of complex behavioral issues (WP:AN/I or WP:COIN, in the case of conflict-of-interest editing). As such, I don't think that this complaint is within the scope of this board. Unless you demonstrate clear-cut edit warring, I will close this with no action as out-of-scope. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: )

Page: Mahatma Gandhi (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: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:56, 12 August 2024 Restored revision 1239839349 by Fowler&fowler (talk): There was no consensus, just a bunch of editors with no sources that were ganging up on me--the author of the lead. That sentence had stood in the article for quite a few years before that. If you edit was, I will take you to RS/N. I will also sound out admins who were not able to compare the sources last tiem.
2. 03:15, 13 August 2024 adding the sentence first; will then add the sources
3. 11:44, 13 August 2024 Reverted good faith edits by Azuredivay (talk): But you haven’t presented any arguments on the talk page
4. 06:56, 14 August 2024 Reverted good faith edits by Capitals00 (talk): No one had refuted anything. The sentence had been in the article's lead for upward of ten years. Restoring WP:STATUSQUO

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[28]

Comments:

Edit warring to add a false claim which was debunked not only now but also more than one year ago. He ended up at WP:AE last time over this misconduct and had promised not to repeat it.[29] However, he is now also making clear personal attacks.[30] Capitals00 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Fowler has now initiated edit war also on a different page (which involved me) by restoring a weeks-old bad version which not only suppresses the universal facts but also includes the disinformation which was ironically fact-checked by Fowler himself some years ago. Azuredivay (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Statement of Fowler&fowler: The sentence about Gandhi fasting (i.e. going on a hunger strike) in January 1948 to pressure the Indian government to pay out cash assets owed to Pakistan had been in the article's lead since September 2013. I had added it during a revision of the Gandhi page's lead and first several sections. It was done in plain view and discussed on the talk page.

Thereafter the article with that sentence in the lead was edited by:

• Admin SpacemanSpiff on 2 October 2013
• Admin user:Vanamonde93 on 10 July 2014
• Admin user:RegentsPark on 12 January 2015
• Admin user:Titodutta on 15 August 2016
• Admin user:Anachronist on 12 January 2017
• Filer of this Edit Warring Notice, user:Capitals00 on 28 May 2017
• Major author of this article, user:Ms Sarah Welch on 2 October 2017
• Admin user:Abecedare on 26 July 2018
• Admin user:Amakuru on 9 October 2019
• Major South Asia contributor user:Fylindfotberserk on 14 December 2020
• Major South Asia-topics contributor user:Kautilya3 on 30 September 2021
• Admin user:RegentsPark on 25 July 2022 who ominously said in his edit summary, "please try to use WP:HISTRS"
• user:Capitals00 again, the filer of this report on 26 March 2023

In the summer of 2023, some editors, but mainly one editor user:Abhishek0831996 began to dispute the sentence about the cash assets transfer. I could not place their ideological motive, nor their sources which were abysmally fringe, the worst that I've seen in my 18 years on Wikipedia. They obviously cannot cite to their sources, so they are happy to simply delete the content about the motivations of Gandhi's last fast that cost him his life. When I returned to WP, I merely returned the article to WP:STATUSQUO of 11 years. I mentioned "ominously" in reference to WP:HISTRS, in an edit summary of admin RegentsPark above. I did so because the sources that these tag-teaming edit-warring editors are the very anti-thesis of HISTRS. Here are some examples from Ahishek083196, mentioned above such as this from an Indian online newspaper or this also from an online newspaper but: in another language. user:Azuredivay is another editor who appeared out of the blue on this talk page and then proceeded to edit-war. The fact that two of these editors had not edited the page but appeared swiftly to edit war, make me suspect that this is an instance of WP:MEATPUPPETry.

I request a boomerang: the three editors user:Abhishek0831996, user:Capitals00 and user:Azuredivay be blocked for a week and the article be returned to this version of 14 August 2024.

As for me, you can block me for a week, two weeks, month, or three months, as long as you restore the WP:HISTRC-compliant edit of 14 August 2024 I refer to above. As far as I'm concerned it is the WP:STATUSQUO. In addition, I've made a list of: 30 HISTRC-compliant textbooks by widely-recognized scholars of South Asia that also support this edit. (Its a bit like Archimedes and his figure in the sand.) Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

In particular in the list of 30 sources mentioned above are some of the major historians of South Asia: Percival Spear, Leonard A. Gordon, Ainslie Embree, Denis Dalton, Burton Stein, David Arnold (historian), Lloyd Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Barbara D. Metcalf (former chairperson of the American Historical Association), Thomas R. Metcalf, Sumit Sarkar, Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Deborah Rhode, Caroline Elkins, and Joya Chatterji

To give you an idea of the scale of undue weight-content these three editors have tried to promote, what they have in opposition is a collection of dubious provenance edited by an Indian civil rights activist, Teesta Setalvad.

Is this then what Wikipedia is about: it doesn't matter what knowledge you have or what sources, all it takes is three editors with one source in a non-Roman script, to trip you up? The constant refrain of these editors is, "These 30 sources don't discuss the credibility of this false claim." By false claim, they mean the one refuted in the non-Roman script. Go figure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Nemov reported by User:Holydiver82 (Result: )

Page: The Acolyte (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Holydiver82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:50, 13 August 2024‎ Nemov talk contribs‎ 143,209 bytes −51‎ Restored revision 1240054731 by Adamstom.97
2. 00:31, 14 August 2024‎ Nemov talk contribs‎ 143,209 bytes +38‎ Restored revision 1240131389 by Adamstom.97
3. 11:29, 14 August 2024‎ Nemov talk contribs‎ 143,209 bytes −43‎ Restored revision 1240210818 by BrokenSquarePiece
4. [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:
So I am new and have no idea how to use all the linked items for the report. Anyways I tried to link the page and then the 3 different reversions made to the article in under 24 hours. which is part of a larger pattern of refusing to let anyone else edit the article in question, where if you look at the history of the article you will see every single edit made by another user is reverted by nemov. Again not sure exactly how this process works so if any admin can take pity on me and help edit this report to make it look correct. But if you can look at the page in question, and look at the history you will see a pattern of ownership resulting in many reverts, in violation of the 3 revert rule