Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

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:71.190.206.215 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Julia Haart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.190.206.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

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

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

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

Comments:
71.190.206.215 has repeatedly included violations of the WP:BLP policy. A lengthy explanation, including the importance of reliable sources, has not stopped the issue. KyleJoan^talk 02:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have never exceeded 3 reverts in 24 hours. I used the revert function to get back my edits in order to subsequently change them to accommodate the previous revert reason. So, practically they were not reverts, but constructive contributions to improve the art. according to prior suggestions. As the results many of my contributions to the art. still remain in its body. They are added details, improved phrases, and added citations. As a result the art. is much better in comparison to its content prior to my 1st edit. I understand that improvements are not an excuse to exceed 3 reverts in 24 hrs, but that never happened. The art. is still not neutral, but closer than before.

On the other hand the reverts by @Praxidicae: and @KyleJoan: are w/o explanation at all (WP:Vandalism#Blanking, illegitimate) or inconsistent w/ WP's polices, such as WP:NEWSORG, WP:PUS, and obviously WP:GOODFAITH (as discussed on my talk) page qualifying both of them for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring review, instead of me. Additionally, @Praxidicae: was doing the same to my edits of Salt Lake Tabernacle. He did not add a single word to that art., only reverted. His reverts were in violation of MOS:LEAD (+ WP:GOODFAITH) despite being given explanations of its meaning. Multiple explanations were given to @KyleJoan: in regard to WP:NEWSORG and WP:PUS. The reverts of both of them showed bias against PR Newswire despite allowed by WP:NEWSORG and WP:PUS, as consistent w/ WP:RS under 2 conditions, which both were met in this case.

It is impossible to seek a compromise with editors who do not understand WP's rules and only revert while not accepting explanations of WP's rules their reverts violate. They do not want to compromise, but to eliminate editors they disagree with, as this report to this board additionally testifies for. My last edit to Julia Haart was constructive. It provided the reason given for her firing, which had been already mentioned there previously, but w/o explanation. It also set up the sequence of firing vs filling the divorce papers, both of which already there, but w/o telling which was 1st. Those details are important to give a neutral picture of the otherwise distorted events. W/o them she may look like a greater victim that she actually seems according to all sources, incl. legitimate in this case PR Newswire. @KyleJoan: did not accept those explanations and also accused me of giving undue weight while those encyclopedic details were essential to complete otherwise biased info already there.

Please, remove the warnings given to me by @Praxidicae: and @KyleJoan: on my talk, as unsubstantiated, unfair, and self-serving.--71.190.206.215 (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, every single one of my edits to that article, save for the first which restored Mk17b's version (which said "please provide an RS") had adequate edit summaries with links to relevant policies and guidelines. The idea that including more personal details of her divorce and firing dubiously sourced somehow lends itself to more balance or being more encyclopedic is laughable. I also haven't touched the article in 5 days. CUPIDICAE💕 13:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It is "remarkable" (euphemistically speaking) that @Praxidicae: mentions somebody's edit summary ("Mk17b's") for his own reverts. It is just offensive when considering that "Blanking, illegitimate" describes in detail importance of edit summary when reverting. My 2nd edit at 19:41, 13 April 2022‎ included the <ref name="Women'sHealth1"> citation, which still remains in the art. and thus must be consistent w/ WP:RS. His statement that [t]he idea that including more personal details of her divorce and firing dubiously sourced somehow lends itself to more balance or being more encyclopedic is laughable is arbitrary and w/o any connection to the WP:BLP policy. It, together w/ his similar difficulties w/ WP:RS, WP:NEWSORG, WP:PUS, MOS:LEAD, WP:GOODFAITH, and absence of explanations of how WP's policies were violated, rather suggests inability to properly justify any revert (except absence of RS) or maybe even to form any proper justification at all. His subsequent edit summaries also indicate that he believes that naming a WP's policy, as a justification, is sufficient w/o providing how.

@Praxidicae: never related to the requirements of the WP:BLP of following only WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, incl. WP:BLPBALANCE. He effectively calls them "laughable" w/o even knowing that. Elaborating in the art. in several sentences on the alleged Haart leadership's achievements w/o quoting that fin. distress they resulted in was stated as the reason for her termination, but mentioning the termination, is unbalanced. Stating that she was fired and she filed for a divorce on the same day w/o saying which was 1st is unbalanced, as may suggest that she was fired after filling. Calling those encyclopedic details "laughable" indicates unfamiliarity w/ WP:BLP's WP:BLPBALANCE euphemistically speaking. As @Praxidicae: was not able to justify his reverts by stating how they violated any WP's policy, seemed unfamiliar w/ WP:BLP and other WP's policies, and could not produce an argument in re: of WP's policies, esp. WP:BLP, how anything he wrote can be considered as evidence in this proceeding against me and not against his violations of numerous WP's policies, as abovementioned?! The word "laughable" will not do against me, but does against him.

Please, state whether or not under WP:NEWSORG or WP:PUS the following sources were reliable: (A) PR Newswire used at 20:39, 17 April 2022, (B) PageSix used at 19:41, 13 April 2022 as just facts provider, like PR Newswire, quoted inside ‎the <ref name="Women'sHealth1"> citation, which still remains in the art., and just accompanying <ref name="Women'sHealth1"> citation, i.e not standing alone, (C) Yahoo Finance used at 02:35, 22 April 2022 to provide just the quote (fact) cited there, so also, like PR Newswire.

Please, provide whether or not I violated WP's policies and how seriously each.--71.190.206.215 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Warned IP editor, please adhere to WP:BLP and avoid using unreliable sources as described in WP:RSP. Before adding anything, look at that list and see if the reference you're using is on it. WP:PRNEWSWIRE & WP:PAGESIX are not a reliable sources. Articles on people should not focus on controversy or minutia (WP:NOTNEWS). Use the article's talk page before adding material. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Mohammad reza kaviani reported by User:Aspects (Result: Blocked 24h )

Page: Yasak Elma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohammad reza kaviani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]
6. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [17]
2. [18]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:

This user has only seven edits, six of which are removing the current file from the infobox, with one edit summary used: "Changing the poster of the fourth season." Their seventh edit tried adding a redlink file, [20]. Three different editors have reverted the deletion, with two stating in edit summaries that if there is a file for a new season it needs to be uploaded to then replace this one and those two editors also warning the editor of edit warring on their talk page, yet this user keeps reverting. Aspects (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:62.10.216.239 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: 24 hours)

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

User being reported: 62.10.216.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:47, 22 April 2022‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 1084159759 by HistoryofIran (talk) Stop your cultural genocide Sardinia has never been a calyphate."
2. 21:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1084159067 by M.Bitton (talk) Historic revisionism about the history of Sardinia VANDALISM"
3. 21:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1084158604 by M.Bitton (talk) Sardinia HAS NEVER BEEN AN ARAB CALYPHATE Sardinia between 800 and 900 AD was ruled by the byzantines and the medieval judges of Torres, Caralis, Arborea and Gallura"
4. 21:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1084157721 by M.Bitton (talk)"
5. 21:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1084155010 by R Prazeres (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC) "adding edit-warring warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC) "/* FAKE MAP */"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Partial block from Aghlabids. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Update: a similar-looking IP seems to be pursuing the edit-war ([21]). R Prazeres (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've p-blocked the /20 for a week.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thanks. I'm slightly confused though as I could have sworn that the /20 was already blocked site wide. M.Bitton (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a different range? My current block is the only one in the log.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It could well be. M.Bitton (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:GenuineArt reported by User:BP OMowe (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page: Russian Orthodox Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GenuineArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:1111:5940:74AF:3318:1044:F390 reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: No violation )

Page: Disney and Florida House Bill 1557 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1700:1111:5940:74AF:3318:1044:F390 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1084183699 by Hey man im josh (talk) engage on the talk page or go away"
2. 01:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1084182538 by Hey man im josh (talk) use the talk page"
3. 00:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1084180631 by Hey man im josh (talk) wtf not censoring anything, this is not on topic."
4. 00:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Other companies */ has nothing to do with Disney, lots of companies have views on the bill."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "General note: Censorship of material on Disney and Florida House Bill 1557."
2. 01:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Disney and Florida House Bill 1557."
3. 01:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Disney and Florida House Bill 1557."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User did reach out to me on my talk page, but not exactly in a civil manner. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation There was discussion and I frankly think the IP has a point and they gave their reasons in their first edit. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Hemantha reported by User:Cedar777 (Result: No violation)

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

Page is under 1RR. User reverts bold edit, but then continues to delete preexisting article content within 24 hours despite 1RR.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
2. 23:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
3. 00:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Page subject to 1RR. Notice at the top of edit window and talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff 4 Extensive RS provided, no engagement from user since March 21, 2022 despite additional sources and proposed changes clearly stated on article talk page since April 6, 2022. (also no engagement here diff 5)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [27]

Comments:
User has pattern of deleting reliable sources when reverting content they dislike:

1. [28] deleted The Lancet
2. [29] deleted Swissinfo and The Economic Times
3. [30] deleted sources to top 2 news agencies Press Trust of India, Asian News International, along with content from ThePrint
4. [31] deleted book edited by Dominik Wujastyk, a professor and leading scholar of Ayurveda

User needs to respect the 1RR and refrain from deleting content more than once in a 24 hour period. Cedar777 (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. Hemantha has made a series of 4 consecutive edits on April 23 that counts as one revert. The last time they edited the article before that was on April 15. Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Nicholas Velasquez reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)

Page: Azov Battalion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "No such thing as "propaganda" defined in the Wikipedia guidelines. Please, let us know what you mean by that on the talk page."
2. 19:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "Re-added, since it doesn't break the WP:PRIMARY policy. See the talk page."
3. 19:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC) ""Propaganda" is a value judgement. Discuss it on the talk page."
4. 18:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "Strongly disagree, since this is on of the defining parts for understanding of the subject. Discuss it on the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "/* */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Changing the definition. */"
2. 20:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Changing the definition. */"

Comments:

To clarify this, I consider an act of vandalism removal of a properly sourced material without a justification based on the Wikipedia guidelines or a rationale presented on the article's talk page. In this case, I've seen neither of those things: the only reference to the Wikipedia guidelines there's been regarding the material in question is WP:PRIMARY, and, in my opinion, there was no policy breach, since the material meets the criteria for use, and what happened on the talk page (and edit summaries, as well) was simply nonsensical - references to "guilt", "propaganda" and so on. So, that's why I kept reverting these edits. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

1) Not that it matters, but the content was not removed, it was moved from the lead to the article's body. 2) This report is about you edit warring against three editors (despite being asked to refrain from doing so) and violating the 3R rule in the process. M.Bitton (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Nicholas Velasquez, the people who reverted your changes were not committing WP:VANDALISM. If you don't back away from this fight you are risking a standard WP:3RR block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It actually does matter, because, judging by those diffs, I was under the impression it was getting entirely removed from the article - perhaps, a few months off Wikipedia are to blame here. It's clear now it's not about vandalism, but strictly about disagreement over the lead. However, in my opinion, moving this material from the lead is still unjustified, considering its immense value in giving a full and balanced definition to the subject (exactly as it should be in the lead), as well as its full compliance with the WP:PRIMARY policy. In other words, as far as I see it, there's no formal reason to move it from the lead to the body, and the edit summaries you, as well as other editors, provided there were not adequate for that for the same reasons as explained by me earlier ("propaganda", "those guilty trying to prove themselves not guilty", etc.). -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter one bit for even if it was removed it still wouldn't be described as vandalism. M.Bitton (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

My original move with edit summary Undue for the lead, move to relevant section in article body, reverted by you. WP:BRD, for a contentious matter, should have been considered here and then subsequently, the ongoing reverts seek to impose a self serving POV, WP:SPS, on the article. There isn't really an excuse to be had here. Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It's difficult to understand what "self-publishing" has to do with any of this, considering the materials in question are published by a third-party reputable newspaper (KP (newspaper)) with all the necessary references provided in the citation template. The "self-serving POV" part is also questionable: first and foremost, reverts of a "bald edit" must be grounded in something solid - a certain Wikipedia policy, or a consensus on the talk page prohibiting a particular kind of edit. What you did instead there was outright labeling the edit "undue for the lead" based on nothing but your editorial taste, which is something I can't imagine doing even if the added text was a bunch of random characters. Further in the process, someone mentioned the WP:PRIMARY there, but, again, this just doesn't work as I've explained there. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"undue for the lead" refers to WP:UNDUE and MOS:LEADREL. In fact, subsequent editing seems to indicate that other editors don't think it is due at all, anywhere.Selfstudier (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it does, you shouldn't have any problems with explicitly pointing out, how exactly the material in question goes against these guidelines. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's not make this about content. This report is strictly about edit warring and to a lesser extent, the misunderstanding of what constitutes vandalism. M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid, the degree of severity of a potential violation here is directly influenced by the validity of the rationale behind reversion of my edits, which, in turn, can only be established in case the party responsible for these reversions provides one. So far, there's only been linking to particular guidelines, which, for the most part, looks almost arbitrary. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The rationale is not relevant here, other than that they were good-faith edits, so the 3RR exemption for reverting vandalism does not apply. —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The real question is, how one can be sure an edit was "good faith", if it is impossible to establish a rationale behind it. Not going to lie, so far, it appears to me that, in this particular case, a group of editors, driven by the common goal of preventing any information contradicting the "Azov are Nazis" narrative from making it into into the article, is simply shutting down any opposing editors by attempting to exploit the Wikipedia guidelines. Assuming good faith is, of course, the basic principle of Wikipedia, but sometimes the evidence is just too strong: continuous contentless quarrel in the "Talk" section of the article, coupled with reverts covered by imaginary guidelines. Maybe I am wrong, but I'd say it's very unlikely to be an unfortunate turn of events. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS with zero evidence.Selfstudier (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You're definitely wrong about a number of things: thinking that you can get away with violating the 3R rule, deliberately accusing others of vandalism (a term that you are yet to show any willingness to understand) and casting aspersions to boot. M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I didn't want to make a big deal out of their vandalism claim and simply assumed that they didn't know what it means, but their reply and the fact that they have repeated here and keep ignoring all attempts to make them understand is quite concerning, especially that they now started to cast aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This is why I am not directly accusing you - as I've said, "it appears to me" and "maybe I am wrong". Hopefully, I am wrong, because otherwise it draws a pretty depressing picture. As to the "vandalism" part, as I've said, I've made a two months break from Wikipedia (been daily editing a COVID-related article for 2 years), and, while reviewing the diff, didn't notice the text was moved from the lead to the body of the article, and this is why it appeared to me as an unjustified removal of a sourced text, which is vandalism by definition. At the same time, I still think my reversions were justified, because even in the non-vandalism framework you failed to provide a rationale for your actions: there was neither consensus on the talk page prohibiting putting that material in the lead, nor an explicit guidelines-based edit summary. Instead, what I received was, in essence, "I think it's undue", "it's propaganda", "it's an attempt of the guilty to prove themselves not guilty" and so on. This approach to editing is beyond my understanding. - Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You just confirmed what I said: you're making no effort to understand what vandalism is. M.Bitton (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you think your understanding of it is superior, feel free to educate me on the matter. - Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. The user's claim to be reverting vandalism is not correct. "Unjustified removal of a sourced text" is not a phrase found in WP:VANDALISM. Whether to keep or exclude a particular statement defending the Azov Battalion is an issue for consensus to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User:SamanidBasedEmpire reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: NOTHERE)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]
5. [36]
6. [37]

Comments:

And that's not even counting the edit warring he made through his IPs. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: the IPs, that's likely another person. But since this person is here only to edit war, I've blocked them per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: Protected)

Page: Gautama Buddha (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: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Systematic reversal of a plurality of users (4 reverts in less then 24 hours, 5 reverts in 24 hours and 21 minutes), in favour of an extra-long image caption in the infobox of the article Gautama Buddha, and suppression of a link to the article about the object in the picture (Buddha Preaching his First Sermon (Sarnath)), with quite insulting and farfetched Edit Summaries:

1. 08:59, 23 April 2022 [39] Edit Summary: "Please don't play this silly game with me, nor link a beautiful image to an ugly article."
2. 11:58, 23 April 2022 [40] Edit Summary: "You and Red* had many years and all you could come up with was an OR-infested insult to Buddhism You are hardly in the position to link it"
3. 12:26, 23 April 2022 [41] Edit Summary: "Reverted good faith edits by पाटलिपुत्र (talk): Again, you cannot link the infobox of such a major article to such an OR infested, pro-Hindu, anti-Buddhism, half-article. Please dont push this. I will take it to the highest levels of WP"
4. 08:47, 24 April 2022 [42] Edit Summary: "Restored revision 1083955004 by Florian Blaschke (talk): Redtigerxyz. What is sauce for the Buddhist goose is sauce for the Hindu gander. You chose to have the bit about the avatar of Vishnu. When I removed it, your tag teamer supplied the source. I merely corrected what was attributed to the source. It is a question of intellectual honesty"
   (Revert includes the above disputed text, together with more reverted content)
5. 09:20, 24 April 2022 [43] Edit Summary: "Citing B(b) 181 to a secondary source (other than Sahni)."
   (Reverting the same content, with the addition of a reference. Deceptive Edit Summary)

More reverts of other users have been ongoing in the same time period, on slightly different, but related, content on the same page:

1. 08:39, 24 April 2022 [44]

Fowler&fowler displays a clear intention to game the system and do more reverts later: "have it your way for now", before making further reverts @08:47, 24 April 2022 and @09:20, 24 April 2022:

1. 12:45, 23 April 2022 [45] Edit Summary: "have it your way for now"

In the meantime, the target article Buddha Preaching his First Sermon (Sarnath) was disruptively defaced by Fowler&fowler with "a million cn tags" per his own edit summary, with more abuse on the Talk Page:

1. 12:38, 23 April 2022 [46] Edit summary: "a million cn tags so rampant is the OR infestation"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48][49] (Edit summary requests to stop Edit Warring and discuss on the Talk Page instead)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [50]

Comments:

Refusal by Fowler&fowler to discuss the matter on the Talk Page despite being asked to do so [51][52], and despite being reverted by a plurality of users. Insulting, incendiary, extravagant and farfetched Edit Summaries. Disregard for 3RR rule, system gaming, apparent feeling of impunity. Please sanction such disruptive and toxic behaviour at last, by at the very least enforcing the 3RR rule: this behaviour is quite damaging and demotivating to the Community of editors.
Fowler&fowler was already Warned last year for similar behaviour [53], obviousy without much effect.
For information, users directly related to this matter: User:Johnbod User:Redtigerxyz User:Iskandar323 पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I am always wary of sanctioning editors where edit-warring is not confined to one person - I note that the filer of this complaint and User:Redtigerxyz have both reverted three times in the last 24 hours as well. Also, Fowler is correct about Buddha Preaching his First Sermon (Sarnath) - it's woeful - but peppering it with cn tags was perhaps somewhat WP:POINTy and I have removed the tags and replaced them with an unsourced section tag. Since this particular issue does not appear to have been addressed by anyone on the talkpage, I have protected the article for a week so that such discussion can take place, and wil take a dim view of any firther edit-warring after the protection expires. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I am taking a significant risk of later harassment by reporting the abusive behaviour of Fowler&fowler. This contributor was already Warned last year for similar behaviour [54], obviousy without much effect. I believe stronger sanctions are in order: the 3RR rule is supposed to be a bright line, it should be enforced strictly. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It is my fault of course for keeping coming back to this article when Darjeeling with real needs beckons at FAR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite I apologize for the violation of policy. Point taken. However, I will request the editor involved to stop baseless allegations like "You chose to have the bit about the avatar of Vishnu" (someone added in Jan 2022, not me), when I removed the Hindu part from the lead and moved it to the appropriate section [55]. Also, please use more civil edit summaries.

Also request you to remove the double link to Archaeological Museum Sarnath in the article infobox. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What happened from my perspective was laid out on the talk page in this post. Black Kite's suggestion is a good one. But for now, the best option for me is to walk away, to Darjeeling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)