Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Page: Shahnameh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HistoryofIran (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Comments:

This dispute is about the picture to use in the Shahnameh page infobox.

I thought the below picture, which shows one of the most interesting scenes in the story, would be far better for the infobox than the previous picture. Users thanked me for my change.

Historyofiran disagreed.

I left a message on his talk page to explain my reasoning.

He said "not reading all that"#[4]

He reverted me 3 times (violating the 3RR rule) and then threatened ME with an ANI report if i did anything.

Hes editing his own talk page now to make his argument look more coherent.

He violated the 3RR. Hes telling me to get consensus. Other users in the shahnameh page thanked me. He did not. I left a talk page on his account. He told me he wouldnt read all that.

Help me out this is getting ridiculous and annoying.

I've not violated 3RR, Idris Shirazi. You've been told of WP:CONSENSUS dozens of times, yet you clearly don't care about that (nor other Wiki policies for that matter, can easily be demonstrated if needed), attempting to force your way through, perfectly shown in your own words when you were disregarding MOS:ETHNICITY "you will not find a single soul who agrees with this BS that persian is irrelevant. its everything he is, his religion comes from khorasani mystique school, his language is persian, his blood is persian he is persian, so keep edit warring me if you want, ill die on this hill". --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Is that related to your current violation of wikipedia policy?

Yes, historyofiran, please go through and link every single instance of you specifically targeting me, waiting for me to lose my temper and say something that doesnt read right, and then frame me as if my edits were not entirely in good faith.

Yes historyofiran, ignore the point at hand completely, and say "Ill talk about things unrelated to this specific ANI report"

The point at hand:

I made a change, multiple users thanked me

ONLY YOU DISAGREED

Consensus is for you to establish. And even with that being the case, I left a message on your profile in good faith that anyone can read. You said not reading all that. You cant have it both ways GET CONSENSUS *tries to get consensus* NOT READING THAT Idris Shirazi (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

GET CONSENSUS *tries to get consensus* NOT READING THAT

Yes, I'm not interested in reading your rants [5], no one is, especially not after having already used several hours to explain Wiki policies to you, only to get ridiculed/attacked by you every time. And you've already been told several times that WP:CONSENSUS is achieved in the talk page of an article (you were literally told this minutes ago too [6]). But again, you don't care.

More examples that you simply don't care about Wiki policies;

1. rv, WP:GS. please provide 16.2 trillion sources per cubic centimeter of pixel space taken up on my talk page or it will have to be reverted unfortunately. (this was after another long attempt to explain Wiki policies to you, dismissing all of it with this "joke").
2. or you can just get some thicker skin ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ LOL i need a academic citation for why that guy is an ignorant chauvinist too? is my talk page gonna be reverted now? (This was after I advised you to not attack another user without evidence (and in general be a bit nicer), resulting in another "joke"). --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

EXACTLY what I expected from you HistoryOfIran. Exactly what I expected from you, link completely out of context messages that make me look bad. But all it reveals is a pattern of you targeting me, me trying to be civil, then you ignoring or berating my attempts to be civil, and finally me losing my temper.

THOSE EDITS WERE ON MY OWN TALK PAGE. And this is EXACTLY what I expected from you. Absolutely NOTHING ADDRESSING your violations, only trying to point back and say "Look how bad faith Idris Shirazi is! Let me ignore the point at hand and frame him with out of context quotes!"

You can't say "no-one is" because I've had productive relationships with editors on here through talk pages and email, Ive only had a problem with you. So speak for yourself, and try addressing your violation about the 3RR instead of Ad hominem as always Idris Shirazi (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The point at hand is that you reverted an edit 3 times that others agreed with, then demanded consensus from me, then berated my attempt to get consensus and threatened ME with ANI after YOU violated 3RR.

How about you stick to that point instead of trying to ad hominem and make my look bad with out of context quotes. Again, if anybody reads the edit history, they can see that my edits are in good faith. Your attempt to frame me as a bad faith editor will not work. Idris Shirazi (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This discussion thread ends here, replies will be removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Idris Shirazi, you're running headfirst towards a wall. You're not helping your position with your argumentation and its style. You can stop here, say that you disengage from the conflict and move on. Or end up blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

End up blocked for what exactly lol

I spend hours after school making good faith edits and historyofiran does nothing but target me and im the one who should be blocked? for what exactly. i wont disengage because i am done being targeted by this guy Idris Shirazi (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For disruptively editing, specifically failing to get the point. Which is fine if you stop reverting and complaining and release your anger elsewhere than on Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I AM SORRY, but this is not fair and the picture i put IS the consensus, not his

It is finals week and i was already prioritizing wikipedia over school to my own detriment so i got pissed when this guy undoes all my good faith work, im sorry for the anger ill try to work on that honestly but i spend hours trying to make this a better website

The point is that i added a picture, multiple users thanked me, he disagreed, i tried to talk to him, he did not want to talk to me. Idris Shirazi (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Idris Shirazi, I'm neither blaming you for others' behavior nor for your normally-commendable strong interest in Wikipedia. What I'm less happy about is that you have let these things influence your entire behavior, not just your article editing. You currently behave like a drunken choleric in a pub who's about to get dragged away by annoyed police officers.

For your and the Wikipedia community's interests, it would be best if you pause here.

I'm not saying you're wrong in this conflict. I'm not saying your image choice is worse or better.

I personally don't care about the image and I hope you can believe me when I say I really don't care which of these images is displayed. I never heard the word "Shahnameh" or seen either of the images before.

You may like to focus on the finals. I have zero authority over what you do off-Wikipedia; I can't tell you to do this. It's your life. But if Wikipedia affects it negatively, that should be avoided by pausing your Wikipedia editing for a while, and if Wikipedia is affected negatively, that pause may be required. That's the only thing I can decide about: Whether your editing is disruptive enough to justify a block. You thought this thread is about HistoryofIran's behavior. I see edit warring. I'm not saying their behavior is fine. But this discussion here has primarily become one where you demonstrated a hopefully temporary inability to edit calmly and helpfully. And I'd like to close it without action and let you decide yourself how much time you spend on Wikipedia next to the finals week. You can currently easily do so; please preserve this status. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

HistoryofIran, can you agree that the number of reverts you made in the article about the Shahnameh was, while possibly enforcing a needed discussion, edit warring that should ideally have been avoided and wouldn't continue during the next 48 hours from your side even if someone else appeared and changed the image again? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes. I should have been more patient. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  @ToBeFree: Well, that didn't last long. Idris Shirazi has now resumed their edit warring [7]. It also seems that they think that they're a victim in all of this, being hunted for merely editing, as seen in their new userpage "Real footage of me trying to make an edit". HistoryofIran (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Im allowed to make jokes on my talk page and im also allowed to make edits after 48 hours, no policy violation in sight. Idris Shirazi (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: Aadhaar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2025-33703-33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

Comments:
Anonymous IP keep reverting article to his edits with grammatical issues and clearly incorrect terms. I have tried discussing the issue on his own talk page, he replied with insults. After he repeated the reverts with a different anonymous account, I moved the discussion to the article talked page, where he has not replied. He continues reverting to his version without discussion. Fbergo (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is the problem, if powers are given in the hands of (Personal attack removed).

Slogan - "Mera Aadhaar, Meri Pehchaan." This slogan is actually in Hinglish (Hindi + English). It is neither in pure Hindi, nor in pure English. The appropriate translation with closest and nearby substitute words in pure English language would be "My UID, My Identity." If you have any better suggestion, provided that you are following global standards of nomenclature, standardisation and translation benchmarks, then you are welcome to throw it here. But keep your (Personal attack removed) with you. No one wants it you (Personal attack removed).

"UID" word is the most appropriate and closest translational / substitutional word of the Hindi-origin word "Aadhaar" in the language of English here in this context. Because this term "UID" is taken from the named statutory body - UIDAI. And also, this term "UID" stands for "Unique IDentification", which serves its purpose and use directly, leaving no ambiguity behind.

Also, this term "UID" is widely used by the citizens of India, as a substitutional English word for the Hindi-origin word "Aadhaar". But you (Personal attack removed) fellow Mr./Ms. Fbergo (Personal attack removed). You don't know what GLOBAL STANDARDS are. Go learn some first. The "Aadhaar" Hindi-origin word is not SELF-EXPLANATORY word in the language of English translation. You dumb fellow. Don't you know this? Someone has to tell you all this? What you are? (Personal attack removed)? Keep your (Personal attack removed) mindset with you. Noone wants it you (Personal attack removed). ~2025-33703-33 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note The unregistered editor's continued personal attacks are grounds in their own right for the user to be blocked, even if they don't engage in edit warring (which they have been). —C.Fred (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Note that the block was for disruptive editing rather than pure edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: Arman Tsarukyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2025-31939-01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1326057385 by Nswix (talk) source is there, it's important to mention in first leading sentence."
2. 21:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC) "the source is literally a few sentences after."
3. 21:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC) "I think it's important to say this in the first sentence"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Has been adding the same sentence to lead, for weeks, despite it already being there, a sentence later (in addition to a multitude of other dumb edits across various pages). Tried at ARV, but was told it's not vandalism (?). Idk what it is then, but warnings do nothing. Nswix (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My point is that his ranking is significant enough to be in the first leading sentence. I was told to cite a source, so I reedit again to say the source is already in the original paragraph. Then it was removed because someone said it's redundant as its already in the paragraph. So i reedit and listed just the ranking in the first sentence. Very unwelcoming ~2025-31939-01 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: Kaja Kallas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Glebushko0703 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "see WP:UNENCYC"
2. 16:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Manual revert of version by NebY"
3. 14:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "WP:ONUS: Everyone has expressed their opinion and i've made changes in accordance. We don't have to host an RFC, problem was solved consensus is clear.."
4. 14:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Please stop reverting my changes without even paying attention to them"
5. 14:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC) ""
6. 13:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "See Talk page, explain your reasoning. You remove my edits without a reason."
7. 13:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Theres no point to revert every single change if you disagree with few words..."
8. 07:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "see Talk page"
9. 20:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC) "Fixed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:48 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Russophobia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "/* Russophobia accusations */ editorialising"
2. 18:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "/* It's own section */ contrary to WP:NPOV"
3. 19:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "/* Russophobia accusations */ don't insert text in anticipation of finding sources - see WP:V"
4. 19:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "/* It's own section */ Reply"
5. 19:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "/* Russophobia accusations */ We not need a version that is longer; we do need a source for significance at all"
6. 20:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "/* It's own section */ Reply"

Comments:

Repeated insertions of sections titled "Russophobia accusations" or similar into this eastern-European BLP. Warned using Template:uw-ew by User:Rsk6400 at 17:48 8 December 2025[16]. Persisted at 21:30 8 December. Much talk-page discussion, editor has still not gained consensus. NebY (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The other user have reverted your changes before the consensus was reached. I bring them back by implemeting a newer version that was discussed in the consensus before, since you don't participate in the discussion. Gigman (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You posted text which included previously reverted text and sourcing at Talk:Kaja Kallas at 20:32. No comments had been made by 21:30 when you inserted it into the article. It did not have consensus. NebY (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The only reason I did that was an invalid revert by a different user in the middle of consensus process. Gigman (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"invalid revert" – That's just nonsense. "in the middle of consensus process" – You kept reinstating your desired version without trying to get consensus. You keep using words like "consensus", but either you don't know what they mean, or you're deliberately distorting their meaning. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You have literally disrupted the consensus process by removing the edit (not even made by me) stating your own reason for that (again without a consensus) Gigman (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The "it's own section" and "Russophobia accusations" are different topics. If there was an edit (before you contested it), then it happened to be in the next version (where different topic was implemeted)

But you frame it like i purposefully inserted each one... Gigman (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My warning was caused by their behaviour at Russophobia, where they restored (parts of) their preferred version after having been reverted by at least three users (myself among them). Since they justified one of their reverts with "concerns about neutrality"[17], I asked them twice to be more specific[18] [19], but never got an answer matching my question,[20] so I don't see they were working towards a consensus. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are wrong. Over there it's clearly visible that I encourage you to patricipate in the consensus, while you just ignore it at the time.

Several users have expressed concerns regarding the format and neutrality of the page, so I edited the first section to be more inline with the rules.

I could as well edit it by publishing changes of every single sentence individually, but instead I've combined all changes into a single edit.

Thus only necessary (mentioned) controversial section was removed until solved, with the rest of the my edits brought back (since there was no concern expressed regarding them at the time). Gigman (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: Chip Ganassi Racing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: SilentRidge907 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC) "I appreciate your concern, however, these edits are correct. Undoing this results in an inaccurate webpage. If removing backgrounds from tables is desired, please make those edits independently. Thank you for your understanding."
2. 23:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Addition of current team information and season history, cleaned up clerical errors, and made formatting more consistent throughout the page."
3. 20:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Addition of accurate content, NXT is due, and needed backgrounds to tables that need it."
4. 18:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1326384758 by GhostOfDanGurney (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

Repeated refusal to engage despite editor reversions. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User looks to have changed their name in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The rename seems fine, all good. It's unlikely to be malicious and even if it was, that had no actual effect. Thanks for updating the report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: Umayyad Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skitash (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. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]

I am filing this ANI only because another editor threatened to take this dispute to ANI; otherwise I would have continued attempting to resolve it through talk-page discussion.

I attempted to discuss my edits with User:Skitash on the Talk:Umayyad Caliphate page. I have no issue with being reverted when an editor provides a policy-based explanation, and my edit history shows I routinely accept such feedback. In this case, however, my attempts at discussion were ignored. I was told my edits violated WP:RS, but when I provided reliable sources supporting the content, the editor continued reverting without meaningful engagement. The pattern appeared to involve WP:IDHT and WP:GAME.

After this dispute began, Skitash also started reverting unrelated edits I had previously made on the Abu Hanifa article. I had already been discussing those edits with another user, and although we disagreed, I attempted compromise wording and added attribution to reflect fringe views. Once Skitash entered that discussion, they repeatedly reverted without substantive talk-page engagement.

Across both articles, my attempts to discuss content were met with dismissive comments and accusations of POV-pushing rather than policy-based reasoning. I am bringing this here because the pattern now involves multiple pages, repeated reverts without adequate discussion, and escalating conduct concerns. I would like uninvolved administrators to review the situation and advise on next steps.

Comments:

• There is a related ANI report involving OP. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Idris Shirazi. Borgenland (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, mostly for the edit warring over the article about Abu Hanifa, but sitewide as it wasn't limited to that page as demonstrated above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Nominating editor blocked indefinitely for edit warring while partially blocked for edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedia noticeboards
• Wikipedia edit warring

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates
• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
• Wikipedia move-protected project pages
• Pages archived using a key