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:Elijahandskip reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Declined)

Page: Typhoon Mawar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC) to 21:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 21:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC) "Revert as they had not seen the talk page message yet. Since there is two separate reliable sources that have differing pressures, both need to be mentions. Since there is a consensus to use one (and only one) in the infobox, the factual accuracy disputed template is necessary to help editors and readers know there is a disagreement in sources. Problem solved. Have a good day!"
   2. 21:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Current storm information */ Removing JTWC’s “current info” section as JMA is considered more accurate and should be used in the infobox."
2. 21:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC) "Reverting pressure to 903 hPa. ATCF in the 18z update said it was 903 hPa. JTWC said 903. Multiple reliable source meteorologists say 903 as well."
3. 20:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1157023311 by Final-Fantasy-HH (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC) "/* May 2023 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Generally combative behavior when confronted over these edits contrary to WP:WPTC discussions. Does not seem to want to respect BRD. User has a history of disregarding consensus such as their earlier incident with the track map colors. I can provide diffs of previous incidents when I get back to my desktop; I am raising this in a timely fashion due to the need for immediate action to get them to stop attempting to “get consensus by editing”.— Jasper Deng (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Prior to this discussion noticeboard being started, I dropped the stick ([1]). Would ask Jasper Deng to withdraw this as I’m just ignoring the article. I believe there is a content accuracy dispute while Jasper Deng tells me there isn’t one. Simple as that. I’m not going to fight the issue and I am entitled to believe what I believe. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Note for admins, I have not violated the WP:3RR rule as only two of those reverts (the bottom 2) are on pressure while the top one is on a factual accuracy disputed template and not actually edit warring over the pressures. I dropped the stick ([2]) and I plan to ignore this going forward. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Since we are here and my request for withdrawal got ignored, Jasper Deng, you keep referring to the WPTC consensus on this issue (JMA over JTWC in infobox). However, you have yet to actually link any of the discussions being referenced. Since you were WP:BOLD enough to take this issue to a noticeboard after I dropped the stick, please link said discussion here as it is unknown to me and so the admins can see you are telling the truth. Side note, how is a WikiProject consensus able to overrule WP:RS, if it really did say Japan Meteorological Agency is more reliable than the Joint Typhoon Warning Center? Hopefully Jasper Deng can clear that issue up when the WikiProject Tropical Cyclone consensus discussion finally get’s linked and I can actually see what the heck is being referenced in a lot of these edits. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Can an admin close this discussion? I just started a discussion on Jasper Deng's page to figure out what the heck he is talking about. I did get hot-headed, but honestly, there is as much fault on Jasper Deng's end for failing to actually provide a link to a discussion which said I was wrong. All I kept getting was, you are wrong per a discussion and start a discussion to find out. Seems wrong and to defuse the disagreement, I was willing to drop the stick, which apparently turned into a noticeboard post-dropping the stick, indicating Jasper Deng's intentions to not acknowledge the dropping the stick action. I have now requested politely that the discussion being mentioned be linked on his talk page. I don't want this to turn into a new indicent on AN, but to say the least, this is basically a Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning situation since I'm not even able to find out what discussion made the call on this topic. All I keep getting is "you are wrong" and some discussion you never heard of and don't know about, but I'm not willing to link to you, said you are wrong. Well, this is my last message in this discussion and whatever happens, I'm dropping the stick since the reporter is uncooperative and unwilling to answer questions or discussion any concerns with me. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 12#Active storms - current storm information - RSMC only? and (more specifically) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 4#Incorrect NW Pacific data used where official values have to come from the RSMC. Anyways, I'm mostly bringing this here because of your conduct. This is a pattern:
    • User talk:Elijahandskip/Archive 5#March 2023
    • Edit warring last month
    • Explicitly reinserting content knowing it's disputed
  • This is only a partial list, and only from the past few months. This is why I was quick to issue the warning and escalate it here, because this 3RR violation today is just one of a long, chronic, pattern of poor conduct.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Final comment from Elijahandskip: One small comment before I am 100% done with the discussion (warning, block, whatever happens). I have made people upset in the past for actually starting too many discussions ("Elijahandskip is scared to death of being blocked and seems to be on a warpath as of late, starting unnecessary discussions"). I have started numerous discussions and work with editors when I am given the opportunity to. For example, I can just about guarantee had the "March 2023" situation linked above gone to a discussion, there would have been an overwhelming consensus that the person was a troll as they were removing a long-standing reliable source consensus that is used on hundreds of articles. That was part of the problem of why I actually made people upset. After a small edit-war over a pointless thing (1 single revert since that is an edit war apparently), I would start a discussion. After about a dozen discussions in a week, it was soo many. If an admin actually thinks I was wrong, I've been told in the past to work through my previous corrections and disagreements to get community consensus. I am 100% willing to go back to opening a discussion for some of these pointless disagreements as I did in the past. All I need is an admin to say I should do that and the moment a disagreement arises, I would start a discussion without skipping a heartbeat. I just want something to link back to for when people get upset at how many discussions I start in the future if that is what I need to do. Editors disagree, and most of the disagreements are over minor things. I do need to do a better job of opening discussions. After hearing how people were upset at all the minor discussions I started in the past, I got bad about not starting them when I should have. That's on me and that is what I plan to improve. But for real, can an admin explain exactly when I should open a discussion? Following WP:BRD in the past got people upset after dozens of discussions got started (since the first revert was a new discussion started). Should I truly follow BRD, or should I try to work it out on a talk page first or what exactly? Any advice is greatly appreciated. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip, I think it's not that you've upset people by starting too many discussions. What people object to is starting silly or unnecessary discussions. No one can tell you what is worth opening a discussion over, that's just something we expect you to have developed judgement on by this time. If you haven't, it might be worth simply making a habit of moving on instead of opening a discussion and letting someone else open a discussion if they think it's necessary. Valereee (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Declined based on the discussion above. I should add that, as noted, there was no 3RR violation; however of course all parties should remember that many people have been blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR (per the intro of WP:EW:"... it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. ").

And as it has been on many other occasions, the above discussion demonstrates, admittedly by counterexample, how communicating before reporting can often eliminate the need to report. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Talleyrand6 reported by User:Darryl Kerrigan (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: 2023 Alberta general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Talleyrand6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2023 Alberta general election#Election Map

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:

This editor was previously blocked for edit warring in April 2023. They resort to name calling, don't attempt to secure consensus and are generally disruptive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I simply refuse to accept you have any authority in enforcing a rule you made up.

I asked you to directly message me if you have problems with the map but you ignored that.

It's not my fault that I'm repeatedly reverting your bogus edits. Have a good night!

Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Superb Owl reported by User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (Result: P-blocks, three months)

Page: Green Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Supreme Court of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), etc.
User being reported: Superb Owl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. [8] (Green Party example 1)
2. [9] (Green Party example 2)
3. [10] (Supreme Court example)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11] (Green Party example 1)
2. [12] (Green Party example 1)
3. [13] (Green Party example 2)
4. [14] (Supreme Court example)
5. [15] (Supreme Court example)
6. See also [16] United States Senate

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [17] "you seem to not be interested in discussing how to best phrase them in talk before jumping in, and instead just go right ahead and then engage in multiple reverts"
2. [18] "if you want to change in after you have been reverted (as you were) then you have to make a case for it and convince others, not simply complain that you have a hard time agreeing and apparently believing that this"
3. [19] (edit summary: "Again reverting strange additions, that you yourself can't find citations for - so you place [citation needed] next to it")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [20] Supreme Court
2. [21] Green Party

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

Comments:

A variety of users, including @Drmies, Magidin, Namiba, and Mt.FijiBoiz: to myself have attempted to explain these concepts on User talk:Superb Owl, Talk:Green Party (United States), Talk:Supreme Court of the United States, and elsewhere. Nothing has stuck. The user has continued to give undue weight to theories that all minor US political parties "spoil" major elections, that the Supreme Court only acts as a partisan body, etc. When these undue weight edits are altered, the user has repeatedly and exhaustingly reverted numerous editors to restore them. The user has not responded productively to consensus that undue weight is being given. The user has been notified repeatedly of core policies regarding edit warring, NPOV, OR, etc.

As US politics is a topic subject to discretionary sanctions I would suggest a topic ban for a limited time. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

In short, the leads of both Green Party (United States) and Supreme Court of the United States do not discuss many (if any) controversies and focus relatively little on notability. The disputes arose primarily out of attempts to transform these leads to reflect the latest updates to the body which I helped improve to provide more balance (and read a little less like it was copied and pasted from either group's website).

As to issues with process, my prior lack of understanding of WP:Voice was one important factor (though not the only one) for the earlier Supreme Court discussions @49ersBelongInSanFrancisco continues referencing, which has been learned and corrected, though the information that is still missing from the leads in many articles the user (and others mentioned) has aggressively reverted (without being willing to engage in talk page discussion, leave templates suggesting improvements, etc.) includes very relevant controversies facing the Court, which, contrary to some editors' beliefs, seems to have a significant amount of partisanship, especially on the most high-profile political cases, that merits mention and discussion.

The topics @49ersBelongInSanFrancisco left in a rush on my page were old disputes that I've worked to correct when there was outstanding issues, but some such topics were in fact mistakes on the part of another editor (eg). @49ersBelongInSanFrancisco's lack of a retraction for these mistakes makes me hope to get more perspectives from anyone who can help clarify these disputes and advise all parties involved.

Edit warring occurred after talk page discussions were ignored or dismissed citing vague reasons. At issue now in Green Party (United States) (and in the past, the Supreme Court article) is WP:Lead which recommends article leads "...should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Most if not all of the edits that have been subject to edit warring are from attempts to simply note highly relevant and widely publicized controversies mentioned in the article and also to just simply establish general notability and context outside of controversies. While @Mt.FijiBoiz did engage constructively at times, the editor did resort to name-calling on one occasion and I haven't experienced any effort on behalf of the editors mentioned to engage in fact-finding constructive dialogue, instead seeing aggressive reverts and withholding of consensus (e.g. 2) citing vague references to Wikipedia policies instead of providing sourcing to back up or even to add to the debate in the article, for example, claims of too much bias in the NYTimes or NBC News to warrant referencing notable controversies in the lead (Republican aid to Green Party and Russian covert/overt promotion of Jill Stein's 2016 campaign, respectively).

I would ask anyone watching for:

1) temporary bans on the editors mentioned above to allow for more constructive, good faith editing and dialogue

2) help shaping the Green Party (United States) and Supreme Court of the United States article leads, description and discussion. I've asked for (and am awaiting a reply from) the editors above to join in a dispute resolution over how to update the lead to reference the Green Party article, which, along with the Supreme Court page, mentions controversies in the body but not the lead despite making repeated attempts to help establish even a few sentences summarizing major controversies and have the focus on notability (instead of the more mundane minutiae taking up much of the space in these leads). Superb Owl (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Admin comments

• Superb Owl, you're edit warring; there is no doubt about it. You posted various things on the talk page but it's hard to find the real invitations for collaborative editing in the midst of excessive detail and misguided personal comments (with this being a pretty good example of the latter). Same here: you could have responded to the meat of the report, but instead you post paragraphs that are too long and too full for human consumption, and you attack the other parties, asking for a ban. But the problem in these article histories is you, and I am going to block you from editing these two, Green Party (United States) and Supreme Court of the United States, in order to allow for "more constructive, good faith editing and dialogue". Please be aware that your behavior on talk pages needs to improve as well. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Drmies I see that I was edit warring and now know just how big of an issue that is and it will not happen again.

  As far as Talk page conduct, I've read through those guidelines and see what you were talking about. It won't happen again. Thank you for noting that so concisely.

  I do not yet know how to invite people to edit a Sandbox collaboratively (I'm still learning the ropes of the site) but am investigating that.

  Lastly, I do want to note that @Drmies was a party to previous discussions - I very much accept the result but in the future would appreciate another administrator to review any future disputes should they arise.

Superb Owl (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

User:WeeKeeEditor reported by User:Admantine123 (Result: Blocked)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: [23][24][25]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26], warning given by Fylindfotberserk.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27][28]

Comments:

• [29][30][31], these are the reverts of the user. The image added are according to Wikipedia's image policy. The section, where it is added, talks about these politicians playing important role in transformation of poltics of Bihar . Next passage also talks about one of these politicians, shown in image only. Yet the user is reverting it on dubious grounds. Admantine123 (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Nitish Kumar has been chief minister of Bihar for 13 years between 2005 and 2020. In contrast to prior governments, which emphasised divisions of caste and religion, his political platform was based on economic development, reduction of crime and corruption, and greater social equality. Since 2010, the government confiscated the properties of corrupt officials and redeployed them as school buildings.[97] They also introduced Bihar Special Court Act to curb crime.[98] It also legislated a two-hour lunch break on Fridays, to enable Muslim employees to pray and thereby reduce absenteeism.[99] The government has prohibited the sale and consumption of alcohol in the state since March 2016,[100] which has been linked to a drop in tourism[101] and a rise in substance abuse

Half of the politics section talks about contribution of Nitish Kumar and his transformation of Bihar after he became Chief Minister. Previous section also discusses about Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar becoming Champion of Mandal Politics. Then, why shouldn't we include an image of these two politicians for the readers. -Admantine123 (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Probably has little or no interest in working collaboratively considering this response. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 reported by User:Johnbod (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page: Sarajevo Haggadah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33] 15:05, 26 May
2. [34] 15:37, 26 May
3. [35] 8:40, 27 May
4. [36] 13:46, 27 May

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sarajevo_Haggadah#Layout

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38]

Comments:2 different editors reverted. Referenced text also removed. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"Comments:2 different editors reverted. Referenced text also removed", there is nothing in this editor's statement that correspond the reality. A close inspection will reveal very strange persistence on rv over trivial and common sense matters, described for instance like rvt to better, or persistently misinterpreting MOS:SEEALSO as if the guideline requires "close relation", where it actually don't, and so on. Some statements are confused but I can't go into any kind of speculations. Most worrying is that this dispute over what constitute MOS:SEEALSO main point is actually irrelevant to user's all subsequent rv's, which they justified with this dispute over See also section, and used it as a pretext to revert all my other edits - so, the problem is that I stopped including (unnecessarily disputed) See also section after second editor's rv, but they continued to revert my edits in which I attempted to give an article a proper layout and enhance readability by introducing very common-sense typical structure, which finally gave its prose proper corresponding sections - up until then, all prose was crammed under History, regardless of variety of topics it covered. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to note, I initiated TP discussion in attempt to resolve dispute, but it did make much difference. However, I have used TP discussion to draw their attention to the fact that the edit which they are using as a pretext for their subsequent (edit-war) reverts was not made at all, it does not exists, but that had no effect either, so they continued to revert on common-semse and trivial matter dismissing me along the way and, also really unnecessary from them, went on to reply on my attempt to inform them that the cope is under ARBEE, with a same template on my TP. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Ahem, yes, well. The other editor reverted was this one, who very sensibly added a gallery, which Santa reverted next edit. I won't repeat the points I made on talk, not that they are that relevant for 3RR. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

That "ahem" is unnecessary. As for my interaction with that other editor, I can tell that our interaction has been innocuous and normal - I included some images into article, at that point without sections, which (s)he deemed too large and decided to create gallery, after which I reorganized entire article into sections and repositioned and resized images back into corresponding sections which at that point looked very much OK. There was no reverts on ether sides, just normal enhancement.

I have no excuse for breaching 3RR, except that I am not an editor with a knack for edit-warring, and that those two sets of edits came across two days.

But neither do you for your own 3RR breach before me; you certainly have no excuse for doing some things that would throw off balance most editors. You interacted with me as if you couldn't care less for my point of view, throwing back at me same template in which I informed you of WP:ARBEE, or giving explanations like "rvt to better", but most unfairly, you used one dispute, which I resolved simply by abandoning my edit, to justify removal of my other unrelated contribution without ever acknowledging the fact. In essence, you continued to edit-war and revert me over trivial but common-sense edits on the article structure (layout, setting up sections) without any kind of explanation related to that edits, continuously using earlier dispute as a pretext.

And, by the way, I never removed anything because you never contributed anything, except one bare url ref to some Bible blog, which I recovered. Although in the last group of your edits you did include some minimal but unnecessary, completely trivial info with one ref, but that seem more like an alibi or excuse move than sensible contribution. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

More raving! For the 2nd time, I didn't add the gallery, that was the other editor you reverted. I'll let others judge how "unnecessary, completely trivial" these additions, which you reverted are. It's true they don't mention Bosnia at all, which obviously damns them in your eyes. I don't mind your "layout" changes too much, but there are too many short sections, and too many images fixed very small. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)