Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pe19 (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 10 June 2018 (→User:DragonFury reported by User:Pe19 (Result: No violation)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    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:Darkknight2149 reported by User:Udar55 (Result: Both parties blocked for 36 hours)

    Darkknight2149 was blocked and then unblocked after a discussion. Both admin decisions look to be correct and by the book. If the underlying dispute needs to be considered further, take it elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page: Suspiria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Darkknight2149 (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]

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

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

    Comments:
    User Darkknight2149 has taken it upon himself to declare the film a "reboot". It is clearly a remake as it has the same central character, setting and plot. User refers to one instance of the director saying he couldn't remake the film, insisting that this is the basis for his claim. However, he is bending the director's words to fit his narrative (the director said he could not remake Argento's film's style). User started a talk discussion of it (on a different article) and battles anyone who disagrees. I corrected this info once and was reverted. I have reverted it only twice and user has reverted my edit three times, thus violating 3RR policy. Naturally, Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to this again. Udar55 (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, you were almost immediately informed that this was already on the Talk Page, yet you continued to revert (as plainly seen here). Then, as soon as you were warned to stop edit warring, you file a retaliatory report? Classic WP:BOOMERANG. You should have stopped the moment you were informed that the Talk Page discussion had already been opened, instead of continuing to revert.
    And, not that it matters here, but we have two primary sources blatantly stating it's not a remake, one third party source stating that it's a reboot, and I can easily dig up more. If you have a problem with the cited content, the onus would've been on you to go to the Talk Page from the start. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't violate 3RR, you did. I can also dig up plenty of primary sources calling it a remake. And point to examples of other remakes on Wikipedia labeled as remakes and not reboots. Udar55 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see those primary sources (which aren't and have never been listed). And considering I only reverted you three times on that day, that isn't a violation of 3RR. You were told from the start that this was already on the Talk Page, yet you insisted on repeatingly reverting, knowing full-well that this was being discussed. Then, when you were warned, you opened this report without warning in order to save your own skin. Like I said, this is an obvious WP:BOOMERANG. The fact that you had to add "Naturally, Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to this again" to your report pretty much says it all. DarkKnight2149 14:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule For your consideration: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." You have done it four times starting on June 5, so I just did my third. Udar55 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My god, did you really just use the 3RR as an excuse to revert again??? If this doesn't take the piss, I don't know what will. DarkKnight2149 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) Both parties were wrong not to use the talk page, but I have in the past, and even just today on this very issue, found attempting to communicate with Darkknight2149 on content issues extremely difficult, as he frequently engages in IDHT, refuses to recognize that some sources are less reliable than others for certain kinds of claims, and is generally uncooperative (pinging User:Curly Turkey and User:Softlavender, although just about anyone who commented on the problem last year would say the same). Given these facts, it's difficult to hold it against Udar55 for not wanting to get dragged into an unending talk page back-and-forth before giving up in frustration and allowing DK2149 to "win" by default.
    It also seems a little unfair that DK2149 was unblocked by User:SQL, essentially for wikilawyering about not having been aware of having technically violated 3RR because he was careful "only" to revert three times on a particular calendar date in his time zone (which is not behaviour the edit-warring policy considers acceptable), without the same offer being extended to Udar.
    Furthermore, although it is obviously outside ANEW's purview, Udar is clearly right on the substance, and really would have been better off bringing this to RSN or WT:FILM than here. Pointing this out here because hopefully Udar will take this advice in the future.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you WP:HOUNDing me again, Hijiri88? I suggest you stop. That Arbitration Committee warning is still in effect. For outside users, Hijiri has admitted in the past to harbouring a WP:GRUDGE going back to a Mister Freeze disagreement, so it's no surprise that he jumped in the moment he noticed I was unblocked for something. Don't be surprised if Curly Turkey shows up here tag-team as well. He's never far behind.DarkKnight2149 17:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind. Hijiri just WP:CANVASSED both Softlavender and Curly Turkey to this as well. This should be fun. DarkKnight2149 17:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned for stalking and harassment. This WP:GRUDGE-match from this user has been going on for well over a year now. If this persists, I'm taking Hijiri88, Curly Turkey, Softlavender, and Twitbookspacetube (who already banned by ArbCom for this sort of thing) to the Arbitration Committee. As I told them the last time Hijiri88 attempted something like this, I have more than enough evidence. DarkKnight2149 18:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Christian M. (2016) reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Avengers: Infinity War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Christian M. (2016) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [4]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [5]
    2. [6]
    3. [7]
    4. [8]
    5. [9]
    6. [10]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

    Comments:

    Looks like a single editor is waging a unilateral edit war. So far Christian been reverted by four different editors so there is definitely no support for his edit as yet, regardless of its merit. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Modanung reported by User:Tyw7 (Result: Indef)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [13]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [14]
    2. [15]
    3. [16]
    4. [17]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Chaos_magic#Chaosphere_Image_in_Masthead_Position

    Comments:

    There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page but the reported user contiually add the offending picture despite objections. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Modanung has been blocked on the German Wikipedia for adding the same image on the German Wikipedia. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Coldtrack reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: No action)

    Page: White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Coldtrack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [19]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    The article is under 1RR

    1. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning for an earlier spate of edit warring on exact same article, Notification of DS, including the fact that the article is subject to 1RR

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23], [24]

    Pretty straight forward violation of 1RR restriction (3 reverts in under 24 hrs) on an article the user has broken 1RR previously.

    Comments:

    • Just a point that if the admins see fit to block Coldtrack then I believe WP:BOOMERANG is in order and should suck in every person to have taken part in the same edit war. I initially put the neutrality tag in as a replacement for the DUBIOUS tag, while those happy with the current text have scavenged for reasons to conceal there is a neutrality issue and it is clear than Volunteer Marek, Stikki and possibly others have engaged in WP:TAGTEAM. Coldtrack for the most part - although definitely wrong in his conduct - has fought a one-man battle against the collective. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the foremost issue here is that Volunteer Marek deleted a tag placed by an administrator.[1] Coldtrack restored it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no other way to say what I am going to say except - I was totally wrong. I've read NeilN's statement that clarifies my initial hunch which had been that tag management amounted to some form of exception. Clearly it isn't. Without prejudice or wishing to bring down others, please realise that this article is a hotbed for disagreement and consensus at present cannot be reached since about twelve or so editors have commented and they are roughly evenly divided. The point is that nobody's argument has swayed anybody from the opposite side and so insults are flying in summaries and in the talk page. I really think it is time to move on however procedure dictates. We require more or fresher opinions and dare I say it, maybe more admin action. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/844799312

    User:Wikii6B reported by User:Power~enwiki (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    Page: Whataboutism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Abortion statistics in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Wikii6B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25] at Whataboutism
    2. [26] at Whataboutism
    3. [27] at Abortion statistics in the United States

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: previous block

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

    Comments:

    After a block for edit-warring by EdJohnston (AN3 archive), this user has immediately jumped back into edit-warring on these two pages. This is approaching WP:NOTHERE indef territory, in my opinion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 - "If you have a problem with the article as it is, take it to the talk page"[28] - The irony!, The fact they've returned simply to revert everyone speaks volumes imho, They're a net negative to the project and IMHO should be indeffed. –Davey2010Talk 16:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davey2010 reported by User:Maricotes (Result: Nominator blocked)

    Page: Whataboutism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Davey2010 (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. [29]
    2. [30]
    3. [31]
    4. [32]

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

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

    Comments:

    This is an obvious bad-faith report by a sock of Wikii6B and should be a BOOMERANG block. WP:3RRNO#3 applies to Davey's edits. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don’t stoop to accusing me of being a sock of another editor you were successful in getting blocked (unlike your RfA). The project is about building a reputable encyclopedia, not about exerting power over others. Maricotes (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, well good luck with that SPI in the hands of someone who actually has the power to conduct one. I should also add that seeing as how I am certainly not a sock of this Wikii6B editor you bullied into a block, WP:3RRNO#3 certainly doesn’t apply here. Maricotes (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:RiceWife (Result: RiceWife indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry)

    Page: Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Charlesdrakew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [34]
    2. [35]
    3. [36]
    4. [37]
    5. [38]
    6. [39]
    7. [40]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user has been impossible to talk to - through their talk page and edit comments. There is no reasoning with him - from myself and other users.

    Comments:

    He seems to have a problem with "future" routes on Wikipedia and has been reverting these. Despite other editors and myself telling him otherwise he continues to vandalise these pages and doesn't show any sign of stopping. Just for context - he is also creating issues on: Sofia Airport, Doncaster Sheffield Airport and Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport. Thanks RiceWife (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your help. It does seem like he is gaming the system but rules are rules! RiceWife (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Castop reported by User:Alexis Jazz (Result: Blocked for a week)

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

    Same old, same old. Except now they made a suggestion to me and Lambtron that ClueBot NG does not approve of.

    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of a week Seeing as they started making the same edits almost as soon as their previous block expired, I've given them a week off this time. Number 57 14:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ainsley Louis Mallari9 reported by User:Broadwaygenius (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page
    OpenTTD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ainsley Louis Mallari9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    2. 14:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    3. 14:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    4. 14:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    5. 14:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    Blanked page 5 times in 3 minutes, warring with users trying to stop them. Blanked a series of other pages Broadwaygenius (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:188.87.238.162 reported by User:Tryptofish (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Yvette d'Entremont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 188.87.238.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [42]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [43]
    2. [44]
    3. [45]
    4. [46]
    5. [47]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

    Comments:
    IP edit warring to insert WP:ELNO link, continues to revert (starting with 3rd revert) after getting the warning on the talk page, indicating intent to continue. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Aw, man, Tryptofish... I was just about to try to solve this dispute. I'll write a bit faster, then.

    To get back on topic, I was one of those who added a warning, noting that the user continued to add the content in dispute, and did not take measures to discuss this issue. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 18:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2001:56A:F6FD:500:150C:9A7A:6DDC:9076 reported by User:Broadwaygenius (Result: Already blocked)

    Page
    Listing and approval use and compliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2001:56A:F6FD:500:150C:9A7A:6DDC:9076 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 07:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 07:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 07:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on PlayStation 3 system software. (TW)"
    2. 07:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on PlayStation 3 system software. (TW)"
    3. 07:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Certification mark. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    User:178.135.225.105 reported by User:Redalert2fan (Result: Blocked 1 week)

    Page
    Frozen (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    178.135.225.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 11:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "How many of you people are hungry attackers against vandals?"
    2. 11:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision. You guys have problems,"
    3. 11:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845233270 by your mom lol (talk)"
    4. 11:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845233270 by your mom lol (talk)"
    5. 11:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropria"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Frozen (franchise). (TW)"
    2. 11:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Frozen (franchise). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This user will probably continue with reverting Redalert2fan (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Further notice, the user has been blocked but tried to impersonate Jimbo Wales on his talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redalert2fan (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TBBC reported by User:JuneGloom07 (Result:Blocked for six months. )

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

    Previous version reverted to: [49]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

    Comments:
    Not the first time User:TBBC has edit warred on this page. It was previously protected on 13 April 2018‎ until 7 June by Courcelles. JuneGloom07 Talk 15:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.146.192.87 reported by User:QuickWittedHare (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

    Page
    Baristas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    24.146.192.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "SCAM OF A COMPANY!!!"
    2. 17:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "THIS IS A SCAM ARTICLE FOR A SCAM OF A COMPANY!!!....LOOK UP THE LOCATION ON GOOGLE MAPS!!"
    3. 17:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845269110 by Arjayay (talk)"
    4. 16:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845269016 by Arjayay (talk)"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 16:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC) to 16:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      1. 16:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845268815 by Susmuffin (talk)"
      2. 16:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 845268716 by Arjayay (talk)"
    6. 16:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ""
    7. 16:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Baristas. (TW)"
    2. 16:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Corrected date"
    3. 17:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Baristas. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Not here to build at the moment, Edit warring between multiple subjects QuickWittedHare (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DragonFury reported by User:Pe19 (Result: No violation)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [56]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [57]
    2. [58]
    3. [59]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61] (this is on user talk page, requesting that they explain why they reverted. One cannot resolve anything on article talk pages if the reverter does not offer any hint of why they reverted)

    Comments:

    I fixed a misused preposition in an article. The user I am reporting undid my edit without any explanation. I left a message on their talk page, pointing out that this was disruptive. I reinstated the edit. They undid my edit a second time, again with no explanation. This cannot be seen as anything other than deliberately disruptive. I commented again on their talk page. They have just undone my edit for the third time, with no explanation in the edit summary or on their talk page, though with an attempted justification on their talk page. Their second and third reverts cannot be anything other than fully conscious disruption, and so while they have not broken the 3RR, I am reporting them here as clearly they wish to provoke an edit war. I see they've been warned for 3RR violations and personal attacks in the recent past. Pe19 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation Pe19, you're both at three reverts and DragonFury has now provided as explanation (it would have been better if the first revert had an edit summary containing that explanation). Please work it out on the talk page along with the other editor who reverted you. NeilN talk to me 17:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree there is not a 3RR violation. I already said that. As I understand it, that is simply an incontrovertible demonstration that edit warring is taking place. Not breaking that rule doesn't mean you're not edit warring. And it's clear that this user did not revert my edits for any reason - after a message specifically pointing out that not explaining themselves was disruptive, they made the same unexplained edit twice more. And because they eventually made some attempt at an explanation, you think their behaviour is fine? Pe19 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Pe19: There can be a great distance between behavior not being fine and behavior being blockable. Your three reverts and initial message accusing the editor of being disruptive was not fine either, but not blockable. --NeilN talk to me 17:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked. I reported problematic behaviour. But you've condoned it, and now you suggest that calling out disruptive behaviour was "not fine"? Amazing. Pe19 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=845278815"