Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 391: Line 391:


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStoatmonster&type=revision&diff=769554255&oldid=769552106]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStoatmonster&type=revision&diff=769554255&oldid=769552106] <small>(Added by Citobun after the fact. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC))</small>


;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Revision as of 11:19, 10 March 2017

    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:129.21.159.59 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: Page protected/Discussion closed)

    If this needs to continue it should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2017 (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: Computer Science House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 129.21.159.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts: [2]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This user is a clear vandal who, as soon as they learn about a policy, sets about violating it while accusing others of violating it. This IP geolocates to the Rochester Institute of Technology, meaning this user cannot make substantial edits to that article or anything in its orbit because of WP:COI. They've responded to my explanation of this policy by repeatedly inserting trash sourced to Reddit at Computer Science House while summarizing their reverts with a lie that I have a conflict of interest. They are aware from last time that editing like this will earn them a block.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See this edit summary, which came 14 minutes after they were blocked for edit warring, and gauge the potential of having a positive interaction with this person.

    Comments:

    Despite over a dozen edit summaries by User talk:129.21.159.59 that contained WP:NPA violations on their own talk page when they were blocked, admin User:El C chose not to remove talk page access or extend the block. (Per the very first bullet point on WP:EW#What edit warring is, El C incorrectly characterized my reverts of vandal edits as edit warring.) Hours after the minuscule block expired, the user resumed edit warring with a hopelessly unacceptable edit (that, since the summary included a lying attack on me, means it was vandalism) at Computer Science House. The block must be at least a week and it cannot allow talk page access during that time. If you disagree, please leave this report to a different admin. CityOfSilver 16:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: You two, again! Do I need to block both of you? Or would you rather I set up an interaction ban? (It's the latter, right?) That said, IP, I have questions: 1. Have you read BLPCRIME and do you think it applies in this case? And 2. What COI are you referring to? El_C 18:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: And CityOfSilver, the only reason you weren't blocked before was because I try to err on the side of leniency—but when I tell you to leave a blocked user's talk page, you do it. If anything, you took advantage of my then-spotty connection. Many admins would block you after-the-fact for that. Anyway, you don't get a different admin, you already have me. I'm the one investigating and the one familiar with the case of you two. I caution you, though, that a 2nd opinion might hit you like a boomerang. El_C 19:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Regarding the personal attacks, I have already given a warning to both of you, for both the "angry virgin"[3] and "snowflake"[4] (an insult I'm not familiar with) namecalling. Moving on, you should both take that warning as one-and-only warning regarding NPA violations. But there's not gonna be retroactive blocks issued. El_C 19:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • CityOfSilver, you are so lucky I didn't see this a couple of days ago. You would have been blocked for a couple of days. 14 reverts in just under 2 hours is completely unacceptable. That isn't counting the 4 reverts on the article. You need to back away. - GB fan 19:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason he wasn't blocked is that he was sure it was vandalism—but once I tell him it isn't, that should be that. I may have been too soft, however; and that, as well as the resulting blasé attitude, is on me. El_C 19:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking advantage my then-spotty connection, I should add. Once I came to, I chose to protect the page for an hour, but a block would probably been more appropriate. El_C 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GB fan and El C: Every single one of my reverts was in accordance with exception #4 at WP:3RRNO. I absolutely did every single one of those reverts as antivandalism, no more, no less. I can't prove that I'm telling the truth beyond what I just said but proving I'm lying about my motives is also impossible. While I know this has been so contentious and aggravating that this could badly boomerang on me, I'm asking you both to stop saying or hinting that I'm not editing in good faith per the fifth bullet point at WP:NPA. I don't believe that policy has been violated since until now, I haven't made my motives this clear.
    (My first revert's edit summary has apparently cost me a bit of credibility. It read: "And while I know we're supposed to give people autonomy over their talk pages, I can't abide by allowing my good faith advice to be removed with a blatant personal attack." That was in response to that user's response to a friendly edit summary reminder I'd left, which was to revert it with an edit summary that read, in total, "remove bullshit". I concluded that if I didn't revert, I'd be co-signing what that user said about me. Was I wrong to think an edit summary like that shouldn't be allowed to stand without pushback?)
    That IP address geolocates to the Rochester Institute of Technology so it's a conflict of interest. That's per WP:DUCK if nothing else. I doubt someone with no relationship to that school or the Computer Science House just wandered onto the campus late at night Rochester time and started inserting inflammatory, negative, terribly-sourced attacks. CityOfSilver 17:59, 9 March 2017 (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:Unknownassassin reported by User:Galatz (Result: No violation—Page protected 24 hours)

    Page: Prison Break: Sequel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Unknownassassin (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. [5]
    2. [6]
    3. [7]
    4. [8]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

    Comments:
    I attempted to bring this discussion to the WP:RFP page first, to lock the page down however the user has chose to go way beyond what that page is for, and potentially beyond here as well. He appears to be using an IP address as a WP:SOCK to do additional reverts and changes, as you can tell by comparing their contributions [10] and [11]. In addition he has tried moving the page in addition to his other random moves through copy and pasting [12] and after it was undone the IP user redid it [13]. Therefore I would say on top of edit warring there are plenty of other violations as well. - GalatzTalk 18:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation. I'm not sure that fourth diff is a revert, it it seems like just an edit. So, unless you can prove to me that it is a revert, I'm ruling this as no breach of 3RR. But Unknownassassin is still admonished, and is cautioned, about edit warring. I have also protected the page for a week. El_C 18:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Thanks. He moved the page originally here which was moved back, he then moved it again here and it was moved back, and then again moved it here. Meaning 2RR relating to the move, and then the first 2 make 4. If we look into the IP sock account he also had [14] making 5.
    Also since you locked it from moving can you also move back to the original page Prison Break (season 5) so a proper move request can be made and addressed? - GalatzTalk 18:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C:Also it appears only Admins can edit the page now, did you mean to do that? - GalatzTalk 19:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Thanks so much for your help! Sorry to be a pain but can you move the page back to the original page Prison Break (season 5), due to the way he went about moving everything only an admin can move it now. - GalatzTalk 19:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. El_C 19:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DanG1141 reported by User:SirGents (Result: 36 hours)

    Page
    Dundee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    DanG1141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769311289 by SirGents (talk)"
    2. 19:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769310548 by Mutt Lunker (talk)"
    3. 19:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769309809 by Mutt Lunker (talk)"
    4. 19:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769308466 by Mutt Lunker (talk)"
    5. 18:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769303324 by Mutt Lunker (talk)"
    6. 18:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Modern day */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dundee. (TW)"
    2. 19:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dundee. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User is continually reverting edits made, and the account is obviously linked to the place described in the article SirGents(talk) 19:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. I note the absence of an attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (field blank), otherwise the block duration would be greater. El_C 19:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Puente aereo reported by User:Qed237 (Result: User warned)

    Page
    Template:UEFA coach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Puente aereo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "updated homogeneous format"
    2. 18:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "updated format, respect"
    3. 14:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "updated format"
    4. 15:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "respect the updated"
    5. 15:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Unified UEFA-FIFA competiton template, please check UEFA or FIFA player templates"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:UEFA coach. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 19:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC) "UEFA coach template: new section"
    2. 21:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "/* UEFA coach template */"
    Comments:

    The editor has repeatedly tried to update a highly visible template to their version without any discussion. I tried talking to them at their talkpage without any success. I understand that I am walking a thin line myself, but i reverted based on the fact that it is a high visible template which affect many pages so should not be modified without reason, but also I have tried to talk to the editor. Qed237 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C: Even slow wars are still edit wars. This editor has shown no interest in communication. Qed237 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I left the user a note about being responsive when reverting, let me know if the problem continues. El_C 21:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Emeka2010 reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: blocked indefinitely)

    Page
    Ebele the flutist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Emeka2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "edited sources"
    3. 22:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC) ""
    4. 06:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of warnings
    1. 20:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Biographies of living persons */ new section"
    2. 22:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ebele the flutist‎.) (TW"
    3. 22:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ebele the flutist.) (TW"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Repeatedly reverting to their original version of the BLP (except for one maintenance template) with promotional language and material unsupported by the citations in the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 18 hours. Once again, the section in the report about an attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page is blank (artilce talk page hasn't even been edited once), making this an incomplete report. This time, I'm taking a stand about that: not the full 24 hour block due to that. El_C 23:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @El C: Not brought up here but a look at the removed text reveals copyright and close-paraphrasing violations, something Emeka2010 has been warned about before. I'm going to revdel versions but I would recommend an indef copyvio block for Emeka2010. --NeilN talk to me 23:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Paintboxing reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: Page protected)

    Page
    Pink Floyd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Paintboxing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 02:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC) "Sources are present in the article."
    2. 02:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC) "Consensus? Are you kidding me? Sources are present in the article."
    3. 19:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "sources are in the article."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 02:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC) "+ Section header for clarity"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:
    • No violation. You need four reverts to breach 3RR. Page protected for a week. Also, that's not the article talk page you link to below the heading attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page, Mlpearc, and more importantly, I'm not seeing your attempt to convince Paintboxing. Please take it to the article talk page, both of you. Honestly, I would have expected for you to have tried speaking plainly to Paintboxing rather than only through templates. Now you two have a week to figure it out. And Paintboxing, just because the article happened to have been protected on your version, does not mean you can shy away from the conversation for the week. (Note that I have been known to ignore all rules and revert to the other person's version, as a motivator, if I see a lack of participation on the article talk from the right-version party.) El_C 05:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:220.208.52.119 reported by User:Slashme (Result: One month)

    Page
    Reshiram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    220.208.52.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reshiram&oldid=763449034

    Diffs of the user's reverts
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    Anon user; previously warned, previously blocked, currently actively reverting a redirect with poor-quality content. --Slashme (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crillfish reported by User:DrFleischman (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Richard B. Spencer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Crillfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [15]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [16]
    2. [17]


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


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: very extensive, e.g. [19]

    Comments:

    This is not a 3RR violation. This is edit warring against clear consensus, which was established by a near-unanimous RfC that can be found here. Crillfish is an SPA whose sole purpose is to oppose any effort to describe Richard B. Spencer as a white supremacist. They brought this issue up over and over again in different discussions on the talk page while the RfC was pending, even after consensus was clear. There are too many diffs to count - just go to Talk:Richard B. Spencer and do a quick skim for this editor's comments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately "Dr Fleishman" and other editors appear obsessed with labeling Mr. Spencer a "white supremacist," even though no currently reliable sources do so. An RFC "consensus" doesn't change the facts: wikipedia's Richard Spencer lede descriptor is misleading and appears to be the product of editors who have a personal problem with Mr. Spencer and wish to describe him misleadingly. Please see my edit sourcing. My sources are more current and reliable. I think admin intervention to correct the page is necessary. Crillfish (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dr.K reported by User:Cecoppola (Result: reporter blocked)

    Page: Talk:Metre (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    User being reported: Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    His username has a period at the end, which breaks the wikipedia user linking. So you have to click on the name here. I don't know how to make the title format work.

    [20]

    [21]

    This user is reverting my suggested tag on the article, without any justification or resolution of the problem. This user is ALSO deleting comments on the talk page because he disagrees with them! Please restrict his ability to make any more changes. I cannot possibly have a discussion about the page if he is deleting everything! Cecoppola (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: Not commenting on this user's clueless report here, I reverted this user's comments on the talkpage per FORUM, NPA and CIV, because s/he is calling editors "terrorists" for using the ENGVAR version "metre" on the talkpage of Metre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dr. K. 23:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note: You should comment on name-calling, not delete whole posts. I took out the word that offended you. Stop trying to silence disagreement. You're revealing your hypocrisy by insulting me here because you got caught breaking the rules. Cecoppola (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "trolling" here, just a gang of UK users who can't handle disagreement. Stop silencing discussion. Cecoppola (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cecoppola reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 31h)

    Page
    Metre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Cecoppola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 00:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Insulting other users is not an acceptable reason to delete content you don't like."
    2. 00:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Stop preventing discussion of the article."
    3. 00:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "No, it isn't a clear misuse. Stop deleting things. There will be a discussion on the talk page."
    4. 23:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC) "Tags should be left so people can discuss them."
    5. 20:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 23:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Cecoppola (talk): You don't get to call other editors terrorists for using ENGVAR. Revert rant per NPA, FORUM, CIV. (TW★TW)"
    Comments:

    Restores unjustified tag despite explanations. Calling editors "terrorists" on the talkpage. Will not stop. Dr. K. 00:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This report is baseless, and only being made in retaliation for the above one. Stop deleting content you don't like, and allow discussion to take place. Cecoppola (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much textbook WP:NOTHERE. This goes beyond the metre dispute (e.g. [23]), indef until they learn manners/how to behave in society. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a strong bias among some editors on en.wiki about these issues. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that these changes are justified. Cecoppola (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Calibrador reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

    Page
    Game of Thrones (season 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Calibrador (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 23:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC) to 23:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
      1. 23:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC) "you changed my established color choice "Slight adjustment""
      2. 23:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC) "revert to original color"
    2. 23:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC) "oh no I didn't get to pick the color!"
    3. 20:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC) ""
    4. 19:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC) "Slight adjustment because I have to be the one that picks it not anyone else! WP:Ownership"
    5. 03:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Discussion on editor's talk page shows an attempt by the other editor to warn him that he should stop with edit warring as well as a desire to resolve the issue. The editor being reported completely rebuffed the other editor and was borderline personally attacking him in both the talk page comments (seen here) as well as the edit summaries he used (seen here). Ironically, the editor being reported is accusing the other editor of WP:OWN.

    Happily, the other editor reverted himself and stopped reverting. The editor being reported, not so much. This has been an issue before with Calibrador: infobox (and other) image wars. Previously, this type of edit warring has been mostly limited to his own submitted images. Recently, however, he has branched out to IP edit warring and now, as we can see here, to infobox images that aren't his own. I think it's worth mentioning that Calibrador was the editor who uploaded the image he has been edit warring over. The battleground mentality of this editor over photographs and other artwork continues. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What a profoundly stupid edit war. clpo13(talk) 00:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As Winkelvi was not even involved in the situation they are reporting, their past confrontational behavior with me including their blocking for reverting my edits across many articles, and ability to hold a grudge, this report is not based on much merit other than wanting to block me at any and all costs. I suggest Winkelvi look at their own personal problems, or take some sort of anger management classes instead of looking at and obsessing over Wikipedia. It has been proposed in the past that Winkelvi and I have a topic ban that disallows us from conversing (I don't believe it's called topic ban, but can't recall the actual name.) As for AlextheWhovian, there was a previous dispute, which can be found on the article's talk page. AlextheWhovian regularly reverts people until they get their way. The color of an infobox is an example of something they will revert and revert until it's their choice. I do not have good faith for their editing pattern, and challenged it. I made three actual reverts. The final edit was not a revert, it was a regular edit. If anyone else had made the same edit, I would have assumed good faith and accepted the change. But as I stated on my talk page discussion, I predicted they would change the color of the infobox, it was unfortunate that I didn't include it in my original edit summary. As the user Winkelvi has had no contributions to the article in question, I'd put forward to any reviewing admins that the user Winkelvi is monitoring my contribution history, something they were blocked 60 days for in the past. Granted, that block accompanied them reverting my edits across several articles they also had never contributed to prior, I hope this would serve as proof that they still regularly check my contribution history in order to either confront me, or in this instance report me in an attempt to make me go away. Calibrador (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, so there's no confusion, Winkelvi included two unrelated edits, one of which was simply adding a reference, as well as where I added a caption, both unrelated to the reverts performed by AlextheWhovian, I guess in an attempt to make it look like I reverted more times than I actually did. And the final edit wasn't a revert of AlextheWhovian, or anyone for that matter. Calibrador (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think that this report isn't going to go anywhere, but don't attempt to deflect a report against your reactions to lay the blame entirely on others. Winkelvi is able to interact with all editors and make reports as they please. Your accusations that I constantly revert are clearly false, given this particular situation that I was the one who ceased to make the edits to take it to a discussion, a discussion which (clearly per your talk page) you refuse to assume good faith for any of my edits based upon your previous grievances with me. I attempted to notify Calibrador that I wasn't even aware that they'd made the initial edits, but hey, apparently they're important enough for me to hound them. Who knew, amirite? Alex|The|Whovian? 11:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlexTheWhovian and Calibrador: You're both edit warring; one of you in the short run and the other in the long run. Stop this and go to the article's talk page. Bring in a third opinion or open an RFC. @Calibrador: Nobody here cares about another editor's motivation for reporting edit warring. You shouldn't be edit warring. Period. Finally, thank you, Winkelvi, for taking the time to file this report. --slakr\ talk / 07:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slakr: This got turned into a report. Huh. Now, to specify: I made one adjustment [24], then when Calibrador changed it with their uncivil summary [25], I restored it to once more match the hidden episode table in the article [26], not expecting it to be such a massive issue. Apparently it was. Why? No idea. Count only two edits for me, as my third was only to restore it back [27] to the same colour that Calibrador has initially used [28], and I then ceased to partake in the issue outside of a discussion. No edit-warring on my behalf. But I agree with Clpo13: what a stupid thing to edit-war over; my thanks to Winkelvi for the report as well. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:160.39.242.122 reported by User:General Ization (Result: 31h)

    Page
    Clarence Thomas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    160.39.242.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769519697 by General Ization (talk) I'm putting my sourced information in public perception, not the lead."
    2. 01:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 01:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769518863 by General Ization (talk)"
    4. 01:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769512608 by Bbb23 (talk) The opinions of black Americans belong in the lead, racist."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Bbb23. (TW)"
    2. 01:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Clarence Thomas. (TW)"
    3. 01:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    WP:EW, WP:NPAvio General Ization Talk 01:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Unknownassassin reported by User:Galatz (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Prison Break: Resurrection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Unknownassassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [29]

    Comments: User was blocked for 24 hours yesterday for edit warring and violating the 3RR rule. As soon as the block is lifted they come back and do the same exact action. Rather than joining the conversation ongoing on the talk page, they again decide to unilaterally move the page. - GalatzTalk 02:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stoatmonster reported by User:Citobun (Result: Page protected—Both users warned)

    Page
    Hong Kong Police Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Stoatmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769559351 by Clubjustin (talk)"
    2. 08:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769556279 by Clubjustin (talk)"
    3. 08:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769554240 by Clubjustin (talk)"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 07:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC) to 07:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
      1. 07:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "The correct name of the police force is the "Hong Kong Police" not the "Hong Kong Police Force". The name listed at the head of its official website is actually wrong!"
      2. 07:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "This is a more accurate and balanced version of the history of the HKP post war."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Warned by User:Clubjustin but continually reverting. Asserts that the HKPF is not really named "Hong Kong Police Force" despite evidence to the contrary. Citobun (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    official site of the HKPF shows the force is indeed named the "Hong Kong Police Force". Clubjustin Talkosphere 09:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply I object and counter the complaint of User:Clubjustin. This may sound petty but anyone, like me, who has served many years in the Royal Hong Kong Police and then subsequently, the Hong Kong Police, will know that the proper name of the organisation is "Hong Kong Police" without the suffix "Force", which is even erroneously affixed to the heading title of the organisation's homepage on the internet and which should be corrected! To be fair, many people refer to the organisation as the "Hong Kong Police Force" but this does not mean they are correct to do so.Secondly, I edited the section describing the post-war reputation of the HKP, which was poorly written and contained some misleading statements. I attempted to provide a more accurate and balanced perspective, providing dates and detail to lend context to this important period of history. I regret to report that User:Clubjustin not only refused to comment constructively on my edits but rather chose to simply reverse my edits. His conduct, to my mind, demonstrates a stubborn, rude and ignorant attempt to destroy my well-intended contributions. Having just read Wikipedia's editorial rules, I now recognize that making three editorial reversals within 24 hours may constitute a technical breach but I stand by my guns and will continue to constructively and fairly edit the Hong Kong Police page in the coming weeks. I trust the administrators will play fair and advise User:Clubjustin to back off. With thanks, --Stoatmonster (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not an administrator's role to get involved in content disputes. List a Request for comment or take it to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, instead. And please make sure you adhere to the Three revert rule and in general don't edit war. El_C 10:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you El_C. I respect and appreciate your comment! --Stoatmonster (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation. I'm taking a stand against incomplete reports and letting the user off with a warning. The report has six fields, three of which were left blank. That's not acceptable. Especially with new users, we want to see evidence that there were warned about 3RR and edit warring. And seeing an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page (or wherever) is also important. El_C 10:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Both users violated 3RR, I warned both because your report was too incomplete. This makes it difficult for us to evaluate the reports, Those fields you left blank are not optional. It's too late now. Lesson for next time. I'm not going to go back on my word. Both users are warned and the page is protected for three days. El_C 11:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=769574856"