Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive380

• I have added TParis and their edit-warring diffs to the report, to be fair. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Trout both and SN54129 is spot-on. This needs a mention at
  WP:LAME.∯WBG^converse
  15:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• The stupidity of the edit war is really no excuse. EEng is well, well beyond 3RR here and shows no sign of being willing to stop, so blocked for a week (I did this at RFPP before seeing this report). TParis only seems to have made three reverts, so, huge trout to them for getting involved in the mess, but no block will be forthcoming from me as they stopped behind the "bright line". EEng did not. Courcelles (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  Courcelles, a week? Really? ∯WBG^converse 15:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  Winged Blades of Godric, I thought a week was right-in-line for a third edit-warring/3RR block. Courcelles (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  Courcelles, those 3RR blocks were 4 years ago. ∯WBG^converse 15:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  Very difficult to argue against that, I must admit. ——SerialNumber54129 15:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  That was hardly in article main space? Does context/ location count for nothing in bright line enforcement? I'm not sure who was finding that little tiff disruptive. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict), replying to WingedBlades, Yes, they were, and if this had been four reverts I would have gone for a lesser block, likely 72 hours again. But 3RR was crossed significantly worse than one extra revert. Besides, 3RR is such a core rule around here, I expect anyone ever blocked for it to have it imprinted in their head, much less someone blocked twice before over it. We may pretend awareness of Discretionary Sanctions wears off after a year, but 3RR has no such legal fiction, nor should it. Courcelles (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I disagree that miscellaneous blocks arising from 3RR et al from 4 years ago, in case of a heavily-active contributor, ought to have much/any relevance.

  If Courcelles/anybody had shown that Eng is a frequent visitor to 3RRN (and has a reputation for disruptive edit-warring) but has escaped without sanctions till date, I would certainly be much more convinced.

  But, then one can certainly disagree............:-) ∯WBG^converse 15:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  (+1) to MartinEvans but then, Courcelles is correct too:-) Overall, one of the most ridiculous hills to sacrifice one's editing privileges upon.∯WBG^converse 15:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  All EEng needs to do to be unblocked is promise not to continue this edit war, Winged Blades of Godric. That's it. (Yes, I know his version is currently the active version) If he does that, I'll actually fully unblock, not reduce the block to something lesser. That's my promise ot you, EEng. You up for it? Courcelles (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

He restored his own comment - against inappropriate removal. Hardly an edit war. Bad block. Legacypac (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• disagree with adding this incident to
  WP:LAME. That page was supposed to be humorous as the header notice says, but it has now become just LAME and boring due to such additions. --DBigXrayᗙ
  16:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Um, shouldn't the heading for this thread now be: Result: User:EEng blocked for one week? Or was that just a wholly unconnected coincidence? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Courcelles has lifted the one-week block of User:EEng per a talk page discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• One concerning thing that doesn't seem to have been raised yet, is that EEng appears to think that 4 reverts within 20 hours is not a breach of the bright line rule because 3 of the reverts occurred before midnight (his/her time) and one after: "I made two reverts at ANI, three at ANI/Archive996 (yesterday), and one today. So no crossing of the bright line". That is not the meaning of the rule. The first revert at the archive occurred at 18:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC) and the fourth one at 14:32, 28 November 2018‎ (UTC). That is a breach of the bright-line. DrKay (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed that EEng violated
  WP:3RR with their edits of the ANI archive file. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 02:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.197.237.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taking_of_Pelham_One_Two_Three_(1974_film)&oldid=870893435

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

This user has a history of being abusive and was banned several times. He's at it again. Here are his threats posted on my talk page:

Knock it off with the constant useless overly detailed information. I will keep on reverting if you do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Wikia site and not a fan site. Am I well understood? No? Okay, game on then. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Explain the plot by how exactly? Elaborate, kiddo. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That's what I thought...no answer. I've reverted your edits. Every plot written is suppose to be between 400-700 words or simplistic as possible. Get over yourself. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't give two cents. 400-700 words. Period. This is not a fanboy and fangirl site. You want to continue playing? Game on, brother. Also learn how to cite your sources properly and sign at the end of each sentence. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Look here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot 68.197.237.168 (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that you took a look by clicking on the Wikipedia guideline I linked above, don't let me catch you messing with the Pelham 123 article again. You got that? It is a feature film and as per rule, plot summaries should be between 400-700 words or below. Simple as that. Have a good night. 68.197.237.168 (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay? I’ll take care of the plot summary within the article so it doesn’t exceed that number. If I ever catch your full of crap self messing with the article, I will personally make you miserable. Do we have an understand of one another? Yes? Now gtfo of my talk page and the article for good, {{

rpa}}. 68.197.237.168 (talk

) 11:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor: IP editor is failing to be
  WP:CIVIL, but their point is valid: Plummer's plot summary is excessive and not an improvement over the more concise summary favored by the IP. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!
  14:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taking_of_Pelham_One_Two_Three_(1974_film)&oldid=866055295
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taking_of_Pelham_One_Two_Three_(1974_film)&oldid=866055588
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taking_of_Pelham_One_Two_Three_(1974_film)&oldid=866057654

Plummer (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: The IP is warned for personal attacks. No block of the IP for edit warring since they reverted their own change. On the question of plot length, it's possible the IP is correct, but if they continue with threats as in the above report ("I will personally make you miserable"), they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• IP subsequently blocked for disruptive user page editing and violations of
  WP:NPA. General Ization ^Talk
  02:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• That followed this charming edit summary Moriori (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

Thomas More College of Liberal Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Virgilisalive (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 18:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) to 18:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 18:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC) ""
   4. 18:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC) "/* The Oxford Program */"
2. 17:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC) "Restoring maliciously removed content."
3. 17:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC) to 16:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC) "Restored much needed missing information."
   2. 16:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC) "Informational"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also further discussed via my own talk page and 1997kB and pre-warned about 3rr before formally, followed by user violating it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Virgilisalive is a new user and, IMO, could be working in good faith and just need some more guidance. As such, I'm not going to block, but I have ECP'ed Thomas More College of Liberal Arts for a week to allow them to get a better feel for this place. Please stop posting anything copyrighted, and do not revert when it is removed. Courcelles (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Virgilisalive is warned per the statement of User:Courcelles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Courcelles & EdJohnston, Thank you for the warning. When the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts page is edited in the future it will be absolutely void of paraphrasing or promotion. I do hope that a non-biased assessment is given to anything I write. I will rely on your honesty and judgement. Yours, Virgilisalive (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

Sofia Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

CBG17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [1] has again removed sourced text against consensus without discussion.
2. 22:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871017873 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
3. 01:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 870940972 by Garretka (talk) That is not encyclopaedic the references given are just copies of everything in the table but in basic form so why state it twice in a less advanced way"
4. 22:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 870937008 by Garretka (talk) The paragraph is awful if you're going to put it in there at least clean it up"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC) to 22:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 22:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Airlines and destinations */"
   2. 22:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Passenger */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. There has been extensive discussion on creating better quality prose content at the article talkpage in which this editor has not participated.

Comments:

Has persistently removed referenced prose content, against talk page consensus, in favour of original research and linkspamming. The editor has been warned for similar edits on many occasions. Charles (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Charlesdrakew: You're the one removing sourced content yourself, the paragraph was poorly written and had original research in it that you keep removing on other parts of the page so why are you contradicting yourself. CBG17 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Why do you have such a problem with referenced historical prose content?Charles (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• WP:RFCs without getting into any trouble at all. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 03:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Jordan Peterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:
As Miki Filigranski has noted themselves on the talk page, the article is under 1RR. In reverting to a version from 3 days ago on two occasions within 24 hours, Miki Filigranski undid the substantive edits by IP 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:9062:303B:A2CE:EB69, as well as edits by some other IPs and editors Grayfell and Volunteer Marek. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

On 24th November I made a revert and called the IPs to take it to the talk page as they removed an excessive amount of sourced content ([7]), some of which is not made by a proper understanding of the editing policy. They did it on 26 November ([8]), however, in the same time they made a revert ([9]), and another one 28th November ([10]). So, the only editors who ignored the

WP:POINT reverts, starting somekind of an edit-war for which are accusing me (for which I am speechless), are two IPs addresses. The other editors edits do not count. We are talking about IPs edit to which already was made a revert by a confirmed account (me).--Miki Filigranski (talk

) 15:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Three small points of clarification: 1) this is an editing sanctions violation; 2) I'm very clear what constitutes

WP:TE#One who accuses others of malice, and reverting edits they disagree with without discussion. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk

) 15:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, the IPs are engaging the confirmed editor's report and seemingly have a better understanding of policy than most of the editors (half-joking, but it's additional evidence for sock-puppetry by some more experienced editor), my misunderstanding of policy was settled and doesn't have anything to do with the current issue, first who started with malice accusation were the IPs (starting it since 25th November [11] accusing me for personal agenda, for which I warned them talk page is not for

WP:FORUM commentary), and I am engaged in the discussion, but first and foremost the article must be protected so there won't be any POINT disruptive reverts by the IPs until the discussion reached it's consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk

) 16:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

additional evidence, another WP:1RR by same two weeks ago [12][13], this kind of editing is having a chilling effect on article development.2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The IP is again intentionally ignoring the context in which the respective editor which was reverted was again avoiding to follow BRD and discussion process with multiple editing policy violations, there was no "chilling effect on article development" (and later part of the edits was included, also for the discussion

WP:DUCK.--Miki Filigranski (talk

) 18:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

re:"ignoring the context": where does the

WP:1RR sanction offer allowances for contextual abuse of said rule? 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk

) 18:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:ARBBLP. User:Miki Filigranski was alerted to the discretionary sanctions on 11 August 2018. Miki Filigranski has 177 edits to this article. His edits are frequent enough that if he is not being careful to follow policy it can interfere with article development. EdJohnston (talk

) 03:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Page: Jordan Peterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [NA - 1RR]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17][18]

Comments:
Please note, the other report had not been filed when started writing this up, just seeing now, forgive the double posting:

Considering the fact that the IPs, which the editor PeterTheFourth supported against me and made edits at the talk page in similar time period as the IPs ([19], [20]), as well both made the report above against me ([21], [22]), the fact the IPs are suspiciously citing Wikipedian editing policy for substantiation in the edit summaries and talk page, rises a suspicion we are dealing with sock accounts of the mentioned editor, or someone else. For most of the reply see the report above, also, discretionary sanction was primarily ignored by the IPs. I am not hampering article's development, there exist several issue with their substantial edit and for that already exist a discusion, however, they ignored both the BRD, discussion to make POINT reverts. The BRD process wasn't used as an exuse for anything, this is blatant lying and

WP:SILENCE consensus for a very long time. --Miki Filigranski (talk

) 15:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

notice again, in alleging sock-puppetry, user is reverting in the first instance to accusations of bad faith. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, note that both the IP and the editor decided to report me for 1RR when I first warned the IP about the 1RR itself ([23]).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

inversion of reality here, you were reported for

WP:1RR after you had done it yourself. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk

) 16:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I really don't understnad what inversion the IP is talking about. I didn't say that all. Again pointless FORUM commentary without any facts straight, only accusations and putting of their words in other people mouths. Instead of engaging in article's discussion about the content seemingly the IPs (or some editor in disguise) found more constructive wasting everyone's time edit warring, reporting confirmed editors, and so on. Get a life.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

re: Miki "I didn't say that all" -- Miki: "note that both the IP and the editor decided to report me for 1RR when I first warned the IP about the 1RR itself" -- like I said, reported for the sanctions violation, the decision to do so had nothing to do with you "warning" anybody about anything. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh my God, I did not say nor meant that at all. No wonder for your

WP:LISTEN symptoms.--Miki Filigranski (talk

) 16:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

re: "I did not say nor meant that at all" -- can you explain this diff then where you said precisely what is quoted above? 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I already answered.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. It seems like the IP has a point. The 1RR restriction was added on 11 August. You have numerous violations of 1RR since then. 216.163.247.2 (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, another IP defending an IP, again with ignorant accusations against a confirmed editor. It really seems I stepped on somebody's toes and wants a revenge.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Already blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Page: User talk:MaxBrowne2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MaxBrowne2 (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:
I'm not sure why this is happening, but MaxBrowne2 seems to be edit warring on his own talk page, with the actual diffs are posted above. I was thinking of notifying him about a series of recent edits related to a chess article. He could have commented out a part or parts of the article at ^[1] in one set of commenting brackets but used multiple of them in that place. He deleted the section on his talk page where I talked about it without replying, not including an edit summary for either of the 2 (I created a new one, BTW, after the 1st revert). I don't know the logic behind this, especially when edit summaries aren't included, but seems as if such things he won't accept having on his talk page. I'm not being rude nor am I trying to violate a rule or policy, but I think this matter needs discussing here. Thank you!211.27.126.189 (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: The notice on the talk page of the reported user was deleted. I'm not sure if me re-posting it is effective, maybe someone else should do it?

There is no violation. MaxBrowne2 is allowed to remove your comment from his talk page without any discussion. If he does you should not restore it. His removal is evidence that he has read it. ~ GB fan 11:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that a discussion isn't necessary relating to removing others' comments on own talk page, but why remove it (at least I learnt something new!)?211.27.126.189 (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Galepent, I don't understand why you removed the above comment by the OP. ~ GB fan 12:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!211.27.126.189 (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@GB fan: The IP has been previously warned to refrain from restoring messages on other users' talk pages. This should be a WP:BOOMERANG, especially given the previous block. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean another message, since the one you posted a link to is one someone could get for edit warring in general. Plus, I don't know why you said I was spamming your talk page, so I don't understand your logic at all.211.27.126.189 (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Page

Sing (2016 American film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2.27.225.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 21:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 20:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 19:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 17:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See comments

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See comments

Comments:

• Exact same pattern at Ralph Breaks the Internet.
• 3RR warning given to user: [24]
• Advice given to user: [25]

Dorsetonian (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. The user continued to revert the article after this report was filed. So far the IP is only concerned about release dates of films in the UK, and it appears that others don't agree with his changes. If all his edits continue to get reverted and he takes no notice, a longer block may be required. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

190.247.103.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871423423 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) Yes, they announced the ninth season for the continuity of the series!"
2. 23:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871419955 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) STOP IT!"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC) to 22:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 22:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871407723 by Benjamin Nilsson (talk) RKO OUTTA NOWHERE!!!! AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!"
   2. 22:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC) to 15:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871033735 by SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) RKO OUTTANOWHERE!! AGAIN AND AGAIN!!"
   2. 15:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC) "Oops, i fix it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• IP warned about 3RR here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• The behaviour resumed today, and the IP was blocked by Drmies. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • And more, C.Fred, thanks to fellow Tide fan and Admin of Good Sense NinjaRobotPirate. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh, this one is a constant nuisance. I think the first time I saw this person was in this ANI complaint from EvergreenFir, and I've been doing range blocks ever since. Hard to believe it's almost been two years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Page

Gulf War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rs21867 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871423198 by MPS1992 (talk)"
2. 23:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC) "Fixed"
3. 22:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871412376 by Chewings72 (talk)"
4. 20:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article edited also appears to be covered by

I have invited the user to self-revert. I'm waiting to see if he engages or not. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Rs21867 is warned they may be blocked if they edit the article again before getting consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Page: Neutral buoyancy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: Previous stable version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]

Page history up to today

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

All of the dispute has taken place in edit summaries until I found time today to explain the issues on the article talk page.

Comments:

This probably shouldn't rise to the level of a sanction because I've only just found time to explain the errors in Ghnatiuk's additions on the talk page. Nevertheless I believe that Ghnatiuk has wilfully tried to game the system by forcing their unsourced changes into the lead of the article four times - the fourth after my EW3 warning. They have edit-warred against two editors: Philipnelson99 and myself. --RexxS (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected for a week. I agree, RexxS, this doesn’t merit sanctioning a brand new editor over, and thanks for trying to explain the issues to them. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:

The user has also reverted my talk page posts.[37] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

have been observing the article in question and I must agree with Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive newbie editor has agreed to stop edit warring and read up on our sourcing guidelines and policies. They wrote “OK I'll work on that later on, in a few days.” in response to my request to stay away from the article and read

WP:MEDRS or be blocked. I suggest reading this, User_talk:BenzoInfo#3RR discussion for fuller picture.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?

00:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Warned By C.Fred. Vanamonde (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Page: Ramapough Mountain Indians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yuchitown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

I have spoken to this user before who insists on changing the working of a fact. Based on the Recognition by the state of NJ, The Ramapough "ARE" descendents of the local indigenous population. The Ramapough and two other tribes were recognized as Indian tribes in 1980 by the state of New Jersey by Resolution 3031. The New Jersey citation read:

Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of New Jersey (the Senate concurring): 1. That the Ramapough Mountain People of the Ramapough Mountains of Bergen and Passaic counties, descendants of the Iroquois and Algonquin nations, are hereby designated by the State of New Jersey as the Ramapough Indians.[10]

The further proof is the recognition by our sister nations. The Munsee Delaware and the Stockbridge Munsee of which i have documentation stating such.

He states i'm pushing a POV.. I am stating fact supported by the State of New Jersey govt body. thank you. Ramapoughnative (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven't touched Ramapough Mountain Indians since August 3, 2018, so I have no idea what user:Ramapoughnative is on about. S/he did fail to properly notify me about this report, but Wikipedia alerted that my name was mentioned. No, I never made three reverts in a 24-hour period. Yes, the organization is state-recognized by New Jersey, but regarding other claims: typing with scare quotes and in all caps are not compelling substitutes for verifiable, published secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

• No violation Ramapoughnative, Yuchitown hasn't edited this page for months. Please be more careful with your reports in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Page

James Altucher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

173.68.66.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

NOTE: I have not warred at all. I noticed there was no mention of Altucher's podcast on his wikipedia page. Upon research I noticed quite a few inappropriate edit and did further research. I am not a wikipedia editor and am just a fan. There is a COI between David Gerard and James Altucher. David Gerard has repeatedly written about Altucher on his (David's) blog and should not be allowed to edit the "James Altucher" Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.66.176 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not what a

WP:COI is - David Gerard (talk

) 09:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

1. 23:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871713117 by Jcc (talk)"
2. 23:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871696526 by David Gerard (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Note 1RR is in effect, warning placed by David Gerard here
2. 23:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

General sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies is in place, IP was warned. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The Altucher article gets occasional IPs filling it with puffery, this is the latest and should be treated accordingly. The refs are also unacceptable non-RSes for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

IP's still at it, with personal attacks - could someone uninvolved please have a glance at this one? - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected I've semi-protected James Altucher due to the poor sourcing and general puffery concerns for three months. Courcelles (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've also blocked this specific IP for 48 hours. Courcelles (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Page

Aseem Malhotra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rathfelder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [43] (removing 'fad diet' from lede)
2. [44] (removing 'fad diet' from lede)
3. [45] (removing 'fad diet' from lede)
4. [46] (reverting removal of Tom Watson's support for the diet)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I am still working on the article. Malhotra is a controversial figure. I am endeavouring to produce a balanced article. Rathfelder (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No block, since the user agreed (on their own talk page) to wait for a prior talk page consensus before editing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Page

Katie Griffiths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

109.153.226.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 872001461 by Davey2010 (talk)"
2. 17:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871995856 by Davey2010 (talk)"
3. 16:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 871987540 by Davey2010 (talk)"
4. 16:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 757431177 by Davey2010 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I originally removed unsourced content (her date of birth and schools attended), This IP has repeatedly reverted without any sort of explanation,

Whilst technically my edit is "disputed" I don't believe BRD applies here as I'm simply removing unsourced content (and those reinserting it should include a source)),

The IP is also now following me on another article where I reverted a completely different IP[47][48], Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Went to AIV due to the constant removal of this report where they've now been blocked for 7 days by Widr. –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Page

Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Qashto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "This is a vandalism warning, do not undo my changes again. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Undid revision 872033712 by Bradv (talk)"
2. 20:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "You have been flagged for violating Wikipedia's community guidelines. Undid revision 872033335 by Seraphim System (talk)"
3. 20:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "I will not debate whether or not Stefan is a white supremacist. It is obvious. Stop undoing my revision to this page or I will flag you. Undid revision 872032500 by Bradv (talk)"
4. 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "Fixed by citing a reputable source, The Southern Poverty Law Center, a group of civil rights lawyers responsible for expert analysis of hate groups, who identify Stefan as a white supremacist."
5. 19:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "Updated bio to include white supremacy to the topics Stefan discusses, referenced a recent tweet in which he claims the white race as the superior race. "Over thousands of years, they (White Europeans) became smarter and wiser through suffering. They made the modern world." Stefan considers the white race smarter than other races and this blatant racism should be the first thing people read about on his wiki page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of defamatory content on
   TW
   )"
2. 20:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

BLP violation; edit warring after final warning. Bradv🍁 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I was about to report this but Brad beat me to it, I agree that this is a BLP violation and reverting has continued past the 3RR warning. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User qashto here. I have been given no reason other than defamation as to why my edits should not stand. I cited the Southern Poverty Law Center a reputable source written by civil rights lawyers. Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist. He is open about his view that the white race is superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qashto (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Page: Luka Modrić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BoogieFreeman (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], [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments: The editor is constantly removing the content from the lead which is reliably sourced in the

Page protected - 3 days. Though the two editors are constantly reverting one another and there is some mention of a dispute on the talk page, neither party has obtained a consensus there to support their changes. (There is only an exchange of criticism). Consider following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is hard for an outsider to have any idea of what this dispute is about, so a better explanation on Talk would be good. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Page

Skype (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Arup1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Other platforms */"
2. 10:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Other platforms */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC) to 10:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
   1. 09:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Other platforms */"
   2. 10:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Other platforms */"
4. 09:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Other platforms */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No discussion from editor after two other editors and myself have reverted their addition (one of the reverting editors indicating that the updated source the editor is using to replace a dead link source is not reliable). MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• WP:INDEFed by Admin Luk from looks of it. --IJBall (contribs • talk
  ) 23:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Page: Law school rankings in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HershieimerHertz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]

3RR warning: User talk:HershieimerHertz

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:
An unregistered editor using multiple IP addresses (e.g., 73.52.3.159, 2601:281:c503:6612:45ce:7bee:e9d6:6302) has been the other participant in this edit war. The article was semi-protected for a week last month but the edit war resumed after the semi-protection expired. ElKevbo (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months. Please use the talk page to work out the remaining issues. Report again if turns out that there are registered editors who continue to revert without discussing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66] and [67]
2. [68] and [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments: Editor is aware of the 1RR on the article, as I've posted on his talk page, but he refused to self-revert. wumbolo ^^^ 10:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

First diffs (under '1') appear to be same revert. Second diffs appear to be reverting inclusion of pretty contentious material - linking subject of article to terrorist groups based on 'The Daily Caller', which is not a very reliable source. I think a BLP exception is more than reasonable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The last diff definitely doesn't have an obvious BLP justification. The diff you're talking about is arguably justifiable, even though it was discussed on the talk page. However, if we ignore that one, we're still left with two separate reverts which have no justification to ignore 1RR. wumbolo ^^^ 12:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• The reporting user is aware that their edit I reverted is either an inadvertent or an intentional misrepresentation of the reliable sources, and that misrepresentation is a clear violation of
  fundamental responsibility to get the facts right
  . As discussed by Black Kite, Wumbolo failed to properly reflect the sources in a way which directly impugns the biographical subject. Now having had their error or misrepresentation of the source corrected, Wumbolo has not thanked me for correcting their error or apologized for their misrepresentation — no, they have come running to ANEW and crying "1RR!" This seems entirely upside down and backwards. As Black Kite notes, Wumbolo's edit was factually false and in being false, it violated several policies and directly harmed the article subject. My edit merely replaced the status quo which was policy-compliant, supported by the sources and non-harmful. I told them this on my talk page, yet still they come running here. Wumbolo apparently desperately wants me to be blocked for fixing his biographical-subject-damaging fuckup merely because I fixed several other fuckups that day?
• Is there to be any punishment for Wumbolo, who either can't read sources (and thus shouldn't be editing biographies) or intentionally misrepresented the content of the sources in their edit (and thus shouldn't be editing Sarsour's biography)? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment

• The first two diffs are two consecutive edits. Yes, they are reverting two consecutive edits by Icewhiz, but it could have been done in one edit. I think blocking for this would be harsh, frankly.
• The third is a revert on BLP grounds, and I think it has merit. Whilst the Daily Caller is not a great source, it actually casts doubt on the material added - "While it is unclear if Salah and Linda are related (though they share the same surname)..." and the GMBDW source admits they cannot substantiate it either (look at the URL), which means that even the NYP source may be flaky. It's something that needs to be discussed on the talkpage, and per BLP should be removed until there is consensus to include, which I suspect would need better sourcing.
• Which leaves us with this. Is it a revert? Yes. Is it a correct edit? Yes, because the sources clearly say she was attacked on social media, not that she claimed she was. Despite being correct, it is still a second revert inside 24h, and therefore technically blockable.

• I would invite further comment from other admins. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • My analysis lines up with Black Kite's, in that this case is technically actionable, but I am disinclined to block for it, and instead warn NorthBySouthBaranof to please be more careful in the future. Courcelles (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• @
  WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but I'm not going to act as if I was offended by NBSB. wumbolo ^^^
  15:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• You screwed up. Stop attacking the editor who corrected you and just own it. --Calton | Talk 16:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Probably meant to say this to NBSB. wumbolo ^^^ 16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Two admins who commented above state that this case is technically actionable.
  WP:3RRNO. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 18:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:NorthBySouthBaranof is warned that his reverts on this article may not be protected by the BLP exception. One of the reverts in question was this one. The fact that you disagree with others about the exact description of the harrassment she suffered does not give you license to keep reverting in a case where actual defamation is not present. Interpreting sources correctly is a job for editor consensus, unless we are talking about unsourced defamation. For example, there are occasionally some bad edits that are so blatant that they qualify for instant removal by any editor. It does not defame Sarsour when Wikipedia says that she *reported* she was harrassed online, even when a thorough study of the sources might justify a stronger statement. The stronger statement can be worked out through normal editor consensus and does not call for unilateral reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pages:

• Alfa Romeo GT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alfa Romeo Brera and Spider (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Typ932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)