Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:68.197.237.168 reported by User:Plummer (Result: IP warned)

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)

• User 68.197.237.168 had also deleted my original additions to the Production and critical reactions sections, then pasted them in as his own work.

See edit sequence here:

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)

User:EEng and User:TParis reported by User:Ivanvector (Result: EEng unblocked per assurance)

Page

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported

• EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TParis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of EEng's reverts

1. 14:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "Again, if you'll take the time to examine the links given earlier you'll see that the situation is quite the reverse of what you're saying. If not, well then believe whatever helps you sleep at night."
2. 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC) "You'll need to carefully read my preceding edit summary (the one beginning "I suggest you review the history before butting in") and follow the links there, noting in particular the page on which those edits were made; and if you still don't understand see Special:Diff/870935348#ANI_Nonsense"
3. 19:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC) "I suggest you review the history before butting in;this post was arbitrarily removed in violation ofWP:TPO("Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed,but normally you should stop if there is any objection"&there is nothing here qualifying for an exception to that)prior to the thread being archived.SeeSpecial:Diff/870726899,Special:Diff/870743524,Special:Diff/870787911.This is an entirely serious comment on the discussion,whether U see it or not"
4. 18:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC) ""The thread is closed"--followon comments are routinely appended to "closed" threads;a random editor's decision to close doesn't bind everyone else;you may not see the value but that's just you."This is an admin action on an admin noticeboard"--yes&admins are more than just normal users w/mops and buckets&have sergeant-like authority.But seriously,you must be joking.See links in my prior edit summary&if you want to come out of semiretirement you may need to go back to admin school."
5. 12:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC) "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ Restoring post removed by an admin who needs to review WP:TPO and WP:ATTACK (by which he probably means WP:RPA, which he should also review) and who could, I suppose, open an ANI thread on the point and see what happens. Silently removing, according to one's personal estimate of what's helpful, the posts of other editors in good standing is not on."
6. 19:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 870726899 by TParis (talk) ... in your blinkered, impoverished view of what constitutes helpful, perhaps. But luckily the rest of us aren't bound by that."
7. 02:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ +"

Diffs of TParis' reverts

1. 14:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC) "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ Per WP:NPA. The thread is closed and this is an admin action on an admin noticeboard."
2. 00:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 870743524 by EEng (talk) Rm per WP:ATTACK"
3. 17:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC) "/* WP:Hounding by Curly Turkey */ Not remotely helpful and most definitely not needed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Please see User talk:Dennis Brown#ANI Nonsense

Comments:

This is an odd situation and I'm not sure if it's better to report here or at ANI, but it is an edit war so here we are. EEng and TParis got themselves into a dispute about adding an image of a pie eating contest (my description) to a closed ANI thread, which in the midst of the dispute has been archived. A number of administrators have asked EEng if adding this image to the archive is really something they want to be WP:POINTy about, and it's evident as this revert war drags into its second day that they do. There's a lot of "he started it!" happening here, I've already reverted once myself, this needs an uninvolved admin to review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The Admin that keeps removing ANi comments needs the admonishment. EEng is entitled to comment. Pretty lame to call his comment a personal attack and lamer still to bring this to AN3. Surely there is some pressing Admining to somewhere that is more pressing. Ivanvector I respect your judgement normally so I'm surprised to see you file this report. Legacypac (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not really. I don't know who's "to blame"—often in edit wars, everyone is—but, maaaan, this needs to go straight to WP:LAME. ——SerialNumber54129 15:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be preferable to just block? EEng is well over 3RR, and obviously intending to continue. But there's the allegation that they're defending the 'pedia from rouge admins, so I think this needs wider attention. Also, please don't use "lame" like this, I'm pretty sure that "weak" would have got your point across without the ableist slur. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Heh, that shortcut is a conundrum, isn't it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I didn't notice Lpac use the word as well :D ——SerialNumber54129 15:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

User:CBG17 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked)

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)

• Blocked – 4 days. The article just came off a week of full protection on 24 November, and CBG17 has reverted six times since then. The article on Sofia Airport has so far been fully protected six times in 2018. This is a level of disruption where admins may be tempted to escalate their response. Anybody who has strong feelings about this article can use the methods of WP:Dispute resolution. You are free to open WP:RFCs without getting into any trouble at all. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2 reported by User:211.27.126.189 (Result:No violation )

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:

References

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 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)

References

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)

User:Miki Filigranski reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Blocked)

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:BRD process and went to make 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:PRIMARY & WP:OR; 3) Filigranski has a history of misunderstanding policy (use of secondary sources), 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 see here). It seems the IP has something against me, is it a sock-puppet by PeterTheFourth or Acousmana, they both edited the article in question and have a very similar introduction in their user page ("Hello world!" and "Hello!"), as well made accusations against me...? This should be checked out per 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)

Blocked – 48 hours for 1RR violation, per the two reverts listed in this complaint (18:39 on 28 November and 09:58 on 29 November). The 1RR restriction was imposed by User:Swarm under 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)

User:Miki Filigranski reported by User:2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (Result: Already blocked)

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: WP:1RR violation, user ignoring discretionary sanctions in order to hamper page development. Consistently using BRD as excuse to revert constructive, noncontentious, and well sourced edits, also consistently using edit summaries to claim others are engaged in disruptive editing & edit warring when no evidence for such exists. A number of constructive edits stood without objections or reversions until said user appears. Editor is pointedly restricting article development. Previous issues concerning WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY content were flagged, editor chose to ignore this, failed to address diffs, and again cited BRD as justification, then called for "page protection" to shut discussion down, yet again citing BRD and making accusations of edit-warring without evidence. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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:PERSONAL attack. I intenionally warned them about the BRD process because I predicted they IPs would ignore it and would start an edit-war, as we alredy had in recent revision history when IPs are ignoring previous discussions about influences inclusion in the infobox. The page protection was not called out to shut the discussion at all (another PERSONAL attack), yet because of exactly such scenario when IPs are gaming the system, trying to fool everyone around their undertanding and citing of editing policy is correct, making reverts on 1RR article so confirmed editors seemingly cannot revert them, to make chaos as there is no stable revision. The current revision for specific information had 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 in accordance with having committed a sanctions violation, not because you told someone not to violate 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:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:CTDAPE, 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)

User:Saundra4you reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result:Blocked indef)

Page: Diamond and Silk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saundra4you (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. Undid revision 871223898 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) Some of the sources from tabloid journalist. Sources not verifiable. Court Cases not verifiable. Removing unverifiable source 18:36, 29 November 2018
2. Undid revision 871218587 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) Some of the sources from tabloid journalist. Sources not verifiable. Court Cases not verifiable. Removing unverifiable sources 18:33, 29 November 2018
3. (Undid revision 871220256 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)) 17:56, 29 November 2018
4. ‎ (Undid revision 871217217 by Snooganssnoogans (talk)) 17:51, 29 November 2018
5. 7:45, 29 November 2018 17:45, 29 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

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

Comments:
Couldn't get twinkle to load this, so apologies in advance if it's all over the place. Not sure why it isn't showing, but EdJohnston warned them for edit-warring here. In any case, they were blocked last March for a couple of days for edit warring n the same article. No communication; no indication they intend to do anything other than what they are doing now. Their edit-summary, Sources not verifiable. Court Cases not verifiable. Removing unverifiable sources only applies to material which I have already removed on similar grounds (primary sources being used in a BLP); what they have removed since is sourced to (e.g.) the New York Times and Business Insider. ——SerialNumber54129 18:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef by Drmies with whom I edit conflicted when attempting to block as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh. @Ponyo: this report took 20 bloomin' minutes to create and then it's dealt with in 2! ——SerialNumber54129 19:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you Ponyo. Now that I know you're here, I can go home. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wait...going home is an option, Drmies? You must have signed up for the All Access admin pass. I, unfortunately, appear to have agreed to the "Hotel California" package.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Virgilisalive reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Warned)

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 Thomas More College of Liberal Arts. (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)

User:190.158.26.48 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked by Jayron32 17:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC) )

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

Doctor Octopus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 13:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Film */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Other pages were edit warred on well; furthermore, IP is accusing a user that is reverting their edits correctly of vandalism. They have been warned on the AIV report of that user that they are running the risk of a boomerang block. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't even see this, but investigating based on the disruption at AIV, this guy has had a block coming for a long time. I gave him a 1 month vacation. --Jayron32 17:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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:Rs21867 reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: Warned)

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 Gulf War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article edited also appears to be covered by discretionary sanctions. MPS1992 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

User:190.247.103.23 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: blocked)

Page

Regular Show (season 8) (edit | 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 Regular Show (season 8). (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)

User:2.27.225.41 reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result: Blocked)

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: [25]
• Advice given to user: [26]

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)

User:BenzoInfo reported by User:Doc James (Result: Warned user(s))

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: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:

The user has also reverted my talk page posts.[34] 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)

User:Yuchitown reported by User:ramapoughnative (Result: No violation)

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: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

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)

User:Ghnatiuk reported by User:RexxS (Result: Page protected)

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. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

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)

User:173.68.66.176 reported by User:Jcc (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

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. 23:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on James Altucher. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Note 1RR is in effect, warning placed by David Gerard here jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)