Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive358

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:62.253.196.108 reported by User:GB fan (Result: protected)[edit]

Page
Shirley Bassey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
62.253.196.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817147423 by Baseball Bugs (talk)"
  2. 12:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817140061 by GB fan (talk)The sources are high quality enough thank you. Please stop attacking me and see the administrators case opened already."
  3. 11:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817089590 by Binksternet (talk)Reinstated valid edit by editor who is now in edit war & has abused the 3R rule so is now going to be blocked"
  4. 11:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816798491 by FlightTime (talk)Not trivia. She made the claim on camera & it is reported in TWO biographies thus notable & worthy of inclusion."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor was warned in the very first edit to their page about edit warring. Looking through their contributions almost all of their edits are reverts. They have not made a single edit to an article talk page. ~ GB fan 19:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I semi-protected Shirley Bassey and Rock Profile (where another incarnation of this IP user is also edit warring) after an AN/I report for two days, which of course does not preclude other action. ansh666 20:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by someone else --slakrtalk / 21:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Etaripcisum reported by User:Favonian (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/816457431

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/817339078
  2. Special:Diff/817354748
  3. Special:Diff/817355440
  4. Special:Diff/817355685
  5. Special:Diff/817356056

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:PermaLink/817355506


Comments:
WP:GTP, I guess. Favonian (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN talk to me 21:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:2001:569:74EF:BD00:6461:8DAB:C394:9B7E reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )[edit]

Page
Angelique Boyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2001:569:74EF:BD00:6461:8DAB:C394:9B7E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 01:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC) to 01:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    1. 01:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 01:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 01:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "They broke up long time ago and should not be added."
    4. 01:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 01:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "They broke up long time ago and should not be added."
  3. 01:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "Please don't add gossip content per WP:NOTTABLOID. I forgot to explain."
  4. Consecutive edits made from 01:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC) to 01:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    1. 01:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "WP:NOTTABLOID"
    2. 01:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 00:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC) to 00:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    1. 00:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 00:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Angelique Boyer. (TW)"
  2. 01:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Angelique Boyer */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user persists in removing information, alleging that it is gossip, which is not true, because the relationship that Boyer had with Castro was remarkable as well as the relationship he currently has with Rulli. The ip removes information also in the Sebastián Rulli article. It also does not respond to messages. Philip J Fry / talk 01:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that relationship content should not be added per WP:NOTTABLOID because Wikipedia is not a dating history website. 2001:569:74EF:BD00:6461:8DAB:C394:9B7E (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@2001:569:74ef:bd00:6461:8dab:c394:9b7e and Philip J Fry: You guys are both violating the three-revert rule. Use the talk page and discuss the issue there. Consider bringing in a third opinion or other forms of dispute resolution. --slakrtalk / 21:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@Slakr: The problem has been solved, because the user has not reverted more and has not commented on it. I do not know what to think.--Philip J Fry / talk 21:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Maxí reported (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
User being reported: https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notandi:Max%C3%AD, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Max%C3%AD

Previous version before vandalism: https://is.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihad&oldid=1560270

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spjall:Jihad

Comments:
User (page: https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notandi:Max%C3%AD, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Max%C3%AD) has deleted page https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad repeatedly passed multiple warnings and replaced with false content, his dialogue and reasons mostly look like political rant. The user has worked on Wikipedia for some time with some complaints, but this particular article "goes over his head". Please block. 46.182.190.168 (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined This is the English-language Wikipedia. We have no jurisdiction over Wikipedias for other languages. NeilN talk to me 12:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Jamezzz981 reported by User:Jonathanjoseph81 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Katy Perry discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jamezzz981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katy_Perry_discography&diff=816951176&oldid=816951138 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
The user keeps reverting sourced material from the page. The material they are reverting is not made up, false, slander, etc, there is simply no reason for this user to continue to revert my edits; especially with it being sourced. They refuse to ever respond to my comments and just remove - not even properly revert as they know I would get a notification and see it - my edits. Any help in getting this user blocked from editing or whatever you can do would be greatly appreciated. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Bastun edit war (Result: Page semied)[edit]

User:Bastun has six times in the last two weeks] made the same edit despite being repeatedly reverted.91.207.214.33 (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, "being repeatedly reverted" by you. You appear to have been logging out to continue making the same crap edits: This is disruptive, as well as effectively socking to continue your edit war. That's plenty policy broken there. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 Even if that was true how is that relevant to his edit warring?91.207.214.33 (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Bastun hasn't violated WP:3RR and has used the talk page, unlike you. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
User:NeilN You don't have to break the 3RR for it to be edit warring, as you well know.91.207.214.33 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:92.76.86.106 reported by User:CBG17 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Pinto Martins – Fortaleza International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.76.86.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pinto_Martins_%E2%80%93_Fortaleza_International_Airport&diff=817461365&oldid=817460480

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [8]
  2. [9]
  3. [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:
The user keeps vandalising the page and adding unreferenced and unencyclopedic information to the page and is adding images that are not needed as they are similar to images already presented and creates clutter to the page. The user has already been warned on their talk page before. The user has also used 2 or 3 different IP addresses in the past to vandalise the page CBG17 (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined I see this is the reverse of the report made a few days ago. As slakr said then, take it to the talk page - I see it's still empty. NeilN talk to me 16:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:169.239.20.27 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result:blocked 31h)[edit]

Page
Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
169.239.20.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817496427 by Tgeorgescu (talk) No evidence of Sockpuppetry. File an SPI if you wish."
  2. 19:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817496000 by Tgeorgescu (talk) I'm not a vandal or a troll. The link you gave says trolls and socks and arent allowed to edit. Please read your own links."
  3. 19:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817494876 by Tgeorgescu (talk) Unsourced. He himself stated that he believed in a "cosmic religion" as can be seen by reading this article."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A45.114.118.154&type=revision&diff=817345067&oldid=817341166 Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 19:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "God or god"
  2. 19:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "/* God or god */ another source"
  3. 20:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Verify? */ see"
  4. 20:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Verify? */ unsigned"
  5. 20:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Verify? */ preposterous"
  6. 20:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Verify? */ reply"
  7. 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Verify? */ why it isn't sure"
  8. 20:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Verify? */ reply"
  9. 20:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Verify? */ reply"
  10. 20:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Verify? */ typo"
  11. 19:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Verify? */ purely secular"
  12. 19:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Verify? */ addition"
Comments:

Manipulation at its finest.

  1. That warning on my talk page was AFTER all those reverts.
  2. You kept accusing me of being a sock and using that as a justification to go revert me. I reverted you in turn as that was nonsense. Do not try to frame this as some sort of edit war.169.239.20.27 (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:DUCK says enough, also edit warring through collocation proxies says enough. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
All I am seeing is unproven accusations169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

IP: 169.239.20.27

Decimal: 2851017755 Hostname: s0332b.be21.dc4.jb.sa.iptp.net ASN: 41095 ISP: IPTP LTD Organization: IPTP LTD Services: Network sharing device or proxy server Type: Broadband Assignment: Static IP

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
What exactly is your point?169.239.20.27 (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I've just proven you're a WP:SOCK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
You have proven I use proxies which is necessary for someone living in China. 169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
You're a banned user and therefore not welcome here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Who am I then?169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
For a start, Chinese residents are not allowed to edit through open proxies. Nobody is. If you were a Chinese resident, you already knew this. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I notice that dodge there. Please answer the question. Wiki policy, explicitly states Chinest residents can use proxies. I just checked. 169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
It just doesn't say "open proxies". Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
It states "Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked"169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
It is probably worth noting that the IP started a thread at WP:ANI#User:Tgeorgescu ignoring WP:PROXY apparent!y after this thread was opened here. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Sanketssatpute reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Narayan Tilakchand Kuche (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sanketssatpute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "The details data of him and his family"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 21:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC) to 21:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    1. 21:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "The latest data regarding him by using the public data avilable through the Facebook page"
    2. 21:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "viewingchanges"
    3. 21:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "viewingchanges"
  3. 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817506600 by Chrissymad (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Narayan Tilakchand Kuche. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Continuing to add unsourced spammy content to article with no attempts to discuss or provide source after several attempts. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

User:66.218.56.190 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Rape in Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
66.218.56.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817546388 by EvergreenFir (talk) Not reliable according to who? You? Bugger off."
  2. 02:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817545534 by Seraphim System (talk)"
  3. 02:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817544218 by Seraphim System (talk) Source is substantiated, not unreliable."
  4. 22:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 816720173 by Seraphim System (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Rape in Sweden. (TW)"
  2. 02:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rape in Sweden. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Personal attacks as well EvergreenFir (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion on whether or not the material should be included on the talk page of the article. Please check it out and (possibly) comment on it. Sakura CarteletTalk 02:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
There have already been multiple discussions at RS/n - as an example see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_211#Is_Breitbart.com_reliable?. There is no need for another one. I would agree with Seraphimblade's comments in the RS/n discussion.Seraphim System (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN talk to me 03:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Cjhard reported by User:Carmaker1 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Cjhard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 09:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 09:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Talk:Snowflakes (Toni Braxton album)#Recording Period
Comments:

I removed incorrect information that was submitted by an IP user [12], that was potentially a vandal back on September 4, 2013. User: Cjhard has been unusually following my edits and undoing them the past week, following an ANI discussion they participated in. I cannot help but feel, there is an unusual element of negative bias towards me and that they are edit-warring to blockade my contributions to Wikipedia out of spite. The date provided of 2000-01 was restored back to 2001 by me, as the article has no citation supporting it, since the IP user never added a source nor have any other users since September 4, 2013. I addressed this in the article talk page and Cjhard has ignored my findings, highlighting possible vandalism. This has similarly already happened at the TLC Creep (TLC song) article, in which I provided a recording date of 1993-1994 based on speaking with the engineer for the project, to correct the vague and unsupported "Late 1993 - September 1994 date". It was reverted by Cjhard, so in response I deleted the other date 1993-September 1994, upon having it no source. USer: Beyoncetan ended up submitting very similar information of 1993-94, after I tried to, with no interference from this user. Editing upon personal bias towards another user by constantly their reverting edits (especially in this case), constitutes edit warring. Carmaker1 (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation I note that you've opened an ANI thread about this, a mediation request, and this 3RR report, however, you have NEVER posted a comment on the talk page of the article in an attempt to resolve the dispute. That should be one of the first steps in dispute resolution, not WP:FORUMSHOPPING. only (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC) OOPS: I was looking at the Secrets talk page, not the Snowflakes. only (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

User:94.187.88.92 reported by User:Swazzo (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Sidon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.187.88.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16] IP hopped to 94.187.50.36

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

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

Comments:
IP user keeps changing the infobox head claiming French is "100% an official language in Lebanon". I explained the status of French language in Lebanon in their talk pre-Ip hop and they keep reverting. Even though the reverts are outside the 24-hour mark, the IP user does not show signs of refraining anytime soon. Issue is also at Beirut (3RR within 24-hours, should've reported for this page), Byblos and Nabatieh. Swazzo (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

They now left me a message on my talk with a registered user page. The exact same thing they said on the IP page, same behavior and same tone up to the use of all caps. Looks like a duck to me. Swazzo (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping edit warrior. The dispute over the status of the French language in Lebanon has been going on for a while; try to resolve that on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mr. bobby reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: User blocked)[edit]

Page
Venus figurines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mr. bobby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817655087 by Joe Roe (talk) stick to logic"
  2. 19:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817653210 by Joe Roe (talk)joe roe contradicts definition (read the beginning of the article)"
  3. 17:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817512485 by Joe Roe (talk) otherwise the article is contradictive and destroyed."
  4. 19:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817352701 by Joe Roe (talk) per definition "venus figurines" is the category for paleolithic figuriens. later sculptures (f.i,. roman ones) are a different thing. tatuettes"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This would not appear to be a breach of the three revert rule, although the 'gaming the system' aspect may be applicable - hard to tell as two of the last three reverts were outside the 24 hrs. I would recommend giving the at this point, another block if another revert is made. Oscar247 (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Previous block for editwarring. Doug Weller talk 20:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Only one was over 24 hours, and that barely, but I apologise for missing that. Doug Weller talk 21:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week The editor in question had an edit war over this same section in November. Combined with the previous problems with edit warring, this is a problem. Hopefully this block will prevent future edit warring and encourage consensus-building. Malinaccier (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Musicfavorite21 reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: Blocked 3 days)[edit]

Page
Taylor Swift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Musicfavorite21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "Not edit war. I just fixed the wrong information. Undid revision 817719887 by Begoon (talk)"
  2. 04:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817719577 by JJMC89 (talk)"
  3. 04:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817653242 by Rebbing (talk)"
  4. 18:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC) ""
  5. 18:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 817644550 by JJMC89 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Taylor Swift.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 days TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ldglenn reported by User:Billhpike (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Franklin Road Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ldglenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "I removed inaccurate statements about FRA."
  2. 23:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "I deleted inaccurate information."
  3. 23:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "I removed inaccurate information."
  4. 15:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC) "I took out the inaccurate statements about the start of FRA."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Issue with article */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor is removing sourced information about the history of the school. Editor claims reference was incorrectly interrupted, so I provided quoted text from reference. Editor has removed information 4 times within 24 hours. An IP editor has also removed the information [19] Billhpike (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Ldglenn needs to be indeff'd for POV pushing and as he has done it again since this report and had a final warning already on his talk, I've also reported him to AIV. I was not aware of this then, but whichever gets this guy indeff'd faster the better. He is nothing but a PR shill. John from Idegon (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jumping straight to an indef block for run of the mill POV pushing is a tad harsh. NeilN talk to me 05:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Why, NeilN? Have you ever seen an editor who shows up here strictly to shill for a company or organization and does not respond in any way to messages asking him not to, that has turned tail and become a useful editor? I have never seen even one. If you have, please enlighten me. John from Idegon (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
      • And it is not "run of the mill" POV pushing. This guy is removing content from an academic source labeling the school as a segregation academy, and replacing it with fluff from the school's own website. I am at a loss why certain administrators refuse to deal with tat in an appropriate manner. Just exactly what use do you see for continuing this guys editing privileges? Think he's gonna come back, say I'm sorry and proceed to add all sorts of useful content? Quit being naive. John from Idegon (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @John from Idegon: These editors believe adhering to the "official history" genuinely improves the encyclopedia. We don't indef immediately because of that, just as we don't immediately indef subjects of BLPs who are upset some negative information appears in "their" article and try to take it out. They are directed towards talk pages to discuss issues. A few do, many just abandon their efforts, and many are eventually blocked when they refuse to listen. If you want all POV-pushing to result in an immediate indef, get that in policy. --NeilN talk to me 05:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I'd suggest using the collective we only in areas where it actually applies. Many if not most admin do indeff for the repeated insertion of outright lies into articles. Only once in the 5 times he did it did he cite a source, and that source was the school. What does the belief of the editor doing it have to do with the price of tea in China? John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: It has everything to do with the length and type of block. If an editor scrawls "penis" or "I hate the [racial epithet]" across a bunch of articles it's pretty obvious their intent is not to improve the encyclopedia and are blocked accordingly. However if they insert material they were taught and believe to be true then there's no deliberate intention to damage the encyclopedia. They'll get blocked for disruption if they persist and blocked indef if the previous block(s) didn't stem the disruption but they'll get a chance to use their knowledge to contribute constructively before that happens. --NeilN talk to me 06:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:ITHS reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page
International Turkish Hope School, Dhaka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
ITHS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Students */ The lacking information and black propaganda which does not mirror the reality has been removed. This information if should be used in any case must be valued under the title of English Medium Schools in Dhaka rather than one victim target."
  2. 12:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Students */ The lacking information and black propaganda which does not mirror the reality has been removed. This information if should be used in any case must be valued under the title of English Medium Schools in Dhaka rather than one victim target."
  3. 05:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "The recently added criminal reports as we can follow the references, is not appropriate the content and title, and does not mirror the reality, only mentioned under the title of International Turkish Hope School despite English Meduim Schools in Dhaka."
  4. 03:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "Recent addition which is a terrorist propoganda and does not mirror the reality has been removed."
  5. 10:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "The recent addition, which does not mirror the reality, has been removed."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "Do not edit war"
  2. 13:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Do not exert ownership of articles */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 04:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Alumni */ Respect other editors' work"
  2. [20], 25-31 December 2017 (UTC) on Talk:International Turkish Hope School, Dhaka}} "Alumni"
Comments:

Persistent removal, with incoherent edit summaries, of reliably sourced material, despite repeated attempts to engage them on the article talk page and escalating warnings. Worldbruce (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely Username block. NeilN talk to me 15:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft reported by User:ConTenFir (Result: Nominator blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: [[American Frontier]] 
User being reported: [[User:User:Hammersoft|User:Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:User:Hammersoft|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/User:Hammersoft|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/User:Hammersoft|deleted contribs]] · logs · edit filter log · [[Special:Block/User:Hammersoft|block user]] · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_frontier&oldid=817961071

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_frontier&diff=prev&oldid=817962436 More in article history.

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

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

Comments:

  • Vandal editor currently at WP:AIV for exceeding uw-delete4. Claims of copyright violations are unsubstantiated. Editing is purely disruptive. Recommend boomerang. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours Will follow up to see if indef is needed NeilN talk to me 17:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:MarioProtIV being reported by User:The Nth User (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page:

2017–18 North American winter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

MarioProtIV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 01:48, 29 December 2017
  2. 01:56, 29 December 2017
  3. 03:52, 29 December 2017
  4. 16:27, 29 December 2017

Diffs of warnings on MarioProtIV's talk page:

  1. 03:18, 29 December 2017
  2. 04:35, 29 December 2017, used the Uw-3rr template

The warnings focused more on MarioProtIV breaking the rule's spirit, as opposed to the rule's fine text, so I most likely would have reported MarioProtIV anyway if the user had not made a fourth revert this time but reverted some more additions to the Events section a few days later.

The user in question started a discussion on the talk page around the time of the fourth revert:

  1. 16:25, 29 December 2017

So far, no one else has responded yet.

Reporter's Comments:
Before today, the user had a history of reverting additions to the Events section. (See the edit history of the page.) I mentioned this in my first warning. I also mentioned in my first warning that MarioProtIV used the same excuse, non-notability, to revert each addition, although at least some of the reverted content, like a storm that cut power for almost 1.5 million people (1.2 million in the American northeast and 0.2 million in Canada), was clearly notable. I would also like to say that the user also seems to have accumulated a history of edits considered to be unconstructive or edit warring by other users just in the past five weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talkcontribs) 17:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Okay this is completely absurd. You’re accusing me of being disruptive, yet I am actually doing the right thing by removing non-significant events as to not clutter up the page (there would be 40 sections if we went by that). Plus, the IP consistently kept re-adding the events even after I advised not to. Next time please actually read the rules instead of falsely accusing me of an edit war whereas I am simply trying to do the right thing. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
"The right thing" falls under WP:POV. Also, thanks to you, there's been only one section even though numerous records across the country have been broken over a span of weeks. Also, the IP editors putting the storms in appear to think that they're notable; who says that your opinion matters more? You did not attempt to resolve the until on the article's talk page until you were about to make your fourth revision on the page in less than 15 hours. Also, I made it clear when I posted your first warning on your talk page that then, I was not concerned that you had broken the fine text of the three revert rule then, but that was not necessary for administrator action, as your two revisions of additions of additional storms into the events section, using the same justification (non-notability) for your reversions, clearly fall under the

Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

clause on the page. Now you have violated the actual rule, as well as its spirit, and registered users have taken the sides of the IP, claiming that the systems were in fact notable. Now, you must stop claiming that none of the blame falls on your shoulders and instead wait for an administrator to answer.

Also, you didn’t try to start something on the talk page to settle the dispute (which I had to do to try to cool things off but you decide otherwise) nor did you attempt to revert me, instead you took it out on me as if I’m doing the wrong thing. Also, how are my edits “unconstructive” whereas just a few days ago I took the liberty of finishing a draft someone started and he thanked me for doing so? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I warned you, and I did not want to revert you, as I did not want to take an active role in what you appeared to have made into an edit war. You can not use the "I went on the talk page," excuse, as you did not do so until two minutes before you made your fourth revert of additions of systems to the Events section in less than 15 hours. Your edit summary for your fourth edit ("Reverted to revision 817610060 by Edible Melon (talk): No. Take this to talk and I am seriously fed up with this.") does not at all seem kind ("I genuinely feel that these storms are not notable enough to merit mention on this page. You may differ, but if you do so, please discuss on the article's talk page," would be much better.), and you appear to have a recent history of edit warring. Your contributions to the Harvey article have no bearing on this case, as this is a completely different page, and users can make both constructive and unconstructive edits (as exemplified in the case of an administrator who createda bad-hand account for page-creation vandalism). Your message on the talk page does not seem like it would "cool things off" because you accuse the IP editor of "just ruining the quality of the page" (ruin changed to ruining to fit usage), and this is not a good way to introduce a new user, who may not be familiar with all of the policies and guidelines, to Wikipedia. Your first sentence, "An IP editor has been repeatedly adding non-significant events to the page, and I have constantly reverted these edits, but @The Nth User: is accusing me of being in an edit war whereas I am just trying to improve the quality of the article," implies several things, including:
  • "Non-significant events" is an opinion in this case, and other registered users hold different opinions than yours. You seem to be a POV-pusher, where your point of view is that almost every winter storm so far this winter, even one that put about 1.4 million people out of power, is non-notable.
  • "Accusing" implies that the thing that is being accused, in this case, the claim that you are edit-warring, is false. You have reverted the same user four times, within fifteen hours of each other, on the same page, each time for the addition of storms in the Events section, so you are obviously edit-warring. By saying, "The Nth User: is accusing me of being in an edit war," you imply that my "accusation" isn't true.
  • "The Nth User is accusing me of being in an edit war whereas I am just trying to improve the quality of the article." Whereas is typically used to show contrast, implying that I am either hindering, have the intent to hinder, or just don't want the quality of the article to improve. None of those are true. In fact, I fail to see how the article's quality can improve significantly if additions of winter storms are almost always reverted repeatedly, limiting the number of storms that the Events section covers.
  • "improve the quality of the article" As I said above, the article's quality can't improve much. No matter how well-crafted the description of Early December winter storm is, I think that it is clear that the article's quality will not be significantly improved if other notable (in the opinion of me, Oscar247, and the IP editor that you have been edit-warring with) systems are withheld from being included. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 01:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV and The Nth User: Let us just establish that being "right" is not grounds for edit warring. Both of you are equally at fault.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng:, would you please explain to me how I'm at fault? I don't think that I should receive equal blame or punishment as MarioProtIV because I did not actively participate in the edit war between MarioProtIV and 100.11.13.154. I warned MarioPortIV, but I did not revert the addition or deletion of December 23-25, 2017 North American Snowstorm, and I did not break the three-revert rule. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
But you didn’t do anything to try and cool things off so your technically also at fault here. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Jasper Deng said that I was equally at fault. I wasn't actively edit-warring: How am I equally at fault? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 20:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale – Please continue the discussion at Talk:2017–18 North American winter#Non-notable events and try to agree on a criterion for what storms ought to be added. For instance, you could decide to only mention storms that have winter storm summaries from the U.S. Weather Prediction Center. If you can't agree on which storms should be included, see WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Dalljiet kaur reported by User:Dross (Result: Two editors reminded about BLP)[edit]

Page
Warren Masilamony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Dalljiet kaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 04:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Personal Life */"
  3. 03:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Personal Life */"
  4. 12:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Warren Masilamony. (TW)"
  2. 04:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Warren Masilamony. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 04:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Prospective arranged marriage - edit war */ new section"
Comments:

Originally began warring with Mediawatch922, who stopped reverting after two reverts. I then stepped in with my own edit and explained on the talk. dross (c · @) 04:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: The filer, User:Dross, as well as User:Mediawatch922 are reminded not to restore unsourced information to a WP:BLP article. The story about a prospective arranged marriage between Daljeet Kaur Bhanot and Warren Masilamony can't be included without a reliable source. From WP:BLP, "..any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:KINGPORUS reported by User:Crawford88 (Result: Stale)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [22]
  2. [23]
  3. [24]
  4. [25]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Karna#Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017 and User talk:KINGPORUS#Dec, 2017

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale No violation of 3RR as far as I can tell...both sides seem to be warring equally. only (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff to user talk page discussion diff to article talk page discussion

Comments:
This is not a true 3RR, I realize that. Even so, when I thought Tenebrae and I were doing so well editing this article at the same time, he then started back up with slow edit warring, which I've seen Tenebrae engage in numerous times over the last few years with other editors as well as myself. His previous blocks for edit warring are evidence of this. I didn't want to see things end up this way but am frankly worn out by trying to edit anything BLP-wise and having him swoop down to blanket revert content that is well written and well-sourced. Especially after trying to discuss and reason with him.

This case in particular is a content-wording dispute - rather than discuss at the talk page discussion I started, Tenebrae instead seemed to ignore the discussion and then strangely suggested in his latest wholesale reversion that I need to consult the talk page - where he has yet to try to discuss anything. He previously wholesale reverted an edit I made simply because he didn't like a two-word phrase - in that case, the entire edit I made in addition to the two-word phrase (which was already present in the article) was reverted wholesale. An aggressive move. He often cites WP:BRD but ignores the 'D' portion of the BRD cycle. This is not a new maneuver for him and also gives the feeling of aggressive editing. I tried discussing this with him on his own talk page a week or so ago. To no avail, really. (Diff to user talk page discussion)

With his last block for edit warring [31], it was pointed out to him that he needed to seek consensus rather than edit war/revert and if that didn't work to then try dispute resolution. In this case, he hasn't tried either approach, while I have attempted to work with him (see the article talk page and his talk page).

Tenebrae is a decent writer and prolific editor, but usually goes unchallenged in his frequent reversion campaigns and edit warring because he is so aggressive and his edit summaries often leave a chilling effect. Comments such as he has now made at the article talk page - "There is no consensus for your version" - only demonstrate he doesn't grasp the fact that others have writing skills which benefit Wikipedia and consensus isn't a prerequisite for adding or refining content. His quick trigger finger to revert what he doesn't like because it's not something he would have written is a bad habit of his that needs to be broken. In my opinion, something needs to be done to get him to understand that there are other editors out there who are just as good at copyediting as he can, at times, be. I sincerely want to edit collegially and reasonably with this guy at articles where we have a common interest, but his insistence on having it his way just makes it so damned hard. -- ψλ 02:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, User:Winkelvi has proven himself to be a problematic editor with a history of edit-warring. And his "4 reverts" are a dishonest list. The third one has no relation to the first two. And the fourth one takes place days after the others.
Indeed, I'd suggest WP:BOOMERANG may be in order. After being reverted for a poorly worded edit, Winkelvi, rather than reaching consensus on the talk page, began edit-warring to reinsert that poorly worded edit.
In the meantime, there is no WP:3RR going on, on my part. Not with edits involving two different things, and not with edits days apart from each other.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I've just read his huge block of text above. For background: I had restored the status quo, except for leaving intact a good deal of Winkelvi's phrasing. I have reasons in the edit summaries for doing so ( 1. "[I am] giving [a] reason for [your] mentioning Streisand since LOTS of famous people went to that high school; and it's redundant to say 'attended and graduated' -- you can't have graduated a school if you didn't attend it." 2. "[V]irtually any disease is potentially deadly. We don't say 'potentially deadly cancer' with every person who's developed cancer.")
His attempt at consensus was telling me his (in my opinion, not very good) reasons for what I considered his poorly worded edits (Talk:Lainie Kazan#Reversion) ... and then in less than a day reverting to his poorly worded version without waiting to even hear from other editors, let alone seek a consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
And incidentally, loaded phrases and unproven allegations like "reversion campaigns and edit warring" — anyone can look at my record and see perhaps one edit-warring block in the last few years — is attack language. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)My edits were merely reworkings of the problematic content wording and none were done within a 24 hour period, more like 32 hours and later. I even made a point of telling him that I was rewording to correct grammar errors he had made and that I was trying to correct the wording in order to make him happy with the changes and add references ("with some tweaks that I think will be acceptable to you. References were added, as well.") Tenebrae even admitted that he made grammar errors in his preferred version here [32] "acceding Winkelvi's point about a run-on sentence", [33] "you were correct about the run-on sentence. I have humbly broken it into two, so it's actually close to your edit." Why he's now acting as if none of this happened, I can't even imagine. -- ψλ 02:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Discuss any remaining content/wording issues on the talk page, please. Neutralitytalk 02:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Ptn444 reported by User:FormalDude (Result: )[edit]

Page
Tres leches cake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ptn444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Popularity and origins */ There is no reason to believe this, nor does the citation provide one. Blatant Eurocentrism that adds absolutely nothing to the page."
  2. 03:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Popularity and origins */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Tres leches cake. (TW)"
  2. 03:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tres leches cake. (TW)"
  3. 03:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tres leches cake. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Portion on "European" origins */"
Comments:

User continues to remove a random sentence for no apparent reason. Their other two edits were from their account when not logged in: User:209.6.43.100FormalDude(talk) 03:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Dougal18 reported by User:OZOO (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page: 2018 PDC World Darts Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dougal18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [35] - removed summary section as it duplicates the info in the bracket and also has a trivial amount of detail
  2. [36] - /* ‎Tournament summary */: removed section - duplicates info in the bracket. the other stuff is irrelevant and trivia
  3. [37] - Undid revision 818161066 by OZOO (talk)
  4. [38] - Undid revision 818163021 by OZOO (talk) How about you shut your ugly face?

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39] - Warning on talkpage, immediately removed by user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40] - attempt to raise dialogue on talkpage.

Comments:
I feel the personal comment in the fourth diff makes this potentially more than a AN3. OZOO (t) (c) 23:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN talk to me 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Max Landis sock puppet appears to be removing any mention of the well-sourced sexual assault allegations against him. (Result: Declined)[edit]

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Landis

A Max Landis sock puppet appears to be removing any mention of the well-sourced sexual assault allegations against him.

The below information keeps being deleted within minutes of being posted. This has been noted on Twitter by prominent users as this is a very newsworthy story. Someone please help stop him.

Examples of Twitter mentions of this sockpuppet deletion: blue check verified user's tweet on this issue of a wiki-wiping by Max: https://twitter.com/Ceilidhann/status/947976857764417536 https://twitter.com/darthconnery/status/947962431191617536 https://twitter.com/holyhamills/status/947933888449523714

RE: Sexual assault allegation On December 22, 2017, Max Landis was accused of sexual abuse and sexual assault by Anna Akana on Twitter, hours before the release of the Netflix film Bright. Akana received considerable support and corroboration from fellow celebrities; among them comedian Mike Drucker, who accused Landis’ father of using his power and influence to cover up multiple indiscretions. MAD Magazine Editor Allie Goertz previously remarked that she couldn’t imagine someone who is more scared in a post-Harvey Weinstein world than Landis. No specific details of what he was accused of were released, nor have any victims come forward. [48][49][50][51][52]

He has also done the same with the page for his film Bright. See, e.g. https://twitter.com/PabloBeal/status/945571613751123969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets (talkcontribs) 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User:OfficiallyGoodenough reported by User:Galatz (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Royal Rumble (2018) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OfficiallyGoodenough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [41]
  2. [42]
  3. [43]
  4. [44]
  5. [45]
  6. [46]
  7. [47]
  8. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Royal Rumble (2018)#John Cena

Comments:
This user continued to make reverts after I issued the warning, in addition he has not participated in the talk page discussion whatsoever. Furthermore he clearly understands how this works because he warned the another user here [50] on the same topic. The other user took the initiative to also bring the topic to the wikiproject after my warning rather than just reverting again Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#John Cena. Note he has reverted multiple users all attempting to make the same change. - GalatzTalk 19:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected I see violations of WP:3RR by multiple editors. Fully protected 2 days NeilN talk to me 22:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User:MichiganWoodShop reported by User:Toddst1 (Result