Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive367

User:Vanguard10 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 22:10, May 2

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:42, May 3
 * 2) 20:45, May 4
 * 3) 00:10, May 5
 * 4) 15:17, May 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page discussion

Comments: The editor asserts that this set of bus stops is too far to be considered part of the station, despite having dedicated infrastructure (in the form of a pedestrian bridge) and acknowledged by the transit operator (Sound Transit) as part of the station; everything down to the public art in the adjacent plaza and the drop-off area is considered "part" of the station by Sound Transit and third-party media outlets. The editor has not shown sufficient coverage that supports their claim that the bus stops are not part of the station itself.

The user has also made attempts to canvass other users (see here) and has asserted ownership (see this discussion on my talk page) of aviation articles in general. All of this comes in an attempt to take the article to FAC, despite having no previous role in editing the article.  Sounder Bruce  22:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am deeply disappointed that SounderBruce has taken this issue to this board, which could be considered drama or over aggressive use of Wikipedia disciplinary proceedings. I was thinking that a RFC would be more appropriate but, exercising restraint, was continuing discussion to avoid even that.


 * I originally considered SounderBruce to be an esteemed Wikipedian due to his many transit articles but am increasing concerned that those transit articles occur because of low participation, allowing him to assert ownership of articles. While I take his opinion into account and then suggest alternate or compromise wording, he just uses Twinkle to revert it. Instead, discussion and alternate wordings are a better form to allow discussion. I am an editor who has brought articles to FA and GA and seek collegial discussion to make articles FA and GA, in addition to having made more edits to the article than anybody else, except SounderBruce.


 * This noticeboard is not to discuss what the edit conflicts are but I will summarize. SounderBruce appears to want a grandiose view of the light rail station, saying many bus lines serve the station. The Port of Seattle, the government organization that owns the airport, writes that there are bus lines adjacent to the station. To get to the bus stops from the station, you have to exit the station by crossing the street on an overpass then re-cross the street back for the southbound buses. This may be why the Port of Seattle doesn't write that the bus stop inside the station. SounderBruce, without documentation or proof, just speculates and dismisses this as an "intern" writing for the Port of Seattle. I am very flexible, phrasing things in different way, often using the word "adjacent", which SounderBruce objects to.


 * I still am hopeful for cooperative discussion. However, this noticeboard report should be closed as inappropriate at this time and all parties encouraged to cooperate and seek peaceful resolution by discussion (talk page discussion or, failing that, RFC). To maintain enthusiasm for Wikipedia, I ask that no sanctions be taken against SounderBruce. Please close this complaint and encourage cooperation. Vanguard10  22:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If I were an administrator or had some sort of managerial capacity in Wikipedia, I would encourage both editors, who are good article writers and have brought articles to FA/GA (SounderBruce on transit, Vanguard10 on aviation) to try to work things out and, if a genuine effort fails, try the airport and transit wikiprojects for advice, or even RFC. I would discourage quick Twinkle reverts. I would close this report as technically failing 3RR and no 3RR warning. A non-standard resolution would be to also suggest a talk page discussion with each editor writing three sample versions, which would encourage them to think about alternatives. Vanguard10  23:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Wolf Cola reported by User:Kishfan (Result: Closed)
Page:

User being reported: Wolf Cola

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Pinging the crazy-haired admin for input. --Neil N  talk to me 21:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * NeilN - ROAR, I am the crazy-hair admin! Why have you summoned meeee?!! Yeah, so this has been handled. I ran into this debacle today and saw that it was an edit war over content, and I blocked both users as a result. Wolf Cola appealed with an unblock request and stated that he believed the other user to one of others that were causing disruption and alongside sock puppet accounts. I had Wolf Cola promise me to stop reverting that article, and I unblocked immediately afterwards. He understands that he dun goof'd in this situation and that this wasn't a situation to repeatedly revert over (even if the account was a IP hopper / banned user - which I haven't gone to figure out). Looking at his contributions and experience, I can definitely tell that he performs well with counter-vandalism and handling disruption; he's just not yet experienced with situations where the suspicion is present but the edits and the behavior aren't blatantly obvious, and that's where this comes in and why this report was filed. Wolf Cola graciously accepted my offer to help train and mentor him, and I feel that he understands to be mindful of what he's reverting in the future regardless of suspicions. Should it please and sparkle the jury, I recommend that we consider this matter resolved and closed ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that close is longer than any five of mine combined here. --Neil N  talk to me 22:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No charge for going beyond my character limit, right? ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * NeilN, may I know the reason why admin Oshwah is so much on the side of user Wolf Cola? User Wolf Cola deliberately removed sourced material from Playback singer and then he intentionally removed the sourced material from Honorific nicknames in popular music which I reverted. Moreover, admin Oshwah immediately unblocked user Wolf Cola and started supporting him here which was unwarranted. Plus he added the same pov statement in Mohammad Rafi which was removed by me. Last but not the least, when I reported user Wolf Cola for sock puppetry, this admin immediately closed the investigation without blocking Wolf Cola. Atleast he would have investigated user Wolf Cola, his talk page is full of warnings which clearly tells that he has been vandalizing the wikipedia whole time. Please answer my questions if you think I deserve a reply.Kishfan (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're awfully familiar with Wikipedia processes for someone who has 44 edits in total. And stop with the vandalism accusations before you are blocked. handled the situation perfectly properly. --Neil N  talk to me 23:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * NeilN Thank you very much, I already new the answer. And on what account would you like to block me? For asking a question. Very funny and thanks once again for your kind reply.Kishfan (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly accusing another editor of vandalizing in what is essentially a content dispute is seen as a personal attack which results in blocks. --Neil N  talk to me 23:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * NeilN, emptiness of your reply is well heard. You take good care of your self.Kishfan (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Enough. I'm sorry that you're unhappy with how I handled the situation here and chose to educate and help the user instead of being punitive, I really am. But that's not how blocks should be used, and it's certainly not how I choose to use them to enforce policy when it involves a user who made an honest mistake. I will choose to assume good faith, help the user to understand what happened, brush them off, unblock them a few minutes later, and encourage them to move on, don't feel bad, and turn the situation into a positive learning experience - and I'll give hours of my time to do that any day before I want to consider otherwise ;-). You can be as upset and insulting as you want toward me; it won't hurt my feelings one bit. But when you start acting chippy toward another editor who isn't myself and because they're telling you how the case was handled and because you didn't see the punishment handed out the way you wanted, that's not going to fly. This discussion is now closed. Thank you for filing this report (yes, it was a legitimate report to file and I do appreciate that a lot); it's time to move on now :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am glad to exercise my right to ask. It is amusing that you are so merciful with some editors and trust me, I did move on. Just wanted to know the reason. Kishfan (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Kishfan reported by User:HFM Expert (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have reported the ip and his editor for sock puppetry. I did not involve in any sort of edit war. I have only reverted the obvious vandalism which is not edit war. This user HFM Expert has a history of sock puppetry and edit war here and was also blocked.Kishfan (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, evidence is clearly there of you engaging in disruptive editing and continually reverting edits, you have therefore violated the three revert rule in the process. This was the reason that an edit warring investigation was opened against you. Also, kindly do not go around making baseless accusations against other users whether it is me or anyone else, as this is also an offence that can result in you getting blocked. Regards. HFM Expert (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Page protected - but no violation No-one is ever going to block an editor who is reverting the removal of sources by SPA random IPs and one-shot editors. What we probably need to look at here is the behaviour of those editors, of which there appear to be a few, mostly with very few edits. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Black Kite he was clearly adding unsourced content, and broke the three revert rule in the process this is why I started the investigation. HFM Expert (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * HFM Expert Please read the rule again. If you are reverting obvious vandalism 3RR doesn't apply then. You must know this before reporting someone since you have an edit war history. I did not make false acusation because you remained block for edit waring in past and your edit war history clearly says that. Than you for your concernKishfan (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your edits appear to constitute vandalism when they are being mass reverted in the way they were. HFM Expert (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly do not revert anymore edits if you wish to contribute to an article than discuss it on the talk page, and you certainly have a history of edit warring currently. Do not make any more baseless accusations against other users otherwise I may have to take the matter further up. HFM Expert (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear. You were the one removing sourced content, as this makes very clear . Not only that, but you were referring to his edits as disruptive. I suggest you step well away from continuing this editing pattern, or you will be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Black Kite When did I remove content? I just observed his editing pattern and observed that he broke the three revert rule. I advised him to discuss any changes to the article on the talk page. How am I the villain here? I have been on Wikipedia for a good year now, and abide by all rules and make sure other editors do also. HFM Expert (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Black Kite You are mistaken, I am just trying to help him out here. An editor with minimal experience. HFM Expert (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You've just done it again . You are removing sources and content and you are now edit-warring to keep your disruptive editing in the article. There is only one outcome here, and that is a block. I suggest you revert your last edit, or that will be the outcome. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Filer blocked after continuing CIR and disruption issues. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Explorium reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 839969602 by Rhododendrites (talk) I showed the bias in Arabic Wikipedia as a verifiable evidence - I was reverted without verifying thr evidence of bias. Discussed on my talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 839964815 by Shellwood (talk)Revert explained on my Talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 839964110 by Shellwood (talk)i ask for patience as I discuss the matter. This is now a 3RR and I respectfully ask for a consensus before my edit is reverted."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 839963127 by Shellwood (talk)Undid revert and requesting consensus"
 * 5)  "/* Evaluation and criticism */ Arabic Wikipedia Administrators Islamic Bias"
 * 6)  "/* Evaluation and criticism */ (عبادة الشيطان)"
 * 1)  "/* Evaluation and criticism */ (عبادة الشيطان)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Arabic Wikipedia. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * I have explained my edit supported by reliable sources and verifiable evidence from the Arabic Wikipedia. Legitimate edits shouldn´t be quickly labeled vandalism. It's all on my Talk page. The bias at the Arabic Wikipedia shocked me. It is real and it needed a whistleblower to expose it. I welcome guidance and rational arguments, I will even remove my edit, but after the evidence and sources presented are duly verified. The anti-Israel logo is clear, but if anyone needs Arabic translation, please ask. Explorium (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   23:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:217.43.29.86 reported by User:Soetermans (Result:Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 839919588 by Soetermans (talk) 3RR"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 839911463 by Soetermans (talk) edit is very constructive, the revert is unconstructive"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Syphon Filter. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Syphon Filter. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* May 2018 */Re"


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


 * Comments:

Anon user is hell bent on reinstating a huge list of unsourced gameguide material. Has been reverted by before. Has not responded to talk page messages. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Anon also reverted before on April 29th and May 3rd. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

What I am reverting is the unnecessary culling of the article by registered users so seem to believe they know best and can bully IP’s. Have not responded to user has he has only sent threats, which did warrant any response. The info Is not unnecessary and had gone unchallenged and unquestioned for a many years until on lone user personally believed it should go. I has to remain until something suitable is there to replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.29.86 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, it's trivial WP:GAMECRUFT and moreover, it's completely unsourced. WP:VG/MOS describes how a video game article should look like, and this is not appropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. WP:LONGTIME is not an argument, nor is that you're saying WP:ILIKEIT. I've given you warnings, not threats. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Another revert, just now. That's number five. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   23:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Leftworks1 reported by User:Philip Cross (Result: Blocked, page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version to be reverted to [addition(s) illegitimate and improperly sourced]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

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

I have warned User:Leftworks1 about their use of inappropriate sources, [and the 3RR rule and COI, the nature of the content suggest this user has one,] but they remain impervious to accepting Wikipedia policies. This user appears to giving a running commentary on Twitter here to interested party @NeilClark66.

Philip Cross (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments:


 * . Page also protected as an IP has attempted the same edit in the past. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

User:195.170.33.33 reported by User:TheFarix (Result:blocked for 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Free use source, e.g. newspaper or e-book."


 * As :
 * 1)  "ScreenRant's reference was just copied on this article word-in-a-word."
 * 1)  "ScreenRant's reference was just copied on this article word-in-a-word."


 * As :
 * 1)  "Undid revision 840046981 by 195.170.33.33"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Codename: Sailor V. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Editor has also been edit warring using the account as a means to bypass the 3RR rule. Has already claimed to have copied text from one of the sources "word-for-word", which makes it a WP:COPYVIO as well as issues with circular sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As well as SBerT was involved to editwar too. Three birds for one shot! Turka al Busavi (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe we acts as a three sockpuppets? 195.170.33.33 (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage. Turka al Busavi (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Result

 * by NeilN. For an question of sock-puppetry, e.g. with user block of Turka (me) and SBerT see. WP:SPI. The user accounts were left for further discussions. Sorry for this result message, but the blocking administrator will come later. Turka al Busavi (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Odoures reported by User:R9tgokunks (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) no edit summary
 * 2) no edit summary, again
 * 3) "per source"
 * 4) no edit summary
 * 5) "per source"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: User is editing the page by repeatedly removing the main source used for citing French populations, also adding a source in it's place that appears to be a religious site with no reliability, and not offering reasoning for the edits other than "per source", with no discussion anywhere. At least three users have reverted their edits, including, , and myself. I have offered many warnings to the user, with no effect, and no discussion from the user.


 * Edit: User made two valid edits but the same edit summary of "per source" was used, leading me to believe the edits were similar to prior reverts. I initially warned user of this but brought it to my attention that my rollback of the edits also re-introduced bad statistics and that the user's edits were valid. Apparently this bad data had been there before the reverting started. I removed my warning and I removed those edits from the above list.  R9tgokunks   ✡  05:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The edits by Odoures stopped after I rolled back to an older version that repaired the statistics, so I don't think any action is necessary here. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

User:101.9.155.69 reported by User:Desp2002 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring on many pages involving the same IPs.

IPs involved:

Pages with edit warring:

Battle of Changhsing Chinese views of democracy Defense of Harbin New Tang Dynasty Television

Desp2002 (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Time left reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Martrydom */Indian dogs 🐕 how many times you will delete the reality of the page"
 * 2)  "How many times you Indian revert the page"
 * 3)  "/* Martrydom */I will revert it as many times as i can"
 * 4)  "We are not indian"
 * 5)  "Revert"
 * 6)  "/* Martrydom */Revert"
 * 7)  "Added the reality"
 * 8)  "Delete the fake information"
 * 9)  "/* Martrydom */Added the martrydom"
 * 10)  "Added Photo"
 * 11)  "Added photo"
 * 12)  "Added name"
 * 1)  "Delete the fake information"
 * 2)  "/* Martrydom */Added the martrydom"
 * 3)  "Added Photo"
 * 4)  "Added photo"
 * 5)  "Added name"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Sameer Tiger. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sameer Tiger. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* Note */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Clearly WP:NOTHERE.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 07:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Srppateros and User:Unnamed forever reported by User:Stormy clouds (Result: Blocked, Warned)
Page:

Users being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to: Diff

Diffs of the users' reverts:
 * 1) Srppateros Diff 1
 * 2) Srppateros Diff 2
 * 3) Srppateros Diff 3
 * 4) Unnamed forever Diff 1
 * 5) Unnamed forever Diff 2
 * 6) Unnamed forever Diff 3

Comments:

I came across this case as an uninvolved editor as the first party ventured to the Teahouse to seek a ban for the second. However, given the clear edit war, which extends beyond just today's 3RR violation, I feel that a boomerang may be apt, with both editors being banned. The case is complicated by the fact that Srppateros has a disclosed COI, and is the Wikipedia account of the Church named for this saint, per their user page, and the fact that Unnamed forever is a clear-cut SPA, who exclusively edits this article. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In the future, please follow the instructions at the top of this page and notify editors you report. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - apologies. I applied the uw for edit warring, but missed the intended warning, which I should have used. Such oversight was entirely accidental, and will not happen again. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

username blocked and warned about WP:OWN. warned to start discussing edits instead of just reverting. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User:EkoGraf reported by User:Mazdakabedi (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments: User is editing the page by repeatedly ignoring idioms to make a baseless propaganda. "Failure", "Partial victory" and "Decisive victory" has obvious and precise meanings but User:EkoGraf insists on US-SDF PoV interpretation against the clear ground result that even his sources admit it. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First, Mazdakabedi, the Administrators' noticeboard is used to report when a user has violated Wikipedia's 3RR policy, 1RR policy, etc. I haven't made any violations of 3RR or even 1RR (which applies to all Syrian war-related articles) and you have not provided any evidence to confirm this as required by Wikipedia's policy to make this report. Also, before making this kind of report, Wikipedia's policy requires you to send me a warning, which you didn't. Finally, Wikipedia's policy requires you, before making a report, to also attempt a discussion on the issue on the article's talk page so to try and resolve it, which you also didn't. Besides this whole report not being according to Wikipedia's policies at all, it signals a violation on your part in regards to Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith from your fellow editors. I would also like to note that Mazdakabedi himself made two full reverts of my edits in less then 24 hours, which is indeed a clear violation of 1RR that applies to Syrian war articles and could get an editor blocked.  To continue, to the reviewing administrator, the issue here is that the battle which is the topic of the article saw the Syrian Army capture 4 villages from the SDF, which then in turn recaptured 3 or even all 4 of the villages from the Syrian Army (based on which source is cited). Contrary to what Mazdakabedi has stated, none of the sources are calling the end result a Syrian Army victory as he has constantly been inserting. In fact, the sources point to an overall Syrian Army failure since they were wholly or mostly driven back by the SDF. Mazdakabedi has also resorted to removing the source cited that all four villages were recaptured (as well as the cited info) and has resorted to calling the reports (made by such as the Washington Post and Reuters) US/SDF propaganda. I warned Mazdakabedi that edits based on our personal opinions of the situation are considered unsourced Original Research which isn't allowed per WP policy, but I was ignored. Furthermore, his removal of the sourced content and its reference, personal comments of the sources and this report itself points to a major POV-pushing violation. Finally, I would like to note that an anonymous IP today made virtually the same kind of edit such as Mazdakabedi (removal of sourced content and its source and making an unsourced edit), which makes me to suspect that the IP in question is possibly Mazdakabedi. And even if its not him the removal of sourced content and its source by an IP would then possibly require temporary semi-protection of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * PS Another editor, unlike Mazdakabedi, has proposed a compromise solution on the article's talk page which I have stated that I would support. EkoGraf (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Vanguard10 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 22:10, May 2

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:42, May 3
 * 2) 20:45, May 4
 * 3) 00:10, May 5
 * 4) 15:17, May 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page discussion

Comments: The editor asserts that this set of bus stops is too far to be considered part of the station, despite having dedicated infrastructure (in the form of a pedestrian bridge) and acknowledged by the transit operator (Sound Transit) as part of the station; everything down to the public art in the adjacent plaza and the drop-off area is considered "part" of the station by Sound Transit and third-party media outlets. The editor has not shown sufficient coverage that supports their claim that the bus stops are not part of the station itself.

The user has also made attempts to canvass other users (see here) and has asserted ownership (see this discussion on my talk page) of aviation articles in general. All of this comes in an attempt to take the article to FAC, despite having no previous role in editing the article.  Sounder Bruce  22:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am deeply disappointed that SounderBruce has taken this issue to this board, which could be considered drama or over aggressive use of Wikipedia disciplinary proceedings. I was thinking that a RFC would be more appropriate but, exercising restraint, was continuing discussion to avoid even that.


 * I originally considered SounderBruce to be an esteemed Wikipedian due to his many transit articles but am increasing concerned that those transit articles occur because of low participation, allowing him to assert ownership of articles. While I take his opinion into account and then suggest alternate or compromise wording, he just uses Twinkle to revert it. Instead, discussion and alternate wordings are a better form to allow discussion. I am an editor who has brought articles to FA and GA and seek collegial discussion to make articles FA and GA, in addition to having made more edits to the article than anybody else, except SounderBruce.


 * This noticeboard is not to discuss what the edit conflicts are but I will summarize. SounderBruce appears to want a grandiose view of the light rail station, saying many bus lines serve the station. The Port of Seattle, the government organization that owns the airport, writes that there are bus lines adjacent to the station. To get to the bus stops from the station, you have to exit the station by crossing the street on an overpass then re-cross the street back for the southbound buses. This may be why the Port of Seattle doesn't write that the bus stop inside the station. SounderBruce, without documentation or proof, just speculates and dismisses this as an "intern" writing for the Port of Seattle. I am very flexible, phrasing things in different way, often using the word "adjacent", which SounderBruce objects to.


 * I still am hopeful for cooperative discussion. However, this noticeboard report should be closed as inappropriate at this time and all parties encouraged to cooperate and seek peaceful resolution by discussion (talk page discussion or, failing that, RFC). To maintain enthusiasm for Wikipedia, I ask that no sanctions be taken against SounderBruce. Please close this complaint and encourage cooperation. Vanguard10  22:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If I were an administrator or had some sort of managerial capacity in Wikipedia, I would encourage both editors, who are good article writers and have brought articles to FA/GA (SounderBruce on transit, Vanguard10 on aviation) to try to work things out and, if a genuine effort fails, try the airport and transit wikiprojects for advice, or even RFC. I would discourage quick Twinkle reverts. I would close this report as technically failing 3RR and no 3RR warning. A non-standard resolution would be to also suggest a talk page discussion with each editor writing three sample versions, which would encourage them to think about alternatives. Vanguard10  23:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: This report was archived by the bot without getting a response. I presume that this was a mistake, so I'm reposting this here.  Sounder Bruce  06:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocks and protection would serve no purpose at this point. I see that WP:3O has already been looked into, so I'd encourage both editors to focus on coming to a talk page consensus before making any additional changes to the article's wording. An RFC would be a great next step if 3O doesn't work out. clpo13(talk) 22:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Brougham90 reported by User:Nanophosis (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Why are you so stupid that you would refer to a cartoon character no one remembers?"
 * 2)  "What the fuck does Ernest Hemingway who blew his brains out with a shotgun have to do with Thomas Wolfe?  Have any of you ever written anything in your life?  I know you day dream of Papa Hemingway.  I assume you insert the Lil Abner quote twice in every wiki page."
 * 3)  "the author of that Hemingway sentence is promoting his homosexual lifestyle by referring to his father figure's masculine persona.  While I support his right to that lifestyle, I think he needs to address his man-love issues elsewhere."
 * 4)  "The writer of that Hemingway line quotes something to be found later in this profile, uses and adverb Hemingway wouldn't have and refers to Hemingway as possessing a "masculine style" which is a reflection of his own sexist worldview."
 * 1)  "the author of that Hemingway sentence is promoting his homosexual lifestyle by referring to his father figure's masculine persona.  While I support his right to that lifestyle, I think he needs to address his man-love issues elsewhere."
 * 2)  "The writer of that Hemingway line quotes something to be found later in this profile, uses and adverb Hemingway wouldn't have and refers to Hemingway as possessing a "masculine style" which is a reflection of his own sexist worldview."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Censorship of material on Thomas Wolfe. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Censorship of material on Thomas Wolfe. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Thomas Wolfe. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Thomas Wolfe. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Continuously removing content because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I've reverted and warned 4 times so far as well as reported to AIV as a vandal/NOTHERE account. Nanophosis (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Brougham90 is a new editor so, Nanophosis, maybe "NOT YET HERE" is more apt. Sure they are edit warring, and edit warring is edit warring even if you're right, and in this case they were right. Someone said about that deletion that it had "still no sources", a puzzling comment since it concerned a deletion--well, there's no sourcing for Hemingway's "masculine" style, which at any rate is a pretty hollow and sexist term long left by the wayside. Note also that the editor removed the offending phrase (offends me too) from the lead, in which it has no decent place, but not from the article, where the sexist commentary wasn't included in the first place. So if any admin wants to block Brougham for edit warring...no, no one would want to do that. Rather, I hope they'd look at the content of the edit and the meaninglessness of the arguments for reverting (invoking JUSTDONTLIKEIT is as lame as it gets). Who put this crap in the lead? Drmies (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nanophosis, aren't you a member of the welcoming committee? Don't worry--I'll take care of that welcome template for you. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies - There's a good chance that the homophobic edit summary made by Brougham90 and the user calling me an idiot dissuaded me from welcoming them, but I would also argue that's my personal problem, and I shouldn't be so quick to "bite" new users for their edits. Anyway, thank you for being a neutral third party and making me take a step back, I probably wouldn't have even noticed my bias if not for your (harsh, but necessary) comment. I gather that "harsh, but necessary" is a phrase that describes you well, haha. Nanophosis (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Who put that crap in? This person., please be more mindful next time. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies successfully defused the situation. clpo13(talk) 22:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User:110.5.69.162 reported by User:Hotwiki (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:, Magic Palayok, My Guitar Princess, Hindi Ka na Mag-iisa

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments:

This ip address has being posting fake information for months now. He/she uses different Ip addresses, and adds a certain actress in Tv shows she didn't appear. Is there any way to finally stop this IP user for good? Like a range block or something. Check his contribution pages, he does nothing but post fake TV appearances of an actress.Hotwiki (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This looks more like simple vandalism, which can be reported at WP:AIV when the vandal is recently active. I think this report would be better suited for WP:ANI. clpo13(talk) 22:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Omnibus98 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Page deleted, user blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 840252205 by Kirbanzo (talk)  Please stop posting promotional material like this on Wikipedia.  Please read WP:AFD.  Page is to be improved by removing promotionalism during AFD discussion.   If you have a bone to pick with someone please do not let it affect the editorial process of articles."
 * 2)  "Very honest, running a tad close to WP:Libel, but facts are more important."
 * 3)  "Re-posted non-promotional version.  Appears Promotional users have been WP:Banned.  Added to Watch list."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Greg J. Marchand. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Greg J. Marchand. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Also reported at WP:AIV. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Closed AFD. Deleted page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN Still requesting block, user is not letting up on talk pages. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked by Ohnoitsjamie. clpo13(talk) 22:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Talksensenow reported by User:Rich Smith (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Has been blocked for edit warring before on this page and after block expired, blanked user page then proceeded to make same style of edits. Undone any reverts be both users and CBNG (then complained on my My Talk Page about it... - - <kbd style="color: Red;">Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 13:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Wisecrack259 reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Corruption accusations */ Politically biased interpretation of the issue with very few credible references."
 * 2)  "/* Corruption accusations */ Politically biased interpretation of the issue with very few credible references."
 * 3)  "/* Corruption accusations */ Politically biased interpretation of the issue with very few credible references."
 * 4)  "/* Corruption accusations */ Erasing irrelevant, politically-motivated interpretations and references."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* May 2018 */"


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

Another user "ArtHuntress57" has edited using the same summary as Wisecrack259 - "Politically biased interpretation of the issue with very few credible references". WP:SOCK possible? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="color:#3292a8">King <u style="color:#6b32a8">And <u style="color:#3292a8">God 09:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * ArtHuntress57 indeffed. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:46.208.174.91 reported by User:Heliotom (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 840371641 by Philip Cross (talk) Controversial material improperly sourced can be removed immediately without the need for discussion."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 840369233 by Heliotom (talk) Yes, it is controversial. (Why do you think it was inserted at all?) The original inserter cannot have it both ways. Either blogs are unreliable and shouldn't be sourced at all, or controversial statements should be supported by multiple sources. Removed immediately under Wikipedia rules without need for discussion."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Craig Murray. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP Hopping content removal

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.208.174.77

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ifit8488&action=edit&redlink=1 Heliotom (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rangeblocks will occur if the IP continues with the "I don't have to discuss this" attitude. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This editor's IPs trace to the same location as an IP hopper I reported a few days ago here. Furthermore, the currently blocked editor I reported here (later expanded to 2 weeks after he returned) seems to be boasting on Twitter about the activities of the IP user causing problems here. I would suggest there is block evasion in progress as well as some IP hopping. Philip Cross (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * More blocks handed out. If disruption continues, drop me a note on my talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all you have done NeilN, and the other admin too. Philip Cross (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here and here. There was also an RfC on the matter, which Hipp43 insist on ignoring (here)

Comments:

This is pretty straight forward. Hippo43 was blocked in late April (23rd) for exactly the same edit warring by User:Swarm. He then popped in around the 25th, after his block expired, do resume the edit war   although at that time he only made 3 reverts. Then, apparently having learned nothing from the block, he came to the article yesterday and promptly broke 3RR by making four reverts.

There was an RfC on this very issue. Arguments were made. The RfC was closed properly by User:Fish and karate. Hippo43 is refusing to respect the outcome of the RfC and just restating some of the arguments that have been made (and rejected) previously in the RfC. Basically a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Additionally, the article is under discretionary sanctions (for Eastern Europe). Hipp43 was notified of these. Since he doesn't seem to have learned anything from their previous block for edit warring and does not appear to be interested in listening to others or respecting consensus, a topic ban in addition to any short term block would be appropriate, under DS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Warned that further edit warring will result in a topic ban. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ApolloCarmb reported by User:ZiaLater (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Pages: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Nicolás Maduro:, Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Nicolas Maduro
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:ApolloCarmb's actions on Wikipedia have been combative since their first appearance a little over two weeks ago, appearing to be an edit warrior. They are a self-proclaimed WP:SPA. I first noticed this behavior when they were abusive toward another user and I provided a warning to ApolloCarmb. They continued their edit warring behavior and they were blocked once already on 22 April 2018. On 25 April 2018, they were brought to Arbitration Enforcement with questions of WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND expressed. After I became involved, they have participated in wikihounding on my own edits and have personally attacked my edits.

With the recent edits included above, it appears that this user is trying to game the system. I have tried to avoid becoming part of the edit warring myself and attempted dialogue on their talk page. The dialogue has shown little results. More comments and advice would be greatly appreciated.--<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 21:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Noting that here ApolloCarmb engages in a mild form of HOUNDING on an AfD where SPAs, IPs and editors who are clearly NOTHERE have weighed in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * User:E.M.Gregory what evidence is there that I am hounding? Also why does the fact that It is "an AfD where SPAs, IPs and editors who are clearly NOTHERE have weighed in." matter? ApolloCarmb (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My interactions with ApolloCarmb are here: . Notice 2018 Ariel stabbing where he had to be reverted |E.M.Gregory] (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:E.M.Gregory. A shared interest in the Arab-Israeli Conflict proves nothing. Lets not forget that it was you who followed me to the Slate Star Codex article.ApolloCarmb (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And tagged it for notability. You provoked my curiosity with your unusual editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Here are my experiences of ApolloCarmb wikihounding as well. I made edits to the corruption in Nicaragua article and they followed me there. My edits on Medal of Valor (Peru), which was only recently created by me at the time, was also hounded. They also hounded on the UNASUR article. Here are multiple other instances ([1 ], [2 ], [3 ]) It is a constant hounding by Apollo and it still continues today.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 22:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ZiaLater as I have already told you numerous times, a shared interest in South America proves nothing. It is really you who is wikihounding me.ApolloCarmb (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As I can see from this recent edit, it appears that ApolloCarmb is here for a single purpose as I was easily able to verify the material from the source. With ApolloCarmb saying this was "not in given source" is either lazy reading at best or biased lying at worst. They do not recognize the contents of sources and if it does not fit into their belief, they attempt to minimize its verifiability with weasel wording or other unnecessary wording. Any instances of confrontation are replied with excuses of "coincidence" or "accident". This has happened too often to not be intentional, hence why I believe this user is NOTHERE.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 20:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ZiaLater as everybody can see you followed me to that article and reverted me which is yet more evidence of wikihounding. Simply saying "according to" is necessary for NPOV and verifability. One source saying x is y is not grounds to say x is y.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not attempting to wikihound, I'm trying to maintain these reliably sourced articles. After noticing your contentious behavior, I have been monitoring your edits when needed. You removed sourced information in that edit and have performed edits in a similar manner in the past as well. Also, what?<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 20:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, ApolloCarmb is still harassing well-established users. After being politely informed that the user is not the best with English, ApolloCarmb continued to insult the user. The user has continued with WP:Harassment and this cannot be allowed any longer.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 17:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:ZiaLater, dude........what? Ok I am going to say this as politely as possible and hold my tongue because you are really starting to pis me off. EDITING SOUTH AMERICAN POLITICS ARTICLES IS NOT HARASSMENT. IF I MODIFY AN EDIT THAT SOMEONE MADE TO A SOUTH AMERICAN POLITICS ARTICLE IT IS BECAUSE THESE ARTICLES ARE ON MY WATCHLIST. IF MULTIPLE USERS EDIT THE SAME TOPIC THEY ARE BOUND TO RUN INTO EACHOTHER. CAN I BE ANY CLEARER??? Regarding me "insulting" Jamez42, I did not know what he was trying to say because english is not his first language, merely conveying to him that I did not know what he was saying is not "personal attacks".ApolloCarmb (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ApolloCarmb, you could have just as easily stated "Hey, I did not understand this edit. Could you please explain it to me?" instead of you saying "Please stop adding gibberish that makes no sense in the english language". Also, if you were familiar with internet etiquette, you would know that using all caps is associated with argumentative behavior. Your actions are not helping.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 21:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

More Evidence of Edit Warring
Pages: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk pages: (See numerous other attempts)

Comments:

I'm joining the discussion to bring attention that there may have been similar behaviour in the article of the Catalan independence referendum, 2017 and that the user deleted the message warning them of this. I've been accused myself of edit warring, even though I've been not provided of the edition diffs to prove it. More of these exchanges are in the articles of the presidential, regional and municipal elections as well as the user's and my user page. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * All you need to do is look at the edit history of that article. Jamez42 is edit warring quite a bit and vioated the 3RR. I am merely trying to resore the version that has consensus. He has no consensus for these changes. I have tried to engage this user on the relevant talk pages ans get him to discuss as opposed to engaging in reactionary reverting but he has no interest in that and has seemingly abandoned those discussions. Addition: It should be noted that since I made this comment Jamez42 has finally decided to use the talk page again.ApolloCarmb (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * has attempted to discuss with you . You seem to use common excuses for edits like "consensus", "coincidence" and "my mistake" fairly often. When these happen more than once, it is more than a "coincidence" or "mistake". Multiple users have been troubled by your Wikihounding and personal attacks. One of the most basic rules of writing was broken when you plagiarized and your edits contained copyright violations. Due to your multiple occasions of battling, harrassment, etc., I think a WP:DUCKTEST would determine that you are here for one motive...[1 ]<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 11:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * user:ZiaLater, this is about my "edit warring", those snide little remarks of yours have no relevance here and are solely intended to blaspheme my name to make me look bad. I have addressed those accusations above and on other noticeboards/talk pages (see my edit history). Lets keep it on topic and discuss why you are so determined to bulldoze your way into getting your preferred version of the articles in question without a consensus.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll point out another violation of WP:3RR in the Venezuelan municipal elections, 2017 article on May 8: --Jamez42 (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jamez42, I reverted your edit warring three times, not 4. Please gain a consensus as opposed to blindly reverting. Thank you.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You're still gaming the system...<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 02:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My response

I reverted you twice on the Nicolas Maduro article, you are really overreacting. As for the Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea article you will see that it was the other user who was edit warring without a consensus (look at the edit history). How is me saying I edit socialist figures me confessing I am an "SPA". If you actually bothered to look at my edit history you would have seen I have edit a wide range of topics.

You have no ground to say I am wikihounding. I edit South American politics articles, so do you, therefore we run into each other. With regards to my supposed "battleground behaviour" I am only new and am improving as I go along. I think I am not fully aware of the rules.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * More edit warring at Jude Collins <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * CU blocked, Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician. Doug Weller  talk 07:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here I encourage Contaldo80 to seek dispute resolution through the appropriate forum.

Comments:

This dispute centers around the inclusion of the word "disparaging" in relation to comments made by the article's subject on homosexuality. AN IP user and myself have expressed the conviction that this word violates WP:NPOV. Contaldo80 argues that it doesn't. We each reverted each other several times while also discussing the issue on the talk page. The last revert of Contaldo80 was performed by the IP user. On the talk page, I encouraged Contaldo80 to go to Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion, because it was clear that he/she did not have consensus for the inclusion of this word in a BLP article. Contaldo80 first inferred, with no evidence, that the IP user was my sockpuppet. He/she then waited several days before doing anything, but instead of attempting to resolve the dispute through the appropriate means as I suggested, Contaldo80 reverted again. Contaldo80 has repeatedly admonished both me and the IP editor to discuss issues on the talk page instead of reverting them. These diffs can be found on the article talk page and the IP user talk page (the IP removed them). But said user also believes it's totally acceptable for him or her to revert to their preferred version of the article even when it's clear that consensus is 2-1 against the content and in the midst of an ongoing talk page discussion. I may have reverted too much in the beginning, but it's worth mentioning that one of my reverts came after a talk page comment that Contaldo80 had ignored for over 24 hours while making edits to other articles. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Appears that you are both edit-warring. O3000 (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a total of 3 reverts, not counting the one where I changed "disparagingly" to "unfavorably" after Contaldo80 had ignored my talk page comment. Contaldo80 made 5 reverts in total, 4 of me and one of the IP. I forgot to add one to the heading; I'll do that now. I'm not sure if this is relevant, but yesterday he reverted another editor over a different issue here. Display name 99 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well IMHO, you were probably wrong about the meaning of disparaging, the other editor was probably wrong insisting on its use, there is no consensus, you were both edit-warring, and bringing a complaint to EW while you are partly at fault can be a mistake. I’ve added a suggestion on the TP as this isn’t a place content disputes. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue which resulted in this report has been resolved on the talk page. This report can be closed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn by filer. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Gyonshiku Hata reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 840492530 by Mathglot (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Southeastern Korea : the Kim royal family of the Silla dynasty (Now, the Old Andong Kim Clan) */"
 * 1)  "/* Southeastern Korea : the Kim royal family of the Silla dynasty (Now, the Old Andong Kim Clan) */"
 * 1)  "/* Southeastern Korea : the Kim royal family of the Silla dynasty (Now, the Old Andong Kim Clan) */"
 * 1)  "/* Southeastern Korea : the Kim royal family of the Silla dynasty (Now, the Old Andong Kim Clan) */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Ten Lost Tribes */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Haplogroup tests are used to determine if it is Jewish Christian(Haplo J and C : Jesus Christ). ??? */ new section"

I didn't do that as it seems obvious from the removal of my question yesterday that the editor either can't or won't discuss. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

If I weren't involved I would just give a nothere block. Note the removal of my question on his talk page. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

to Doug, Can you explain to me how to use message? I don't know how to use it yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyonshiku Hata (talk • contribs) 07:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I want to talk to you about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyonshiku Hata (talk • contribs) 07:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of creating a 3RR report (offline) when Doug beat me to it. User Hata was edit warring so fast, it was hard to keep track. Probably while Doug was composing his report above, Hata reverted again (all six are noted at Hata's talk page, here; but for the record, the reverts I'm aware of (at this writing!) are these: (05:37 May 9; 03:33 May 10; 05:40 May 10; 06:48 May 10; 07:21 May 10; 07:29 May 10).


 * There was never any attempt on Hata's part to respond either at the article TP or his user TP; in fact, the only User talk page activity I saw by Hata until just minutes ago, was at 14:46 9 May when they removed one of Doug Weller's comments. Other than that, a wall of silence; although I see that you've got their attention now. Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Some background info: User:Gyonshiku Hata is a new user as of 03:50, May 9, 2018, who, so far as one can establish a pattern in 30 hours of editing, is an SPA account devoted to a theory concerning ancient Jews in Korea.  Roughly 80% of their edits are at Ten Lost Tribes, with multiple reverts there to force their desired version in the face of opposition by four other editors: (,, , and ). Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

User:SeriousSam11 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Initial revert:
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Previous warnings for edit warring at other articles:, )


 * SeriousSam11's promotion of the WP:FRINGE theory that Iran gassed its own Kurdish allies at Halabja and then went to considerable lengths to publicize the atrocity in the international media has been accompanied by serious misconduct beyond the formal 3RR violation; as explained on the talk page, SeriousSam11 has routinely, blatantly, and deliberately made verifiably false statements to advance his agenda. For example, he claimed over and over that Leo Casey of Dissent (published by the University of Pennsylvania Press) denied that any forensic analysis of Halabja victims was undertaken and is therefore not a RS: "Leo Casey is not 'long-standing, reliably sourced content'. He makes an absolutely incorrect claim that no doctors examined the bodies, when that absolutely did occur."; "Casey's claim is that no doctors exhumed the bodies, which is in direct contradiction to other sources in this article and the well-established fact that Iranian and international doctors examined the bodies." However, anyone that takes the time to read Casey's article can easily confirm that he says exactly the opposite: "Beginning in October of 1988, seven months after Halabja, a series of forensic investigations, some sponsored by Middle East Watch (now the Middle East division of Human Rights Watch) and Physicians for Human Rights and others organized by independent medical scientists, undertook medical examinations of survivors, conducted tests for trace chemicals on soil samples and bomb fragments, and performed autopsies of exhumed bodies." And this is just the tip of the iceberg: SeriousSam11 also made astonishing, improbable, and verifiably false statements that a Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) source is not reliable because it's supposedly "Not an investigation, not at Stockholm, unsourced, uses Islam as an argument, falsely claims cyanide is not lethal, claims Iraq used cyanide agents (verifiably false), ignores Iranian/MSF confirmation of cyanide deaths, uses Iran govt denial as proof." Again, if you read the source, it's clear that SeriousSam11 either lacks basic reading comprehension or is making this stuff up to advance an ulterior motive. The fact that he's apparently refusing to self-revert and instead following me to an article that he's never edited before (Ramadan Revolution) for blind revenge reverts, on top of numerous warnings for past edit warring and what sure looks like sockpuppetry, indicates that SeriousSam11's approach to editing is ridiculously over–aggressive. To put this in perspective, SeriousSam11 is engaging in a form of genocide denial by casting doubt on the Anfal genocide in Iraq; his edit warring at Halabja chemical attack is only part of this broader problem. Imagine if SeriousSam11 was deliberately misrepresenting sources to deny the existence of gas chambers during The Holocaust in this same obnoxious manner—starting edit wars over verifiably false claims after the lie has been detected, rather than dropping the stick. If the Kurdish genocide was equally well-known, I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be a strong consensus for indeffing SeriousSam11 as WP:NOTHERE, rather than giving him a slap on the wrist for a technical violation like 3RR.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * Without being familiar with this particular dispute (and I don't have time to get familiar with it), I can confirm that SeriousSam has a record of promoting fringe theories, deleting RS content and edit-warring on pages related to Iraq. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As Snooganssnoogans says, SeriousSam11's verbatim restoration of this challenged IP edit four times in thirty minutes at Sanctions against Iraq further elucidates the pattern of disruptive behavior under review—and note, again, the dishonest edit summaries, riddled with the same false pretense that SeriousSam11 is uncovering unspecified serious errors and internal contradictions in a peer-reviewed The BMJ academic study. Is pathological dishonesty a sanctionable offense?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

, I've notified of this report as you were required to do and have indicated they should respond here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

- Please clarify which party you are stating has a record of XXX and provide evidence? Thanks. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The user SeriousSam11 (filer of the report) has a record of edit-warring, removal of RS content and promotion of fringe content. I linked to the Sanctions against Iraq page in my previous comment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Serious Sam is the target not the OP of this report. If that changes any of your writing above, please adjust. Insofar as I can tell each of the parties is edit-warring equally and that is an easily verified fact, so the disposition of this should have be straightforward blocks for both. I don't know what purpose all the personal attacks and accusations from OP add to the facts, but meanwhile the target has raised that question, so I suppose it's now on the table and the outcome has broader implications. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooops, sorry, I mistook the report as "SS reported TTAAC". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging engaged in ad hominem attacks because he had no case to justify including verifiably false and unreliable information, and I quote: |"Iraqi genocide–denier friend", despite being neither Iraqi nor denying genocide. The fact he resorted to complain to the administrators when he knows he truly had no case to make to justify his sabotage of Wikipedia pages further displays his inability to advocate proper discussion. The user makes further absurd insults here (such as lacking reading comprehension) for claiming I'm promoting WP:FRINGE while I was simply pointing out that an unknown blogger on an unknown non-RS publication making the verifiably false claim that no doctors exhumed the bodies (which directly contradicts other sources in the article and well-established knowledge regarding the events that Iranian and international physicians did in fact examine the bodies). He also posts a source which claims cyanide is not lethal, which is asinine. As is evident, has been very deliberately pushing WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.

Also as can be easily seen in the history, initiated the edit war. When I asked the user to prove his source's incorrect claims, he very apparently lost his cool, resorted to ad hominem attacks, and complained to admins because I asked him to defend and prove his claim for a very false claim made by a fringe blogger. My only wrongdoing here is not reporting him to the admins, but I'm evidently less inclined towards such frivolities than other users seem to be. His repeated insults and attacks only proves he knows he is wrong, is agenda-driven, and cannot defend his edit warring without complaining to admins. In addition with regards to the Ramadan Revolution article, he removed well-sourced information from reputable sources posted by simply because it did not fit 's views/agenda on the matter. ATimesAreAChanging aggressively argued with NYCJosh on the Talk page until the latter acquiesced.

is also a major WP:FRINGE pusher, pushing claims that sanctions on Iraq had absolutely no negative humanitarian effect (which is very well-known to be false), and I recall on some Russia-related page denying the deaths inflicted by Holodomor. As it would be, he has a penchant for claiming humanitarian disasters caused by famine to be non-existent. SeriousSam11 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You understand you broke our WP:3RR bright-line rule? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As initiated the edit war as already noted, the user broke the WP:3RR rule, unless you are implying that whoever complains to the admins is not culpable by default. On top of that, WP:PA, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE were broken multiple times, with WP:PA being broken in this thread alone. It is apparent my only fault here is not reporting  for deliberately breaking 4 rules, and being mature enough to put up with his personal attacks when he proved unable to defend his case for promoting WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. SeriousSam11 (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging had three reverts within 24 hours, you had four. You are also extraordinarily fluent in our policies and guidelines for someone who has 84 edits. Care to explain this? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's 4 because 1) I was the first to make an edit (simple arithmetic) and 2) he realized how terribly mistaken he was and had no argument to make to continue pushing his WP:NP and WP:FRINGE so he went to the admins because he knew he could not be me on his own because he was simply flat-out wrong. Care to explain how you are ignoring the fact that he broke 4 rules? You seem to be ignoring what I'm saying and seemingly proving the point that whoever files a claim is automatically in the right even after breaking 4 rules is innocent. You do understand that the only reason he's complaining to admins is that he has knows I'm in the right and his only response were personal attacks? Are you sincerely advocating personal attacks? At least do me the decency of answering my questions. SeriousSam11 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There are aspects to SeriousSam11's editing that may be worthy of further scrutiny. WP:ANI is the place to do that. I was going close this with a warning but then I noticed this edit. The mimicking of TheTimesAreAChanging's warning, ignoring what TheTimesAreAChanging posted on the article talk page as "he has knows I'm in the right and his only response were personal attacks" and the strong feeling that this is not a new account turned the warning into a block. is also warned that making the same or similar edits on the article without gaining consensus will result another block.  strongly advised to minimize the name-calling. Phrases like "out-of-control genocide denier and vandal" should be avoided.  <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Coldroses reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "NOTHINg wrong with what IUndid revision 840661065 by NEDOCHAN (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 840599739 by William Avery (talk)"
 * 3)  "no reason this cant be on here. thank you for leaving it alone. Undid revision 840560794 by Polyamorph (talk)"
 * 4)  "This is fine to be added to this page. It is all cited and has become requested for info. Undid revision 840557240 by Polyamorph (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 840496293 by NEDOCHAN (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 3RR warning by Favonian


 * Comments:

User warned for edit warring by. Also seems to be editing under the user name. A discussion is open on the article talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

not too sure what is wrong aith adding summary of crime in salisbury. i made changes to.make users happy but not working. well written summery importantinfo about city. please can someone explain here.thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldrosescat (talk • contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Editors disagree with you and you have been reverted multiple times, there is a talk page discussion at talk:Salisbury which is the place for discussion on this issue. Please be aware of the policy against edit warring and using multiple accounts.

I am also concerned the editor whose only edits were made today in Salisbury making more reversions to the article, taking the total count to around 6 or 7 total reverts by this user. Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Suspected Sock/meat puppetry
 * Suspected sockpuppetry reported: Sockpuppet investigations/Coldroses. Polyamorph (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Socks indeffed <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

User:67.188.179.66 reported by User:O1lI0 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly delete messages I wrote to other users O1lI0 (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - O1lI0, see this section of Wikipedia's policies on user pages, and the note I left on your user talk page.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Multiple IP addresses reported by User:ReverseLevity (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

840677900 [840822607, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolls-Royce_Cullinan&oldid=840822607]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP addresses, so no talk page

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

Comments:

The IP addresses' rhetoric, both in their edit summaries and response to my comment in the talk page, suggest that they are blinded by their pro-UK leanings to the detriment of factuality. They have consistently failed to justify their reversions in their edit summaries, instead simply disparaging me. They also failed to directly address the points I made in the article talk apge. Please see this comment, linked above, from article's talk page, which outlines the reasons why the unregistered user's/users' revision of the page is drastically worse than that which I propose.

ReverseLevity (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months per WP:SOCK. At least three of the recent IP addresses making similar edits are from the Bangkok area, suggesting these three IPs are one person obscuring their identity. Hopping IPs in an edit war is not considered good behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Cint4198 reported by User:Philip Cross (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Sock of leftworks1 troll, multiple blocks. Philip Cross (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments:
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:100.16.223.77 reported by User:Slightlymad (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 840958263 by Slightlymad (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 840956756 by Donner60 (talk) This is getting really old really quickly. First of all, it is cited in MLA Format. Second of all, I don't like the reality of the term's existence, either. Third of all, to create an entire page for a bigoted usage of a word that has other meanings is ridiculous."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 840949764 by Donner60 (talk) Sourced, and even worse than I initially thought. I had no idea that I, per Al Jazeera, was receiving a threat when I was called that."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 840934143 by Nigos (talk) Unfortunately, it really is a variant of that. As far as I recall, I've even been called that."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kek . (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:173.17.166.113 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Semiprotected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Citation provided to explain the notion of A.D. and how is the accepted method of recording time. Also shows the correlation of both systems based upon Jesus Christs birth. I'd be willing to settle if you want to continue to list it as disputed but it just seems like rather obvious at this point."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 841065584 by Arthur Rubin (talk) You will have to do better than just say wrong and undo something. Please explain why the 2 systems are not based upon the birth of Christ and how this benefits the reader to NOT know."
 * 3)  "It is to the readers benefit to know why BCE has the same dates as BC. They are both based upon the birth of Christ. To delete this is a disservice to the reader."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

3rr warning:

This is only three although a continuation of earlier edits However, see User talk:SGT-Craig which seems to be the same editor. Doug Weller talk 05:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected six months. The protection log shows a long history of problems on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Adminor reported by User:31.15.225.128 (Result: Username blocked)
Page: List of football clubs in Kosovo User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of football clubs in Kosovo

Comments:


 * As it says at the top of this very page . You should also have warned them that they were possibly edit-warring, and you didn't. Hence your report is unlikely to be acted on. I agree that 's repeated reverts without an edit summary is unhelpful; but you should both have discussed the change on the talk page instead of edit-warring. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 12:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.225.128 (talk • contribs)
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And now unblocked after a username change. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 07:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:178.222.126.92 reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Has been asked by several editors, including an admin, to provide a rationale for changing good standing content. The same IP is also making nationalistic and revisionist edits on other articles such as World War II persecution of Serbs. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've recused myself from dealing with this as an admin, as I consider myself involved, and was bringing this here myself when I noticed this report. It involves POV edit-warring in an infobox. The IP seems stable, at least for the last week or so, so a simple IP block should suffice in the first instance. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP reverted again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:HudsonValleyHistorian reported by User:Lwarrenwiki (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 841113002 by Lwarrenwiki (talk) There was no edit warring prior to your arrival and consensus has not been reached on talk page. Please use talk page until consensus has been reached."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 841084403 by Shearonink (talk) King's College and Columbia are the same institution and same legal entity. Please see Columbia University charter. Columbia is King's College."
 * 3)  "Adding back in deleted portion"
 * 4)  "Adding linked page"
 * 5)  "No such thing as King's College, New York."
 * 1)  "No such thing as King's College, New York."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Infobox edits */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent edits regarding educational institution in Infobox */"

See the full talk page discussion in the section Talk:Alexander Hamilton, indicating consensus that the initial edit & repeated edits/reverts by during this 24 hour period were nonproductive.
 * Comments:
 * This report by is premature at best. I made two RV edits, the last of which was in order to continue discussion of consensus on the talk page. I have consistently used the talk page in order to flesh out this issue. In regards to the actual edit – the university and all secondary sources concerning Hamilton's biography consider Hamilton an alumnus of the university –– additionally five generations of the Hamilton family including three of his sons were graduates of Columbia College. Columbia University goes as far as to claim Alexander Hamilton is a member of the Columbia College Class of 1778. I have not done anything wrong. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There was an initial edit followed by 3 reverts, accompanied by talk page discussion. Further reverts would be 3RR violations, regardless of discussion, and would result in a block. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your discernment. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BilCat reported by User:Loesorion (Result: No violation)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Mig-25 article Mig-31 article
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I tried immediately before any warning to user to resolve any difference on talk page but he just reverts edits without any proper explanation and consensus on talk pages I created in order to resolve any possible dispute - additionally he deleted 2 different edit warnings immediately after they where given from his own talk page that amounts to vandalism. User acts like he owns articles and no one else could have edits or give any contribution to given articles. Loesorion (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , you have an addition plus two reverts, has three reverts. Work it out on the talk pages please. See WP:DRR for various options. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Farawahar reported by User:Viaros17 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user was not involved in the discussion to begin with. He keeps stalking my profile trying to stir up arguments with me whenever possible.

Comments: The user Farawahar keeps edit warring in Hunayn ibn Ishaq article trying to push for an alleged Assyrian ethnicity claim without providing reliable sources. The user tried to vandalize the same article ten days ago which forced the Admins to protect the page. Once the protection has ended, he directly went back to edit warring.

Viaros17 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You should have notified me Viaros17 when you opened this case. For your information, i’m currently discussing this issue with user Jbhunley on the talk page of Hunayn ibn Ishaq’s article. He seems to agree with you, i told him that if he confirms hix view, then i’ll self revert :. I asked you several times to join the discussion on the talk page instead of edit warring with me, but you refused :. As you can see, reaching a consensus with me is all but “hopeless” if you take the time to discuss calmly and politely with me, just as Jbhunley is currently doing. Regards.—>Farawahar (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus found on the talk page, since user Jbhunley took the time to discuss the issue because i asked him for an insight, i self reverted to Viaros’ version just as i promised a few days ago. Viaros17, please do not sccuse other users of vandal, this is a personal attack. The admin protected the page to stop the edit war in which, Chaldean, me and YOU were engaged in and he asked you to find a consensus on the talk page, but you refused to do so :. Hopefully, Jbhumley intervened at my demand and the issue is now solved.—>Farawahar (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time you are attacking me and refusing to discuss with me, i hope that it’s the last time you’re doing so :, .—>Farawahar (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Viaros17 has been edit warring since 29 April(against 2 other editors), which resulted in the article being protected. Once the protection expired the edit warring restarted. Considering the pro-Arab editing by Viaros17, this disruption is not surprising. On Taqi ad-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf after sourced information was inexplicably removed by an IP, Viaros17 later added Arab to the lead.
 * At the time of the removal of ethnicities from Taqi ad-Din, there were 3 ethnicities listed and none were mentioned in the lead. Even Viaros17 worked in the "Biography" section, yet did not restore all the sourced information, instead as stated above Viaros17 added Arab to the lead. I believe this shows what type of editor we are dealing with here. Admins should take a long hard look at Viaros17's editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And in response to Viaros17's concern for "reliable source" on Hunayn ibn Ishaq, I seriously doubt, (~Johnson, Wayne (2010). Live to Ride: The Rumbling, Roaring World of Speed, Escape, and Adventure on Two Wheels. Simon and Schuster.~), is a reliable source!


 * "Wayne Johnson is the acclaimed author of White Heat and four novels. He has been a Stegner Fellow at Stanford University and held a Chesterfield Film Project Fellowship in Hollywood. A long-time faculty member at the Iowa Summer Writing Festival, he also teaches screenwriting at Westminster College in Salt Lake City. Wayne has lived, breathed, and dreamed bikes since he was just a kid craving the freedom of the open road. He currently rides a Ducati ST-4." --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Kansas Bear, Regrading Hunayn ibn Ishaq, I won the case at last, and the third party ruled in my favor. So the right was with me in that article. As for Taqi ad-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf, the article was re-written by one user and during the process all mentions of ethnicity were deleted. I simply re-added the Arab part. You are welcome to add the other sources. It was not me who deleted the paragraph if that is what you are referring to. Viaros17 (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently you missed the part in which your "concern" for a reliable source only applies to other editors and not yourself(Wayne Johnson). As for Taqi ad-Din, for some reason you were incapable of restoring all the referenced information? You have just shown the difference between an editor that is here to build an encyclopedia and an editor simply here to push a particular POV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is what i told Viaros17 on the Hunayn ibn Ishaq’s talk page. I don’t want to escalate the matter with him, but one might take a look at the sources he included in the Ibn al-Nafis article. According to me, he clearly did not apply the very selective criteria that he applies to other contributors to himself.—>Farawahar (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Viaros has been reported a few days ago by user Pinkbeast because he broke the WP:3RR : . Quite strangely, a new user, kingesh, who seems to be WP:NOTHERE, stepped in the case to support him. He was also engaged in other edit wars, example : (against 3 different users). The common point of all these edit wars is pro-Arab editing and, sometimes, the removal of non-Arab ethnicities, example : . After my addition of sources for the Persian ethnicity that was removed by Viaros17, an IP stepped in and removed any mention of this ethnicity again :, , . Hopefully, these disruptive edits were reverted by other users. I strongly support Kansas Bear’s demand of an accurate look by admins at Viaros17’s editing (and since i have been reported here and accused to be a vandal by this user, i would welcome the eye of an admin on my editing too ...).—>Farawahar (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ”I won the case at last”
 * That’s, i think, precisely one point user Viaros17 refuses to understand : Wikipedia is a community encyclopedia, this is not about winning or losing and is not about YOU. Your comment clearly shows to everyone that you have a battleground mentality, while we are supposed to be here to work together, not against each other. I was wrong in the Hunayn ibn ishaq article, i’m not afraid to say so, and when Jbhunley explained me why, i self reverted : . However, i do not consider having lost just like i do mot consider having won when i readded the persian ethnicity you removed in the Ziryab article, i hope you can understand this.—>Farawahar (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support WP:BOOMERANG. Frivolous report. "Users" who keep violating WP:WAR / WP:BATTLE / WP:RS and WP:TENDENTIOUS, and say things like "I won the case at last", even when cornered, should not be editing this place in my opinion. Take a look at the dozens of similar "new" accounts and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of you are warned that further edit-warring could result in a block. I protected that page, and you resumed warring after it had expired. Wikipedia has no deadline; just go to the talk page instead of reverting. That said, Viaros17, your record in this conflict is significantly worse that that of Farawahar, and I would strongly advise you to moderate your behavior. Vanamonde (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:126.161.151.172 reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "it is well referenced"
 * 2)  "predominantly Jewish until May 10th census of 2009 (his teenage years)"
 * 3)  "improvements"
 * 4)  "/* Reactions */  guy with same name harassed by mass media"
 * 5)  "Thornlea, predominantly Jewish Thorn Hill"
 * 1)  "Thornlea, predominantly Jewish Thorn Hill"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Toronto van attack. using TW"


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


 * Comments:


 * There's certainly disruption here, but the only revert I can find after the edit-warring warning was a minute after; which could mean the user hasn't read the warning. I'm unwilling to block at this point, but if further violations occur, this person's inexperience will not protect them. Vanamonde (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Wingwraith (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's already been extensive discussion on this issue involving the user on the talkpage.

Comments:

The user should be blocked for his/her series of disruptive edits on the related article. Even though the edits do not meet the revert count and content stipulations for a 3RR violations report, the blatant disregard for a previous administrative ruling in which the user was blocked after explicitly refusing (See here and here) to pay heed to an antecedent administrative ruling in which the user was warned to get prior consensus for his/her change(s) on article talk page(s) or risk incurring a block that the user has demonstrated should be enough to override the strict procedural requirements for a valid filing of an edit-warring violations report. It should also be noted that the latest transgression was entirely predictable as the user signaled through his/her comments here, here and here that s/he would refuse to accept the block punishment. It is clear that TIAYN has no intention of editing constructively on Wikipedia and I would strongly recommend that the user be banned indefinitely from editing on the Wikipedia. Wingwraith (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see the thread I wrote at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Note that the sources used to reference Authoritarian socialist don't actually use the term "Authoritarian socialism" in any of the articles (check for yourself):

Also note the following changes to the infobox:
 * 1) I removed International Communist Seminar - it hasn't been active for years.... there is not a tradition in WP to add every historical group a party was affiliated with (and non do).. the majority of social democratic parties in Western Europe don't say they were members of the Comintern either for example.
 * 2) Removed State Council from seats - I know of no other party articles which list the number of cabinet members.. especially not in uniform, non-coalition governments
 * 3) Removed the CMC. Its a party organ - why is it surprising that the party has all the members?
 * 4) National Supervisory Commission is the same institution as the Central COmmission for Discipline INspection.. Its part of the party's policy of having one institution, two signs.
 * 5) Judicial seats... again, I know you have this in some US articles, because they are directly elected. I know of no other party articles which have these. Its a reason for that. And again, its the CPC, its China.
 * 6) CPPCC National Committee - maybe its noteworthy, maybe
 * 7) I replaced People's Liberation Army (formerly Red Army, 8th Route Army, New 4th Army, etc.) with People's Liberation Army .... its about the current CPC, not a history lession. Thats why we both have a history section and a history article on the CPC and the PLA.
 * 8) Slogans.. As far I know, the CPC does not have an official slogan.
 * 9) All-China Federation of Trade Unions is not a CPC organ. Its officially a non-government assocation... which in China means its formally separate... The communist party does not formally exist in China, and none of it organs formally exist... So if something formally exists its usually either a party-state organ or a non-party institution.
 * 10) United Front.... Its not a popular front, its a name of a Central Committee Department...
 * 11) All-China Women's Federation... Again, not a CPC body.. Its former name was "All-China Women's Federation of the People's Republic of China".. It is also, formally, an NGO.
 * 12) All-China Youth Federation is not part of the CPC, and is also an NGO... The Young Pioneers of China is part of the Communist Youth League, and is administered by the COmmunist Youth League.
 * 13) All-China Students' Federation is an NGO.
 * 14) Central Policy Research Office is not a think tank. Its an organ of the Central Committee.... It doesn't even fit the definition on WIkipedia.


 * Per Verifiability WIkipedia does not do No original research.. ... those policies have been reached by Consensus... So a user cannot add them without actually sourcing that information per the aformentioned policies. --TIAYN (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you get what I mean now? Thats why I posted it because I knew he would accuse me of this. --TIAYN (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At last, I am not edit warring. I have not reverted anything. My edits are all inline with Verifiability, No original research & Consensus. Please ask me questions instead of blocking me again. I have not done anything wrong here. --TIAYN (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Prospective administrators should note that this edit warring report was filed at exactly the same time that the related ANI discussion was closed so the anticipatory hypothetical assertion that this edit warring report was filed in negative reaction to the conclusion of that discussion is untenable as I only discovered that the ANI discussion was closed after I had filed my 3RR report. Prospective administrators should also note the closing remarks by that administrator who acknowledged that a block would be justified by an administrator despite the fact that s/he did not personally sanction User:Trust Is All You Need. Wingwraith (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There are no intervening edits between the diffs listed above, so they count as a single edit/revert for purposes of EW reports. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  17:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First, thanks... But I have a question... since Wingwraith refuses to follow Verifiability and No original research, and always revert my changes... How do I proceed to make him stop? Per policy he should be warned. --TIAYN (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:86.151.34.121 reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Two blocks for edit warring in the last week.
 * Comments:
 * Socking. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Free Press USA reported by User:Meatsgains (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk pages: and   Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 02:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTHERE <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:64.151.43.134 reported by User:Meters (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Notable alumni */ No References cited for the person plus would be the only non-professional player listed in alumni.  We prefer to keep it s pro players only."
 * 2)  "/* Notable alumni */"
 * 3)  "/* Notable alumni */Fixed bad info"
 * 4)  "/* Notable alumni */ Never ever played pro all like the rest of the list.  That is what makes the list unique to other schools.  There are many, many other alums that have college ball that are not on the list as well.  If we added all the guys that played college ball the list would be huge.  Always try to keep it professional players only."
 * 5)  "/* Notable alumni */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Rockhurst High School. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Alumni */ new section"


 * Comments:

Also the same edit several days ago. The alumnus had a wikipedia article and his attendance is sourced in his article. The fact that he has not played pro ball is not relevenat. This had been explained multiple times (edit summaries, article talk page, IP's talk page) Meters (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Semied., might want to add a cite to this article and find out who is we. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Copied over the attendance ref I added to the players bio when this started. No idea who "we" is other than likely associated with a named account who made the same edit with a similar edit summary. Meters (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The named account who also made this edit previously claimed to be working at the school, and now states he or she is an alumnus of the school and a volunteer there . No history of edits to any other article so "we" seems to be a volunteer group at the school. Meters (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See too. Definitely a coi. Meters (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You may want to drop a few uw-own warnings on talk pages if the issue continues. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:129.206.90.2 and User:2003:c9:d3d7:1634:29f7:ef89:e497:87cc reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:53, 16 May 2018‎
 * 2) 08:12, 16 May 2018‎
 * 3) 08:16, 16 May 2018‎
 * 4) 08:45, 16 May 2018‎
 * 5) 08:47, 16 May 2018‎
 * 6) 09:00, 16 May 2018
 * 7) series of 5 edits ending at 09:55, 16 May 2018‎
 * 8) 2 edits ending at 10:12, 16 May 2018‎
 * 9) 2 edits ending at 10:51, 16 May 2018‎
 * 10) 10:56, 16 May 2018
 * 11) 12:46, 16 May 2018‎ (changed IP addresses - still comes down to the same editor in Germany)
 * 12) 13:18, 16 May 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (there were also previous attempts on the IP's and Jim1138's talk pages, which did not stop the warring by the IP.

Comments:

This originally appeared to me to be some sort of vandalism. The anon was changing the "original cast" to names which are not the original cast listed in the source. Per the anon's many messages on my talk page diff, the anon appears to know one or two of the new cast members and seems to be changing the article for them. (I was replying on their talk page) Jim1138 (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jim1138, this IP has making the syntax errors on Wikipedia, resulting to vandal. -- Cyrus noto3at bulaga <span style="color:blue; font-family:Freestyle Script, Segoe Script;">Talk to me 09:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:79.109.125.172 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 841590581 by Interpuncts (talk)wikipedia is not your political sandbox. stop it."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 841589551 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 841587774 by EvergreenFir (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Citizens (Spanish political party). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User repeatedly blanks sourced material. The user was blanking in the same section of the infobox back in March as well.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:123.161.171.108 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Some articles semiprotected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Also using an IP range to war across multiple pages (see also ) with a Taiwan-based IP. This IP is based in Zhumadian, Henan, which matches the location of known previous sockpuppets of Whaterss, but the last 2 reported batches of socks there have been ignored. Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Some articles semiprotected (see my protection log for details). I have looked over Special:Contributions/123.161.0.0/16 and the SPI complaint at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Whaterss. I can see the logic of a rangeblock of 123.161.0.0/16 but won't take that step without more investment of time that I have available now. One of the IPs in this dispute also filed a protection request here. If somebody takes the time to close the Whaterss SPI case they may well come up with a better idea of what to do. One of the claims in the SPI is that some IPs are defending the POV of the Chinese government. I will add a note to the SPI about this AN3 report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The user in question has failed to explain how an article using 107 references (all of which are produced by independent scholars, with the exception of 1 produced by the CIA) constitutes a neutrality breach. The previous version had 38 sources, mostly referenced by Marxist literature (the books of Lenin and Marx), marxists.org and state constitutions. Primary sources that is! Third party sources are reliable, and hence, according to WP policy, this version is more neutral than the previous one."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 841619275 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"
 * 3)  "its not; it discusses the same thing.. it clarifies the concept and I will also clarify (when I get going) alternative conception of socialist state... All in key with the original articles message"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 841607892 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Courtesy warning */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Huge change on the concept of Socialist state */ new section"
 * 2)   "SuggestBot recommends these articles..."


 * Comments:

I have opened discussions on the article talk page, gave a courtesy warning (because he just came off a double-block on a similar topic), and discussed some concerns on my talk page. Per this article's talk page it is "high" and "top" importance so I notified the project pages of this huge change to the article. I even asked if he'd put it in a draft so many editors could come to consensus on the changes but that didn't work either. With his last removal of a pov tag, I feel I have no choice but to report his 3RR overage so that more eyes can look at his edits to this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional info for clarification - pre-massive change - no red links. After editor changed things, from top to bottom I count 18 red links. Two in the lead. That is why I added a red link tag (which was promptly reverted). This many huge changes and these kind of red links are the reason this should have been handled in a sandbox or draft space, added boldly if the editor chose, and "IF" reverted should have left it in draft for others to comment on and discuss so that it could be fixed if possible. Instead we have 5 reverts after coming off a block on a similar topic. All I wanted was for him to subject his wishes to scrutiny, before adding the large changes, so that the various projects could have their say on what they consider an important article. Instead we are here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I know you never told me to put in a draft, but no matter.


 * as for the accusation, I find it partially true. The first three edits were pure reverts because failed to explain how the article was different in any way or form—he reverted because it had more content. It still also unclear to me what the difference is, because I don't see none.
 * As for the last two edits, I don't consider them to be part of an edit war—but I'm probably wrong there. He added "a neutrality breach" and "too many red links" banners on it.. He failed to explain how the current version, supported only by secondary sources was breaching neutrality guidelines. As far as I know Wikipedia is what scholars say. The current version reflects what scholars say. Say what you want about it, but it does not breach neutrality guidelines. I also removed the banner which said it had too many red links—I'm planning to write an article about the "Socialist political system" and the "Socialist legal system". They have to be red links firsts.


 * If you ask me these edits proves two things. (1) refuses to cooperate and (2) I'm petty / small. I can't for the life of my accept someone putting up banners which says the article breaches neutrality guidelines when I know it doesn't. I truly can't accept that—especially considering how much work I put into the article to safeguard against that... In addition, the former version breaches neutrality guidelines. It was sourced by Marxist texts (primary sources + everyone knows Marxism is controversial) and state constitutions. --TIAYN (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG reported by User:Marteau (Result: JzG will refrain from editing article "for a while")
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user is an admin and should not require a warning. Nonetheless, I warned them on their talk page here and  here. They then doubled-down on the article talk page, saying it was a dispute about consensus, and made another revert after the warning. I made a second warning, warned them again to revert before I reported them to this board, and they did revert. However, immediately after that second warning, they made another revert (the one at the top of the list above), totalling five by my count, and there's probably more I did not count. It is after that I come here.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intellectual_Dark_Web&type=revision&diff=841585920&oldid=841584716&diffmode=source ... where user removes "See Also" entries which were just added, and changes verbiage which was also just added after I warned them on their talk page and on the article talk page about their 3RR violations. The tag bombing I am not addressing here.
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intellectual_Dark_Web&type=revision&diff=841528272&oldid=841517246&diffmode=source
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intellectual_Dark_Web&type=revision&diff=841505859&oldid=841505185&diffmode=source  Probably a number of reverts here... the one I am pointing out is the Boston Herald revert, which is where most of this users revert violations are centered.
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intellectual_Dark_Web&type=revision&diff=841501470&oldid=841492888&diffmode=source  Another series of edits, and again, probably more than one revert, but the one I am concentratin on is the Boston Herald.
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intellectual_Dark_Web&type=revision&diff=841408501&oldid=841408267&diffmode=source  Revert of my removal of "self-publish" which is not in the source. Marteau (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Extensive discussions on the talk page of the article, and in edit comments, by multiple editors, with limited success.

Comments:

Editor is on the warpath with this article, and shows obvious contempt for the subject of the article, repeatedly calling them "shitlords" and casting other aspersions. They are obviously emotionally involved in the subject and it is, I believe, adversely affecting their editing. A quick look at the talk page, the edit history, and their comments are ample proof that this editor needs a break from editing this article. Marteau (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So you appear to have missed the fact that (a) I am a 100,000 edit admin with more than 13 years' experience and edits to tens of thousands of articles on a huge range of subjects and (b) my last revert was a self revert. You also "forgot" to mention that you restored a contentious piece of text without consensus on talk, and in fact the trend appears to be against that inclusion. You also don't appear to understand what WP:SELFPUB says about self-published sources, or indeed what self-publishing means. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's great that your last edit to the article was a self-revert of your removal of "See Also" entries. I have struck that issue out from the list above. You did not, and have not, however, self reverted this:  where you removed the words "freedom of speech" and "civility" immediatly after I warned you you had already exceeded three reverts, and which is a reversion of what an editor had just added.  Furthermore, you addition, calling the work of the Intellectual Dark Web types "self-published" is not sourced, and is not completely correct.  Intellectual Dark Web types also give lectures, not every venue they appear in is "self published" (e.g. Channel 4 News with Cathy Newman) and Jordan Peterson's books, for example, are certainly not "self-published". Your addition was WP:OR.  Furthermore, even if I was incorrect, your reversion of my reversion still counts towards the three reversions permitted in a day. Marteau (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , will you agree not to edit the article for 72 hours (you may still use the talk page)? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Neil, by your own observation on his tag bombing, JzG has been disruptive. Other then two self reverts which he did only after I mentioned the Edit Warring board, he's shown no realization he's done anything wrong, and has only become more defensive and more insistent in the righteousness of his behavior.  He blames everyone but himself for his edit warring...  he's even said he's the victim of a trap I set for him.  I predict nothing but more disruption, and a disruptive editor can sow a lot of mischief just from a talk page, for example, launching RfCs.  I would not have a problem with a 3 day break from editing the article, while allowing talk page access, as long as launching RfCs and other such forms of edit by proxy is precluded. Marteau (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Making the 72-hour break offer is not a rare thing for me here but I don't recall ever specifying additional restrictions. That gets into formal restrictions territory. and all of you are (or should be) aware that you're editing in an area covered by discretionary sanctions and disruption. including talk page disruption, can result in editing restrictions. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style=″"color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I will leave the article entirely for a while. The fact is, there are so few sources that virtually anything s WP:UNDUE. It really should be deleted as the only sources are comment pieces. I have listed out what Google turns up, and there's not a lot else to be done, so I will wait a month or so to see if the depth of coverage improves and if it does not we can discuss nuking or merging per WP:RECENTISM. I only ever found it because it eas restarted by a sockpuppet so I G5'd it. I find this kind of article very depreessing. Guy (Help!) 05:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 10:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Pedro8790 reported by User:Somedifferentstuff (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He was warned by 2 different editors and started edit warring again today. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I waited three days to see if there was going to be more discussion on the talk page before editing again, since there wasn't and nobody replied to my most recent comment there, It seemed that discussion was over so I put the article in the categories again, I avoided being reverted three times again, now I might have been wrong to try to place the article in the categories again, if this does constitute edit warring, then I must be punished for violating the rule if that's the case, but I first would like to know how does this violate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly pushing an edit that you already know others have a problem with is edit warring. Follow WP:BRD and you won't have a problem. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Tim.thelion reported by User:UCaetano (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See talk page. Undid revision 841522869 by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)"
 * 2)  "Don"
 * 3)  "Distinguish between active supporters of Iraq and those who did not engage in fighting and suffered no losses"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 841441517 by UCaetano (talk) YOU take it to the talk page.  How do you define belligerent? The US was engaged in action. Missiles were fired. Hundreds of people died."
 * 5)  "Since it has been contested that the US was fighting on the side of Iraq, I have given the country its own column."
 * 6) UCaetano: Reverted good faith edits by Tim.thelion (talk): Nope, it wasn't. Take to the talk page. (TW)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.thelion (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) UCaetano: Reverted good faith edits by Tim.thelion (talk): Nope, it wasn't. Take to the talk page. (TW)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.thelion (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Iran–Iraq War. (TW)"


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

Here is the discussion which I started after having been reverted several times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Distinction_between_belligerents_and_supporters Tim.thelion (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments:

User continues to push edits after being reverted and demands that others take it to the talk page. UCaetano (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I never reverted anything. I made several attempts to improve the article. I made a mistake the first time and did not realize, due to the fact that it was hidden, that the US was included in the Supporters list. I believe that you are in violation of 3RR and not me. Each one of my edits was an attempt at providing a solution which would be accepted. I did not discuss this on the talk page because Wikipedia is not a forum, and the matter seems clear cut. I have now added an explanation of my reasoning to the talk page but my goal is not to get into a political discussion, it is simply to clear up an inconsistency in the infobox. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the edit with the description "Don" was not intended to have that description. The intention was to write "Don't hide the Supporters box". I made that edit because I wanted to alleviate the problem I had earlier in which I did not see that the US was even mentioned in the info-box. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Finally, I suspect that UCaetano and TheTimesAreAChanging may be the same person which furthers my case that UCaetano is guilty of excessive reversions. Take a look at the following discussions in which the same person appears to switch between accounts in the midst of the discussion: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War/Archive_10#Iran-Iraq_War:_friendly_fire_comment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War/Archive_9#Global_policy+Khamenei.ir

Also, thetimesareachanging already was blocked once for sockpupetry https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ATheTimesAreAChanging

This is not the first time UCaetano has been accused of sockpuppetry either. Here Bijanii accuses UCaetano. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=823089807#User:Bijanii_reported_by_User:UCaetano_(Result:_Declined) Tim.thelion (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't make false accusations of sockpuppetry. I have over 10 years of editing wikipedia over hundreds of articles. But if you really think I am a sockpuppet, feel free to report me to admins. UCaetano (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This morning I read up on wiki-law and I believe that my best defense is that my edits were substantially different. I did [try a different edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternatives_to_reversion#Responding_to_an_article_revert_by_trying_a_different_edit). Putting the US in a third, neutral column, was in my opinion quite different from listing them as a co-belligerent to Iraq. It is important for admins to realize, that I did not know at the time that this was a highly contested issue, and as my very first edit had contained an error, I thought that perhaps I was being reverted due to my poor wiki-editing skills. Tim.thelion (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion seems to be going and edit warring ceased. I'm not impressed with either of your behavior. Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Maxiedean reported by User:GermanJoe (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Pages: -
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBSCO_Information_Services&type=revision&diff=841434794&oldid=840844648
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBSCO_Information_Services&type=revision&diff=841556794&oldid=841435526
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBSCO_Information_Services&type=revision&diff=841559629&oldid=841559531
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBSCO_Information_Services&type=revision&diff=841565886&oldid=841565729

and several other edits in the past. Also recently in EBSCO Industries duplicating the disputed content into a second article.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMaxiedean&type=revision&diff=841559247&oldid=838994209
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEBSCO_Information_Services&type=revision&diff=841562475&oldid=822109527


 * Comments:

My apologies, if the report isn't formatted perfectly. Twinkle crashed 3 times on me, so I am doing this manually now.

User adds excessive poorly-sourced advocacy information in violation of WP:NPOV (especially WP:WEIGHT). A 3RR warning and a request to discuss this on the article's talkpage have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the user has finally acknowledged the 3RR issue after several notices and explained their point of view on the article talkpage. Maybe this report can be put on hold for now. I'll try to offer a more detailed response later when I got more time, but of course any uninvolved advice and input on Talk:EBSCO Information Services would be appreciated to avoid a 1 vs. 1 discussion. GermanJoe (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Sitush reported by User:AntanO (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

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

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

Comments: User clearly knows about 3R and notified at my talk page. Also, you can see his/her "response" at his/her talk page. I ask admin to intervene at the related page that reverted for this user. What was the issues? Does wiki prevent or ban any information that has reliable sources? --Ant a n O 10:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments: User clearly knows about 3R and notified at my talk page. Also, you can see his/her "response" at his/her talk page. I ask admin to intervene at the related page that reverted for this user. What was the issues? Does wiki prevent or ban any information that has reliable sources? --Ant a n O 10:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The user accused me as political activist which could harm me since it is sensitive issue. I asked admin to hide such edit and take action on this user. He/she should talk about the subject not threatening type of talk. If I want to type such political activist I can clearly do. --Ant a n O 10:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you of being a political activist. I suggest you read what I wrote, and also note that I put a comment on the article talk page prior to your last revert. You actually asked me to comment there, then ignored me and are still ignoring me. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Read again your edits on my talk page. You should talk about the subject. And, you did the 2nd revert and then talked. See the time differences. I will talk at the article talk page. --Ant a n O 11:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Both of you are at three reverts. Both of you need to use the talk page along with the other editor who removed the material. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 10:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Only two were done by me, not three. --Ant a n O 10:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, Your first edit was a revert of  --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 10:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I clearly change the content and add reference. Maybe, you could ask second option. --Ant a n O 10:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:3RR before edit warring yourself and reporting editors here. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. You restored a flag image three times. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I clearly know about 3R. My first edit was not against or support the previous edits. Earlier, It was mentioned as flag of Tamils and it was removed, but I totally change the concept as "proposed". You have to see my intention/edit with faith.--Ant a n O 11:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:AntanO, please have some faith that our admins are duly trained bean counters. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Both editors have three reverts and talk page discussion is well under way. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:76.76.254.34 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 841738377 by Marianna251 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 841738377 by Marianna251 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 841736760 by Jytdog (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 841736760 by Jytdog (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Glucomannan. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Glucomannan


 * Comments:

has been patiently attempting to explain the issues with this IP's edit to them on the IP's talk page, Jytdog's talk page, and the article's talk page. The IP has been given three different warnings about edit warring and one about making personal attacks, but they show no sign of stopping their edit war or attempting to engage in discussion. <b style="border:1px solid #000; color:#000; background-color:#CBD4E4; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 19:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've requested page protection as well. I don't think the IP has any interest in actually working here so didn't go this route. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

My attempt to present a fair, balanced and unbiased page of content is being thwarted in favor of completely one-side article. I don't care if the editors write the other side or how it is presented. I do care that I use Wikipedia to get information on a certain topic and find that it is a vehicle for someone's personal vendetta as opposed to an un-biased presentation of facts and content. I thought wikipedia was an attempt to present all information in one source but this incident has made it very clear that Wikipedia is only as good as the editors that maintain it. In this case, their beliefs override the facts surrounding the content even though their beliefs clearly only present one side of the facts. I did attempt to discuss this multiple times with Marianna251 without any response so saying that I am not attempting to engage in a discussion is false. I made no change without first responding and asking for feedback. My questions were completely ignored. Proper procedure should never override the presentation of facts. Editors hiding behind procedure in order to ignore unbiased facts are not helping Wikipedia's cause in any form or fashion. If the content is sound and shows an attempt to present a "Fair and balanced" content then editors should work on how to properly present the information and not completely ignore or overlook it because it does not follow "Proper Procedure." Otherwise Wikipedia will always suffer from biased and lacking content without any avenue for the average reader to address the issue. Some of us do not have time to spend reading all procedures and therefore those that deem themselves as such should take the responsibility to examine all side to a topic and not merely one that presents it in either an all negative or all positive view. That is unless there is nothing that exists to contradict one side or the other. That is not the case however in this one as glucomannan has many sources on both sides. The side presented claims to be a presentation of facts but is absent of specific information that could allow someone to come to their own conclusions. This article is clearly attempting to sway or direct someone's conclusions to a specific result which is not what I would think is the purpose of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.254.34 (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The source given in your edit went to search results, not a specific reliable source. This means that other editors cannot verify the edit you are trying to make. You've claimed that the opposing view to yours is unsourced, but this is not true; the source is in the body of the article, and per WP:LEADCITE it does not need to be repeated at the start of the article. These points have been explained to you repeatedly, but you have continued to edit war and leave belligerent messages - asking "What is wrong with you?" is not the same as attempting to engage in discussion, nor is "I'd be Happy to Discuss Content However, you are not", nor is "I will raise this issue with multiple Wikipedia employees that work in the main office if I need to". Since you keep saying that your questions have been ignored (which is blatantly untrue), let's have a full timeline of all relevant edits:


 * 18:18 - 18:31: initial edits made to Glucomannan article
 * 18:33: revert by Jytdog with edit summary "we don't use press releases as sources"
 * 18:36: revert by IP
 * 18:37: Jytdog leaves explanatory note on IP's talk page User talk:76.76.254.34
 * 18:37: revert by Jytdog
 * 18:38: IP leaves message on Jytdog's talk page
 * 18:39: Jytdog leaves explanatory note for IP on article's talk page
 * 18:41: IP leaves second comment on Jytdog's talk page
 * 18:42: Jytodg adds further explanation to article's talk page discussion
 * 18:43: Jytdog replies to IP on own talk page, pointing them to replies already given on the article's talk page
 * 18:45: revert by IP
 * 18:46: revert by Marianna251
 * 18:48: INeedSupport leaves edit warring notice on IP's talk page (later changed to soft EW notice for newbies)
 * 18:46: Marianna251 leaves promotional material/spam caution on IP's talk page
 * 18:52: Jytdog adds further explanation to article's talk page discussion
 * 18:54: IP leaves message on Marianna251's talk page
 * 18:56: Marianna251 reverts IP's message with edit summary "I'm not discussing anything with someone who begins with a personal attack"
 * 18:57: Marianna251 leaves warning re: personal attack on IP's talk page
 * 19:02: Marianna251 leaves standard 3RR warning on IP's talk page
 * 19:06: IP leaves second message on Marianna251's talk page
 * 18:57: revert by IP
 * 19:01: revert by Marianna251 with edit summary "Please stop edit warring. See WP:3RR. Take discussion to the article's talk page"
 * 19:11: revert by IP
 * 19:13: IP leaves third message on Marianna251's talk page
 * 19:15: revert by Jytdog with edit summary "requesting page protection. IP please use the article talk page"
 * 19:17: Marianna251 replies to IP's message on own talk page


 * From this, it is clear that the issues with the edit were explained at 18:37, 18:39, 18:42, 18:43 and 18:52 (leaving out all the warnings about edit warring etc.), but at 19:13 the IP is still asking the same questions and claiming that they haven't been answered. It's also very clear that the above statements "I made no change without first responding and asking for feedback" and "My questions were completely ignored" are false. Even if I assume that the IP didn't initially see the responses on the article's talk page, there is no reason for this situation to have continued past 18:43, when Jytdog replied to the IP's messages on their talk page pointing them to the information given. However, the IP made three more reverts after that point, and never engaged with Jytdog again - instead moving to leave messages for me, which were rude at best.
 * IP, the central issue is that you haven't provided a specific, reliable source for your edit. You've been pointed to WP:MEDRS, which explains what reliable sources are appropriate for medical articles, how you can identify them and why they are important. Leaving everything else aside, can you provide an actual source for your edit? <b style="border:1px solid #000; color:#000; background-color:#CBD4E4; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 20:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You are clearly trying to argue and completely ignoring the point. The point is that this is a one-side page and not keeping with the Wikipedia mission. If I made a mistake in my link then you could've pointed that out, not erase what I did without attempting to understand the purpose. I don't care that you think I was being belligerent. I think you were being a bully but neither opinions matter when they ignore the upkeep of Wikipedia. Just because you cited sources for one side of an argument does not mean an article is not one-sided. Continue to come after me rather than address the article if you must but you are guilty of doing the same thing you are accusing me of. You are telling me everything I'm doing wrong and not addressing the content. I don't really see how my link went to a search query when I merely copy and pasted the url into the link. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/food-science/glucomannan. I actually just checked the history on the page and the data supports my initial assumption. My link works correctly and does not navigate to a search page. Either you guys made the mistake (which if one was made it was clearly yours as supported by the data) or you are purposefully fabricating excuses to reject content. However, it still does not address the fact that you continue to come after me without addressing the content as you insist that I do. Are you not required to adhere to the same set of rules? If so, then please answer the question regarding the page only presenting a one-sided biased of facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.254.34 (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This ScienceDirect page is a search page; it simply presents its results as extracted excerpts rather than in the form of a list. You are reminded to assume good faith; accusing other editors of "purposefully fabricating excuses to reject content" will gain you absolutely nothing here (and will likely cost you). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 21:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

All of you seem more interested in trying to win an argument rather than addressing the overall topic at hand. You attempt to argue each point individually rather that seeing the underlying issue. I will not leave you with anything but to answer this one question. Why is this page so one-sided as several of the references that are cited are done so in a way as to support a specific view rather than merely laying out the facts allowing the reader to come to their own conclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.254.34 (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:SGT-Craig reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "CE/BCE corresponds to AD/BC. AD/BC are based upon the time frames revolving around Jesus. Please cite how the system is not based upon this individual."
 * 2)  "Removed uncited opinionated statements. Riddle me this? What is CE / BCE based off of? If a reader were to ask what would you tell him? Would you try to avoid truth or dance around facts?"
 * 3)  "Removed uncited opinions. Just b/c a few use it does not constitute mass use.  Added back basic of what BCE / CE is founded upon."
 * 4)  "Removed fundamentalist views to make article neutral in its opening. Added information that expands upon why BCE and BC use the same date system. Note to the guy doing war editing. I provided citations which you deleted to push your agenda. If you are going to edit things at least provide citations."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Common Era. (TW)"


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

Noting that this is a continuation of an edit war on the same issue by an IP, possibly this editor, and that I haven't taken part in the issue. See also the top discussion. Doug Weller talk 05:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 10:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The edits in question were substantially reinstated by User:SGT-Craig after expiration of the block. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Continued reverting, blocked another week. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Pragdon is keeping on reverting a change without stating any objections. (Result: Duplicate of ANI post)
About a year ago I raised some objections to a section of the 1980 Turkish coup d'etat. I raised this objection, stated my reasons on talk page becuase the content there was unsupported by the source cited. I Waited for 6 months, no objections were raised to my point. I updated the content finding sources that work and the content was updated accordingly as it is now but this user, Pragdon, is keeping on reverting the change without stating any reason to do so. The best thing I think he raised is Wikipedia's revert and cycle rule, he himself needs to state why my update should be ignored. He reverts it without stating anything, I have presented my case and I can present it again. --Ruhubelent (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Post to only one admin board at a time, please. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The complaint has been handled at ANI by User:Swarm with 24-hour blocks of both User:Ruhubelent and User:Pragdon. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Smallchief (Result: No violation)
User:WiliamJE violated the three revert rule with the following series of reverts
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * (cur | prev) 09:43, 18 May 2018‎ WilliamJE (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,250 bytes) (-179)‎ . . (I just mentioned three good reasons.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
 * (cur | prev) 09:23, 18 May 2018‎ Smallchief (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,429 bytes) (+179)‎ . . (Undid revision 841776487 by WilliamJE (talk) take it to the discussion pages....no logical reason to delete a mention of this person.) (undo) *(Tag: Undo)
 * (cur | prev) 00:12, 18 May 2018‎ WilliamJE (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,250 bytes) (-179)‎ . . (Try WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:WTAF) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)
 * (cur | prev) 23:23, 17 May 2018‎ Smallchief (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,429 bytes) (+179)‎ . . (Undid revision 841766537 by WilliamJE (talk) no reason whatsoever to delete a locally famous person) (undo) (Tag: Undo)
 * (cur | prev) 22:37, 17 May 2018‎ WilliamJE (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,250 bytes) (-179)‎ . . (Per WP:WTAF) (undo | thank)

Comment The three reverts of WilliamJE were of an innocuous and referenced entry in the "Notable people" section at the end of the Folsom, New Mexico article: The three reverts made by WilliamJE were of the following:


 * Sally J. Rooke (1840–1908) Telephone operator who perished in the 1908 flood "while at her switchboard warning others of their danger."

I see no reason not to mention Ms. rooke in the "Notable people" section. The aforementioned flood was the most important event in the history of Folsom, New Mexico. Ms. Rooke and 17 others died. She is a locally famous person. One could easily find thousands of people mentioned in Wikipedia articles who are less significant than Ms. Rooke.

WilliamJE plays alphabet soup to justify his reverts -- but he violated Wikipedia's three-revert rule and did not, as I suggested, take this issue to the talk page.

My appeal is to common sense and judgement. I seem to recall a wikipedia rule of "do no harm." WilliamJE is doing harm to this article (and perhaps to other articles) by erasing an important and interesting fact.

Thank you for your consideration. Smallchief (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's take this one by one-
 * I haven't violated 3RR.
 * Locally famous doesn't mean they meet WP notability guidelines.
 * ''As for 'One could easily find thousands of people mentioned in Wikipedia articles who are less significant than Ms. Rooke' WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies.
 * I'm not playing alphabet soup, but applying WP policies and guidelines. This editor with his edit summary here shows he either fails to comprehend them or will ignore them if they suit him or her. We have a person at best notable for just one event. GNG, LISTPEOPLE, and BLP1E apply.
 * Complainant hasn't addressed these but instead files a false 3RR accusation and appeals to common sense and judgment rather than WP policy. There is no excuse for them not to know this as the editor has been around here for 8 years and over 28,000 edits....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

policy....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather than take it to the talk page as requested, and would probably easily resolve the problem the roof?, is edit warring (not 3RR). He throws in his edit caption an alphabet soup of references to various policies and essays, but his approach is combative instead of cooperative. He is probably in the right on the content dispute, but his method of operation is bullying rather than cooperative. A very small dose of civility and discussion could easily resolve this problem.Jacona (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He's not even correct on the content dispute IMO. See Talk:Folsom, New Mexico. Cbl62 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cbl62, you are correct. It seems the editor in question has a pattern of aggressively removing content and bullying/lawyering/combating his way around, and has recently come off a block for stalking.Jacona (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * – 3RR was not broken. WilliamJE is at three reverts and Smallchief is at two. Let's hope that neither side will revert again unless an agreement is reached on Talk. Less notable material is removed from articles all the time and this is not considered to be 'harm'. Whether a mention of Sally Rooke belongs in the article depends entirely on editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

User:213.205.241.243 reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: IP edit-warring to version including wording that does not adhere to WP:NPOV. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Ke31 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 842021709 by EkoGraf (talk) SOHR ISNT A SOURCE"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 842018792 by AnomieBOT (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 842018850 by Applodion (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 842001222 by 85.144.61.254 (talk) has no sources to back that 83 turkish soliders died or that sohr is trustworthy"
 * 5)  "sohr isnt a source they have not even a single observer on the ground plus the claim of 83 killed turkish soliders is ridiculous"
 * 6)  "http://www.karar.com/guncel-haberler/afrin-harekatinda-kac-sehit-var-732833#http://www.posta.com.tr/afrin-de-sehit-sayisi-kac-oldu-zeytin-dali-harekati-67-gun-1381052https://www.rt.com/news/317813-sohr-visit-syria-long/https://www.rt.com/news/383020-germany-doubts-syrian-observatory-report/"
 * 1)  "sohr isnt a source they have not even a single observer on the ground plus the claim of 83 killed turkish soliders is ridiculous"
 * 2)  "http://www.karar.com/guncel-haberler/afrin-harekatinda-kac-sehit-var-732833#http://www.posta.com.tr/afrin-de-sehit-sayisi-kac-oldu-zeytin-dali-harekati-67-gun-1381052https://www.rt.com/news/317813-sohr-visit-syria-long/https://www.rt.com/news/383020-germany-doubts-syrian-observatory-report/"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Turkish military operation in Afrin. (TW★TW)"
 * 2) Blanking 1RR warning


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


 * Comments:

Relentless edit-warring. Blanks talkpage. Got also 1-R warning. Dr.  K.  00:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Two warnings about edit warring and a notice that blanking is deemed as acknowledgment, all blanked without discussion. User has thus demonstrated intent to edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Dino710 reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: Procedural close; the page has been deleted at AfD.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: No stable version, new article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:10, May 16, 2018
 * 2) 03:59, May 17, 2018
 * 3) 13:48, May 17, 2018‎
 * 4) 12:10, May 18, 2018
 * 5) 13:37, May 18, 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There's been a slow edit war going on at at Dean Lomax. It's creator, Dino710 is a WP:SPA towards Lomax and has a stated intent wanting to use the page to promote Lomax's reasearch. In those diffs, there's also been reinserting the Daily Mail and other poor sources in the edit warring as well as restoring WP:PEACOCK language they originally inserted all while not using the talk page at all. It's pretty clear this editor is WP:NOTHERE and using the page for advocacy in addition to edit warring. The talk page isn't being used even after multiple requests to follow WP:BRD, and undoing the poorly sourced or promotional edits just ends up with a revert again. While we give new editors initial leeway (less so for advocacy SPA's), it is reaching the point that it's near impossible to fix the promotionalism and other issues in their edits without edit warring oneself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It turns out the page was deleted at AfD, so there shouldn’t by any action needed. This can be closed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural close; the page has been deleted at AfD. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:EELagoon reported by User:Ciiseciise007 (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "restoring sourced edit"
 * 2)  "citing source again"
 * 3)  "citing source; removing unsourced"
 * 4)  "disputed town"
 * 1)  "disputed town"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 5)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 6)   "/* 3RR */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Constant editing way over 3RR Ciiseciise007 (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for at least letting me know you opened this report. Ciiseciise007, I have reverted your edits 3 times in that article. Ciiseciise007 has been extremely difficult to work with. He has continuously been reverting articles sometimes citing "vandalism".12345678. There are a few more of those but I think that's sufficient. All the edits I made were reversed to match the reference and those that were not accurately sourced or had single references I added references to.
 * Ciiseciise007, I asked them several times12345 to engage with me and stop reverting the articles for no reason. They deleted my comments on their talk page1 and have proceeded to post 3RR templates on my talk page. Ciiseciise007 has been reverting articles for no reason other than citing vandalism here are examples; 123456. The article in question here Adhi'adeye has the wrong map based on the references which were already in the article. I did not add them. EELagoon (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:EELagoon and User:Ciiseciise007 are both warned. They are each risking a block if they revert again on any article related to Somalia or Somaliland without first making a good-faith effort on the talk page to reach consensus for their proposed change. In addition, a block is possible if either person changes 'Somalia' to 'Somaliland' (or vice versa) in the text or infobox of an article unless this has been proposed first on Talk and a reasonable time has passed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:EELagoon reported by User:Ciiseciise007 (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "restoring sourced edit"
 * 2)  "adding another ref"
 * 3)  "reverting to source again"
 * 4)  "image"
 * 1)  "image"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 5)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 6)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 7)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Over 3RR vandalism Ciiseciise007 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:EELagoon reported by User:Ciiseciise007 (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removing sourced content"
 * 2)  "quit edit warring; there's a source provided"
 * 3)  "ref added"
 * 4)  "not cited; can't find sources"
 * 5)  "notes"
 * 1)  "notes"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 5)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 6)   "/* 3RR */ new section"
 * 7)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 8)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User:2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 842245319 by Grayfell (talk)  Please engage on the talk page, and/ or the dispute resolution page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 842244708 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 842243525 by יניב הורון (talk)  do not remove the banner without discussion."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 842242187 by יניב הורון (talk)"
 * 5)  "for accuracy"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 842239657 by AddMore-III (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Help Hasidic Judaism. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This editor has attempted a dispute resolution, but editor has not posted any understandable explanation of what the issue is at all, it's just disturbing nonsense. The editor's page only says "Death to Wikipedia, and its baby-eaters." So, y'know, not a lot of good faith to work with. Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Grayfell, I'm glad you appreciate my sense of humor. Please feel free to engage with the substance of the discussion on the talk page, or the dispute resolution page regarding NPOV for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Kingdamian1 reported by User:MaxBrowne2 (Result: Kingdamian1 warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor repeatedly inserted poorly sourced trivial content. Final revert was after warning and after explanation as to why the sources were unacceptable, and after discussion began on talk page. Reverts included no explanation in edit summary. Clear intention to continue edit warring. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He's only reverted three times so he hasn't violated the policy yet. I've added an edit warring notice on his talk page. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * warned that adding the material again without getting consensus on the talk page may result in a block. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , please make sure you notify editors you have reported here as you are required to do. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:2404:1a0:1001:16:2971:5369:bd66:4ed7 reported by User:Impru20 (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:, , , and. Potentially, and

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Josep Irla
 * 2)  (potential) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being Josep Irla the 3rd president."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 841838920 by Fumfumfumx (talk) History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 841957494 by Impru20 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Is not about legality, is about history. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior to that there was the General Council and Priest elected by the king. Simple as that, all text refer as them as deputies. If Generalitat is trying to change their history, very well, but this is a open source of knowledge, not a politicians website."
 * 6) List of Presidents of the Generalitat of Catalonia
 * 7)  (potential) "The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the Genralitat as we know it is an institution formed in 1931."
 * 8)  "The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the Genralitat as we know it is an institution formed in 1931 as its Presidents."
 * 9)  "There is only one Generalitat that was established during the Spanish Second Republic, in the middle ages there was a the General Council were religious ecclesiastic councils were in place."
 * 10)  "Undid revision 841958767 by 114.249.45.51 (talk)"
 * 11)  "History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
 * 12)  "There is no modern Generalitat. Before the Generalitat, the closest entity was the General Council that was a Commission of Catalan Courts made of delegates, mainly priests, with no effective government power, as the King ruled over the territory."
 * 13) Pasqual Maragall
 * 14)  (potential) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being Pascual Maragall the 6th president."
 * 15)  "Undid revision 841838689 by Fumfumfumx (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 841952923 by 2404:1A0:1001:16:2971:5369:BD66:4ED7 (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 841838689 by Fumfumfumx (talk) History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
 * 18)  "Added reference http://www.abc.es/espana/catalunya/politica/abci-historiadores-catalanes-acotan-numero-presidentes-generalitat-diez-macia-torra-201805181210_noticia.html"
 * 19) Lluís Companys
 * 20)  (potential) "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st president as the Genralitat is Francesc Macià, being Lluís Companys the 2nd president of this instit"
 * 21)  "Undid revision 841838936 by Fumfumfumx (talk) History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Please do not try to place priest of middle ages as Presidents of an institution founded 87 years ago."
 * 22)  "Undid revision 841957542 by Impru20 (talk)"
 * 23) Francesc Macià
 * 24)  (potential)
 * 25)  "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st president as the Genralitat is Francesc Macià"
 * 26)  "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st president as the Genralitat is Francesc Macià"
 * 27)  "History should not be changed even politicians try! The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, in the middle ages there was the General Council, from the XIV to XVIII century, there were no Presidents then, but ecclesiastics deputies placed by the King. Francesc Macia was the first President not the 122nd."
 * 28)  "Undid revision 841956766 by Impru20 (talk)"
 * 29)  "Review this article for further information. There were no presidents of Generalitat before 1931, but rather there were ecclesiastics deputies of the General Council. http://www.abc.es/historia/abci-gran-mentira-historica-131-presidentes-generalitat-nuevo-mantra-nacionalismo-catalan-201805160155_noticia.html"
 * 30) José Montilla (potential)
 * 31)  "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being José Montilla the 6th president."
 * 32)  "Undid revision 841838651 by Fumfumfumx (talk)"
 * 33)  "Added reference http://www.abc.es/espana/catalunya/politica/abci-historiadores-catalanes-acotan-numero-presidentes-generalitat-diez-macia-torra-201805181210_noticia.html"
 * 34) Josep Tarradellas (potential)
 * 35)  "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being Josep Tarradellas the 3rd president."
 * 36)  "Undid revision 841838789 by Fumfumfumx (talk)"
 * 37)  "Added reference http://www.abc.es/espana/catalunya/politica/abci-historiadores-catalanes-acotan-numero-presidentes-generalitat-diez-macia-torra-201805181210_noticia.html"
 * 1) Josep Tarradellas (potential)
 * 2)  "Inaccurate order of its position. The Generality was founded in 1931 during the second Spanish republic. Prior, there was the General Council, translated to Spanish the "Diputacion General", were the name "Generalitat" comes from. In the General Council, from the XIV century to XVIII century, there were no Presidents, but ecclesiastics deputies, the official highest ran at the time. Thus, the 1st President of the Generalitat is Francesc Macià, being Josep Tarradellas the 3rd president."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 841838789 by Fumfumfumx (talk)"
 * 4)  "Added reference http://www.abc.es/espana/catalunya/politica/abci-historiadores-catalanes-acotan-numero-presidentes-generalitat-diez-macia-torra-201805181210_noticia.html"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (07:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:2404:1A0:1001:16:2971:5369:BD66:4ED7: Revision history

Comments:

User is very aggressively engaged in articles related to Presidents of the Generalitat of Catalonia, enforcing edits that go against reliable sources presented to him and trying to impose his own version of reality to these pages (seems like a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as seen from here and here). User has kept on this attitude despite being warned from refraining to engage in edit warring and to seek consensus through talk instead, which the user has failed to accomplish.  Impru20 talk 07:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to note, user is also engaging in such a behaviour in the Artur Mas and Carles Puigdemont articles (and may surely extend to further articles as well, as he already went on to edit all Catalan president articles before), though he has not violated 3RR in those yet as I'd rather wait until actions are taken rather than engaging in further edit warring, since it's very likely that further edits from me would be followed by further reverts from this user.  Impru20 talk 07:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment User could be a sock of User:14.136.156.23, as seen from their contributions history: here and here, with similar edits as well as edit summaries (with the latter's even commenting out the very same edit summary as posted during their edits in the first's talk page: as seen here. If confirmed, it would mean the user has been using to different accounts to make edits at different articles, which could increase the number of pages affected by the 3RR. I'm proceeding to report this at WP:SPI so an investigation may be opened.  Impru20 talk 07:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The dispute appears to come from an argument in the Spanish press about the true history of the Generalitat de Catalunya. In my opinion User:impru20 has been giving a good explanation of Wikipedia policy to the IP user at their talk page. Nothing shows that the IP has received consensus to renumber the presidents of the Generalitat. Especially to make multiple changes to different articles. But there have been no more reverts since about 08:00 on 19 May so I'd wait a bit before deciding. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm planning to semiprotect the seven articles listed in this report within the next 24 hours unless some other admin closes the report first. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Special:Contributions/2404:1A0:1001:16::/64 and are each blocked for a week for sockpuppetry. The seven articles listed in the report header have been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Bear-rings reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: blocked 31 hours)
Page:







User being reported:

See WP:ANI, although that has been open for a week with numerous editors calling for some admin action and a block, but they're being ignored. Also User_talk:Bear-rings, and other threads, on their own user_talk:.

This editor dislikes redirects and they dislike repeated links on a page, including See alsos. This may be broadly in line with policy, but not here, when they're editing mechanistically and persistently, over the directly expressed views of a number of other editors. Some of these changes are supported, some are clearly not, but Bear-rings continues regardless. This went to ANI (and much the same issue went there months ago), but to no avail. The only admin who responded saw it as a "content issue", protected one article and ignored the behavioural aspect.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Evolutionary biology
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * Stars and bars (combinatorics)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * Pregnancy discrimination
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * Latitudinal gradients in species diversity
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (a page move(!) to try and make the redirect name match)

There are probably language issues, very likely WP:COMPETENCE issues and certainly an obstinate refusal to engage with other editors. There is no per article discussion, the ANI thread has been ignored and only some weak excuses and false promises were finally made on the user talk page. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In case this ever has to be reviewed again in the future, here is a permanent link to the ANI complaint, which has more diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)