Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive372

User:Jhabdas reported by User:Gogo Dodo (Result: Blocked)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Editor is trying to keep a deleted article in List of password managers with a misreading of what is required for notability as clearly listed in the article page notice. Since I am the one being reverted, I defer to others for review. I was going to let it slide with just a warning, but then I received a personal attack in response.

Checking the article history, I suspect there is some off-wiki notice of the listing removal as an IP showed up asking for restoration of the listing and a new account reverting the removal. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

jhabdas here: The very noteworthy addition was in place for months before someone else removed it after another person removed the main page in wikipedia, the draft of which has been marked for restoration and updated with more information to continue building on its noteworthiness. Regardless of what the specific rules are on the passwords page according to this person there is no clear reason to put up such a gauntlet for adding open source software to Wikipedia especially when the software several years old and used by hundreds of thousands of people. Period. As for the IP weirdness I use VPN, which is blocked by Wikipedia and harms my privacy online as a result. There's no conspiracy here, nor do I have anything to do with whatever new account was being used to modify the page. It's likely someone else spotted the erroneous removal and tried to fix it (that's what Wiki's are for, right?) As for my initial Talk page response, it was untasteful, I admit, but I meant every word of it, for about 10 seconds until I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhabdas (talk • contribs) 06:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Nuralakbar reported by User:HafizHanif (Result: Warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Ahmad article when contentious edits began, notice "Expertini Limited" source is self-published
 * 2) Notice "Islamqa" is a religious non-academic source
 * 3) Reverted edit and summary explanation which was also highlighted at the talk page
 * 4) corrections reverted, no summary explanation

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Ibn Arabi article when contentious edits began, notice religious nature of summary and deletion of sourced content in favor of religious pov
 * 2) I reintroduce deleted content
 * 3) My contribution again wholly deleted in favor of religious pov

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I mistakenly conflated edits made at the two articles into one talk page section. I later realized this conflation and moved the discussion to the appropriate talk page, although I still had some confusion regarding detailed issues within each respective article.

Talk page discussion at Ahmad article, and me responding to the wild accusations and refuting them, while taking responsibility for my mistaken edits

Talk page discussion at Ibn Arabi article (and me explaining my talk page conflation, while still attempting to resolve the issues with the other editor), and they did as they pleased

Comments:

I'd like to bring attention to a new profile: Nuralakbar. Despite being new, their dialogue reflects a well-versed editor.

Prior to looking at their profile, I followed good faith and opened a talk page discussion notifying them about the reverting and editing of their contributions. Their edits reflected obvious religious bias and used some unqualified citations (self publishing and a religious / non-academic website).

My invitation for discussion and points raised were ignored.

Instead, a new section was opened leveling accusations towards me, and they reverting their edits (sparking an edit war).

Some accusations were what is called in psychology 'projecting', for they were making accusations of what they had actually done in their edits.

I again clarified the issues I raised, and responded (and refuted) the accusations... but that was a waste of time.

Notice their profile's recent history only contains the edit war and talk page exchanges in question.

After looking at their profile and their history, they look like a possible Sock Puppet, or someone evading a previous block, or simply another person disturbing the ongoing work of building objectivity and value into articles per scholarship.

When initially responding to this particular user profile, I assumed I was dealing with someone who would conduct themselves along the lines of wikipedia guidelines, especially after reading their use of Wiki lingo, suspecting they were experienced and would recognize unqualified sources and other editing mistakes they made, perhaps even their bias despite cited scholarship. Instead, I find myself avoiding an edit war with someone who opened up a new profile recently, only to contest the two articles mentioned herein. It is exhausting having to 'tell' on those who do more disruption and add more strife than good work to the wiki effort. I've taken much time out of my day to address this issue, and although the articles in question are not as 'important' as other Islamic articles that I work on, I would like to also request these two articles be secured in some fashion... otherwise, it is just too time consuming and discouraging to make any effort considering the constant vandalism and zealotry. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to notify the person you are reporting. I have now done so. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you EdJohnston. I thought I did yesterday, just above your notice. Please see that talk page again. I think in the years I've been editing Wiki, I have only done this once before. My apologies if I did it incorrectly. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Nuralakbar is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at either Ahmad or Ibn Arabi unless they have previously got a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:MilfordBoy1991 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 850520666 by General Ization (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 850517733 by General Ization (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 850507888 by John from Idegon (talk) my point still stands and furthermore the correct British name is used at the top of the article so they should be the dame"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 850022567 by John from Idegon (talk) makes no difference as regardless of him being american this is the proper name of the film"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Verne Troyer. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:KDNO1 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Indef as a sock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 850677157 by Carrymaekr (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 850677048 by Carrymaekr (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 850676586 by Carrymaekr (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 850676586 by Carrymaekr (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Meeli Kõiva. (TW)"


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

Edit-warring against three different editors (one of whom is also curiously new, but that's another story); no need for TP discussion as all they're doing is removing the first line of the article. Possibly AIV material; but hey. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 12:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Should be lead section. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 12:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 12:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   12:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:92.234.46.187 reported by User:SilentResident (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

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

Comments:

Disruptive IP is constantly edit warring with everyone else, and has already violated 3RR, and is insisting on with their disruption despite being reverted 6 times already. Attention is needed. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 12:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit: Withdrawal of the report. IP promised to refrain from further discruption. Please see:


 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:101.180.130.205 reported by User:Gareth (Result: Blocked)

 * 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:

I am reporting this user based on its behaviour across the entire project, not just at Pointless (Australian TV series). User's talk page shows it has been repeatedly warned for disruptive behaviour such as removing content, adding unsourced content and failing to leave an edit summary. Enough is enough. Gareth (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long term edit warring at Pointless (Australian TV series). EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Outliner73 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

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: Multiple editors have and are attempting to engage this user, at ANI and on multiple talk pages, but they continue arguing their position, while making multiple reverts at the same time.

Diff of 3RRNB notice on user's talk page:

Comments:

Straight forward 4RR vio. - wolf 20:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC) - wolf 21:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI - now at 4RR on Land-attack missile as well;
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) -
 * Result: User:Outliner73 was blocked indef as a sock by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Anticitizen 98 reported by User:A Quest For Knowledge (Result: No action)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Comments:

Anticitizen 98 has not broken 3RR, however, they have been edit-warring with multiple editors over the course of several days to their preferred version. Anticitizen 98 has had limited engagement on the article talk page, often ignoring points raised. Yesterday, I finally had enough and asked them to self-revert and discuss their changes on the article talk page.  Not only did they not self-revert or discuss it on the article talk page, they resumed edit-warring today.  It is very frustrating to work with an editor who refuses to try to discuss or reach consensus for their changes and thinks that edit-warring is the way to win content disputes. Maybe a block will get their attention? An article ban might also be a good idea because Anticitizen 98's only real contribution to the article is to edit-war to their preferred version. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at this in depth, but Anticitizen is using the talk page to justify his edits, and not everyone else involved in the article over the last few days is. That doesn't strike me as something that admin sanctions would benefit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, their edits on the talk page are limited; they've failed to address specific points I've raised. If the admins decide not to do anything about his conduct, what do you suggest?  Should we continue to edit-war?  Please don't tell me that's what you're saying.  There's a clear conduct issue here, and it needs to be addressed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. If there is a general issue about removing parties from election infoboxes when they don't achieve a 5% result, maybe an RfC could be opened. I notice that Anticitizen 98 has been applying this 5% rule to other election articles. From his comments on his own talk page it sounds like he thinks this rule applies to all US gubernatorial elections. ("Every other gubernatorial page backs me up"). Is this written down as a general practice anywhere? EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not to my knowledge there is such a rule. If Anticitizen has been edit-warring on these other articles too, then referencing them as established practice is meritless.  These other articles may not be watched as much or perhaps the editors got tired of edit-warring and gave up.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Anticitizen 98 appears to concede the point here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Yingyangyingyang reported by User:Redalert2fan (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* AIS aircraft availability */"
 * 2)  "/* AIS aircraft */"
 * 3)  "←Replaced content with '  == AIS aircraft availability  Redalert2fan (User talk:Redalert2fan


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:AIS Airlines. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:AIS Airlines. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "note/comment"


 * Comments: User keeps deleting my talk page comments. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * – by User:Maile66. I've applied one month of semiprotection to the article and another administrator has semiprotected the talk page. This has turned into a sock festival. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Zacha1211 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Semi, Warning)
Page:


 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: here ending at 00:58, 18 July 2018 as IP

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff
 * 1) diff ending at 19:41, 18 July 2018 as IP
 * 2) diff at 20:05, 18 July 2018 by Zacha1211 same as IP acknowledged  here by Zacha1211
 * 3) here at 21:52, 18 July 2018 by Zacha1211
 * 4) diff 22:20, 18 July 2018 by Jytdogg obvious mockery/sock account
 * 5) diff at  23:00, 18 July 2018 by sock again

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Paul_K._Hansma and User talk:Zacha1211

Comments:

New conflicted user, aggressively edit warring promotional content into WP. I've reported the impersonation account. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the impersonation account. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected. User:Zacha1211 is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. If you are not happy with the advice given on the Talk page by User:Jytdog, please ask for assistance at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Bellshook reported by User:Coffeeandcrumbs (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Comments: Also note previous discussions at: Talk:Christopher Cerf (school administrator and businessman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The article was just renamed to Christopher Cerf (school administrator). EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

– 2 weeks. There seems to be a long term war between User:Bellshook, the creator of the article, and User:Coffeeandcrumbs whether a large chunk of negative information should be included in the article. During the protection I think it should be left out, so I'm protecting on a version from July 17 that excludes that material. Discussion should continue on the talk page, with the WP:BLP policy in mind. If agreement can't be reached consider opening an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to object to the false equivalence. My first edit to this page was on July 15, three days ago. I made a few minor edits and then went to the talk page to discover what I suspected already. This is the page you absolutely need to read to understand the situation. I only started making serious edits to the page after having a short discussion with on the talk page which begins here. I announced on the talk page that I was going to take on the task of rewriting this page. However, Bellshook has been fiercely defending the previous state of affairs for months and has only ever really edited this page. They have very misleadingly placed a talk page discussion about me at the top of the talk page on July 17. They have cleared fooled you. They have indiscrimanently edited other peoples comments    (note the clever falsification of my talk page comments by directly changing the spelling of words). They made following the discussion very difficult which clearly fooled you. Please strike or revise your statement.


 * However, in the end, the final decision to protect the page was not a bad idea. There is no rush and I am fully convinced that Bellshook will return and you will have good cause more serious punitive action.--- Coffee  and crumbs  03:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unclear what you are objecting to. Each of you was reverting the other, more than once, and that's considered an edit war. For Bellshook to change others' comments is a no-no and it had better not continue. I do agree with you that the version they favor has BLP issues that need discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I only object to the description that this "seems to be a long term war between...", epecially the words "long term" being read to also apply to me. I am not concern by being accused of edit warring, just concerned with the accusation of "long term" edit warring. IMO, it creates a false equivalence when my edits were to remove "clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy" as per excemptions to edit warring policy. You yourself have noticed that the previous version favored by Bellshook had BLP violations. Several others on the talk page have commented that issues were there throughout the article but they did not take action to fix the problem. They let the problems fester for months. I would argue the violations were pervasive per WP:BLPSTYLE in "Tone", "Balance" and as an "Attack page". I was the only one willing to butt heads with Bellhook. Sure you can say that is edit warring but WP:AGF only goes so far. If I had not fought through this resistance the untenable status quo would have remained. Note: this was reported to WP:BLPN in December 2017 and zero action was taken by the impotent notice board. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Long term edit warring' isn't worse-than-usual edit warring, it is just a pattern of reverts that is longer than 24 hours and doesn't break 3RR in the most recent day. If you wanted the BLP exception to cover your reverts it would have been helpful to say that in your original complaint. Although the present article may be WP:UNDUE it might not qualify under WP:3RRNO, since the negative material is sourced, even though coatrack-y. The 3RRNO exception requires very blatant stuff, for example unsourced defamation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When you say "the present article may be WP:UNDUE", you meant the previous article. I wrote the current version.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420 reported by User:Hotwiki (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Removing characters and cast members in a television show article. Hotwiki (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly. Two edits is hardly edit warring.
 * Secondly. If two reverts is edit warring then - and  those are the two reverts by the editor who is filing this report.
 * Finally, my removal of content was in line with MOS:TVCAST that states - "Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed" 30 cast members is OTT. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How is reducing the entire section into TWo cast members right exactly? You basically removed every single supporting character and guest role. Also is there any TV showarticle that only mentioned the lead characters in the characters section? Plenty of editors have edited that article and you are the only one to drastically reduced the cast list. The first time you have removed it, you gave zero explanation whatsoever. Have you even seen the show to say who's notable within the show? I have seen the show and those supporting and guest characters should be mentioned in the article and not just the lead characters. The article is not even large to begin with and there are shows that have a separate article just for the characters. Your edit is disruptive and not helpful to the article. You are edit warring and the earlier you are reported for this behavior, the earlier this issue would be resolved.Hotwiki (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So basically, this is a content dispute that you decided to report as edit warring, rather than starting a discussion on the article talk page? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You were about to hit 3rr, and this discussion also deals with edit warring. Also, take your own advice. You clearly didn't take the issue to the talk page first when you almost blanked the entire section. Now tell me how did you help the article when you reduced the entire characters section in just two cast members?Hotwiki (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are talking about content. That discussion belongs on the article talk page. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * fyi, Spacecowboy's first edit wasn't a revert, as it didn't undo a recent edit. Strictly they have reverted once. Suggest you withdraw this filling and, as suggested, is take the ongoing discussion on content to the article talk page. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 09:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * – Try following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Whether or not to include minor characters may have been discussed previously for other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Von de leorde reported by User:TheBellaTwins1445 (Result: No violation)
User being reported: Pages in dispute: This user keeps deleting information at Sridevi and adding information without sources at Madhubala As seen here:
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.

Plase I am asking for help. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * – Use the article talk page to explain what you believe the problem is. You didn't notify User:Von de leorde that you filed a report here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C1:AB00:7D01:79BC:4F6A:300E:5CD7 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: semi 2 days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. It you want to have a discussion on Flexcit, then open a page on the subject. Do not use a biographical section to attack this concept, especially when you have made no attempt accurately to describe what it is, or give a balanced view of the areas of contention."
 * 2)  "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. This is a polemic about Flexcit. It does not belong here in a biography."
 * 3)  "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. This material is highly tendentious, misleading and potentially libellous. This is supposed to be a biographical entry, not an opportunity for disaffected academics to rant at my expense. If you want to pursue this line, you should open up another page on Flexcit, and open it up to an honest discussion rather than this hole-in-the corner sniping."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * semi 2 days SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:TFBCT1 reported by User:Newshunter12 (Result: Both warned)
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: [link]

[diff]

Comments:

This is my first time reporting someone for edit warring, so I apologize if I messed anything up in this report I am filing. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User is not per se using the "revert tool" to undo work, but continues to edit reversing edits that are in contention on the talk page causing a ruckus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFBCT1 (talk • contribs)


 * Okay, I see on the talk page that consensus has been reached, so I am not anticipating any more edit warring from either of you. If there is, I will not be impressed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Boorif4747 reported by User:GreenMeansGo (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * - I don't think you need me to count for you.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Looks like this got dropped on the floor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User: Premicaa  reported by User: Koradastat   (Result: indef)
PAGE : Alexis Viera Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210684&oldid=808964059

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210732&oldid=851210701

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210794&oldid=851210755

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210868&oldid=851210816

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

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

Comments:


 * indefinitely by (mid-air admin conflict) Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked both of them, actually. New accounts, edit warring on the same article and then running right here for a report? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Jeez, when I said create a bunch of socks and edit-war with yourself, it was a joke. I despair. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Now see? That's why you shouldn't actually edit here. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:50.203.99.102 reported by User:Loopy30 (Result: Blocked)
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: see multiple requests in edit summaries

Comments:


 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous similar reports Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368

Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368

Following the Block had this to say.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  In this revert, ZH8000 accuses his protagonist of vandalism despite NeilN's dire warning and posts a warning on his talk page about being disruptive.

Note: Numbers 3,4,5 and 6 were within 24 hours (20:11 18 Jul to 14:42 19 Jul)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ZH8000 with a warning and a block for edit warring is well aware of the rules.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am uninvolved in the dispute. No attempt has been made by ZH8000 to discuss on the talk page. A discussion was started after the last revert by another editor to which ZH8000 has, so far, not contributed. One protagonist (out of five) is now indef blocked for socking (though ZH8000 was unaware of that at the time). TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments:


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted the same thing several times. However, please see also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:180.191.111.63 reported by User:Toasted Meter (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Adding unsourced content that is obviously a hoax. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. Page semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Ulikss77 reported by User:mm.srb (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Protecting the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Valtazar_Bogišić:

Mm.srb (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There have only been three reverts. However,, you are advised that your edits are not acceptable and you need to take this to the talk page. If you change this again without gaining consensus, then I will be blocking you. In the meantime I have reverted to the stable version and protected the article for a week. Number   5  7  20:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Harmony944 reported by User:Barkeep49 (Result: page protected; indefinitely blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 851351017 by Barkeep49 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Again, this sets incredibly poor precedent. Why does The Passage TV series article get to live with the little information it has while a Cartoon with a released title card is forced to be a redirect?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 851060330 by Barkeep49 (talk)Look at the discussion. No substantial reasoning was put forward. You don't wait 6 and a half weeks and counting to perform a poorly-decided merger. Why out of all the pages made for this show was this one chosen to have its info removed from view?"
 * 4)  "Misleading edit summary. No such merger occurred"
 * 1)  "Misleading edit summary. No such merger occurred"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Trying to answer something"


 * Comments:

Ongoing edit warring against consensus closing from May AfD Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This discussion cannot go further. This user cursed me out in private message for questioning the legitimacy of the Articles for Deletion discussion on the article’s talk page, and refuses to be reasonable—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Other 2019 TV debuts with similar content include Messiah, Jinn, and the Tales from the City revival. There is no reason a Yabba Dabba Dinosaurs article can’t exist with the information it currently has, and it’s not fair that when I ask for things to be considered, I’m told I’m “wrong” in a vulgar manner without a second thought and I’m punished for it—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This definitely appears to be edit-warring against a valid WP:AfD result (see: Articles for deletion/Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!). Unfortunately, Harmony944 has been blocked for edit-warring before, and should know better. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * THAT DISCUSSION WAS NOT VALID. Whats disruptive about restoring a legitimate article? Why am I constantly being ignored and talked down to? Why do i have to seek consensus for every little thing while you let my harasser make baseless edit warring accusations against me? The fact is that you force me to get consensus on a talkpage that is currently a redirect, meaning it will be passed by EVERY TIME someone clicks on a link to it. Thats a clear case of stacking the deck. I was given no other options but to restore the article until IJ told me about DelRev. You want to punish me not for edit-warring, but not knowing every policy by heart—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This tact is going to get you nowhere. Following this line now is just going to confirm to any Admin watching this that a block is probably in order to prevent further disruption. I would drop this now, while you're behind, and follow my advice at Talk:Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You cant call me disruptive because i wasnt being disruptive. This "tact" you speak of is speaking out against unfair and biased treatment. If only people werent ignoring the abuse and making things easy for themselves while making it harder for the person theyre on the verge of hurting again. I'm off to make the split proposal. I'd prefer it if I received the decency to be an active part of the discussion instead of being blocked for an extended period that ends up taking up the entire period of the split discussion—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This editor has quite an extensive history of warring on Wikipedia, and I think any admin reviewing this discussion should take that into account. They displayed the same behavior as they did recently on the Agents of Shield page and would rather war with others to get their own way. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that Harmony has learned from their mistakes. Esuka323 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC).
 * Statement struck due to blatant character assassination. What i have is an extensive history of good to fantastic edits with occasion edit warring accusations. I follow every rule here and it is not my fault no one told me the process of restoring a deleted article. Theres also the fact that the article in question got full-on deleted during this discussion without consensus to do so. It very much seems that consensus nor consistency matter—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 19:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The evidence is there on the Agents of Shield page history, you had multiple editors including myself reverting you and telling you to continue with the discussion. You became impatient because that discussion wasn't going your way and continued trying to push your agenda on the page. Clearly you have been doing this yet again with other editors, just how many chances do you deserve if you continue to break the rules here? If you continue to make the same mistakes, you haven't learned from them. Esuka323 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case, I haven’t broken any rule. BEING IMPATIENT ISNT A DAMN CRIME. One incident shouldn’t taint me forever. I’m not a felon, and yet you’re treating me like one. You don’t care what I have to say, you just want me out.—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)
 * Your talk page is full of edit war warnings and block notices. Frankly the fact you have the ability to edit here still after so many rule infractions is astounding. Esuka323 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesnt make them legitimate. Youre not bothering with context, youre just judging me by what others put on my page, regardless of legitimacy. You have no evidence that i havent proven to be a good user, and are only trying to drag my name through the mud. I therefore am asking you to leave—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 20:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Enough is enough. You've been blocked twice for edit warring and have had your talk page access revoked for using it inappropriately during your first block, and yet you're still insisting you're this perfect little angel who doesn't break rules? Your WP:IDHT is quite strong. Honestly, you're at the disruptive level now as you are more of a net negative than a net positive to the Wikipedia project. Editors who persistently and consciously can't or won't admit when they're wrong have no place on Wikipedia. I should know. An indefinite blocked would be more than justified now. Wikipedia has no irreplaceable editors, and you've been given plenty of rope. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * However, the edits here are disruptive. The article code is still in the history of the redirect. If this continues then there will also be a block. The only options available to you are to take it to DRV or drop the subject.  Number   5  7  20:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * “The code is still in the history of the redirect” Which you deleted twice. Without consensus. Which means the code was gone to anyone Twice. You defied the AfD twice. And yet my recreation to actually abide by the AfD consensus is called “disruptive”? And “rule-breaking”? Ever since I started editing here regularly I have been a fantastic editor, only to be confronted over common-sense actions I took because they needed consensus despite every source I gave. And then, again without consensus, you delete the draft talk page where it was confirmed that the draft was suggested by another user. What are you trying to hide? Why am I being targeted for trying to be a good editor—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The redirect has not (nor ever) been deleted by anyone – it is still here. I was not aware you had been advised to create the draft article, so I have amended that part of my rationale above. However, I would advise reigning in your other accusations (e.g. of having something to hide). Number   5  7  21:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are lying. I have the emails. Both of them, with the edit summaries that you deleted the article. It's also in the deletion log. When I clicked to see the article or what changed, the article wasn’t there.Yes, the redirect is there now, but that’s because it had to be put back upthree times to counter your deletions. And you still deleted the draft AND it’s talk page. Despite what told you. You are overstepping boundaries. You had no consensus, and the only reasoning you ever gave was libelous. By doing this, you are proving yourself far more disruptive than you ever claimed me to be—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see in the page log for the redirect, it has never been deleted or restored. Nor has the talk page of the draft. I would appreciate you withdrawing your accusation of lying. Number   5  7  21:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I now support a block – between Harmony944's accusing an Admin of lying, to their failure to Drop the stick, I fear that continued disruption is inevitable here. I'm going to ping the previous blocking Admins, and, here as well, because I would like them to appraise this situation for themselves. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just having looked at Harmony's comments here, I believe an indefinite block is warranted. However, has been handling this, and I would not block at all unless he at least doesn't oppose it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose a block here. Number   5  7  23:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment is vile, baseless, and unwarranted. I would not be making such accusations if I didnt have the proof.—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 23:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Proof of which you haven't really provided. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you do not provide the means. I do not have a desktop. I have tried finding how to upload files to the app or mobile versions, and there is no way—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 23:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your behavior towards the admins here is disturbing. They have no reason to lie or deceive anyone yet you continue to make baseless attacks against them. Esuka323 (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then don't throw around baseless accusations like that if you can't back up your claims as doing so pretty much borders on them being personal attacks. Also agree with Esuka. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 23:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I’m not lying. The deletion logs exist. I wish I could upload my screenshots, but I’m not on desktop and cannot attach said screenshots.

EDIT: Clicking the link on the email left off the exclamation point, so I withdraw the Draft talk page from the deleted pages in question. My apologies--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Harmony944 indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:6FA0:1930:94AF:6635:49FC:69CD reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: blocked 36 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding inappropriate external links on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Adding spam links on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"


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

Blocked for 36 hours, but I note that the page has been targeted before by another IP, potentially related so it might need to be semi protected if this continues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Article has been semi protected now for three days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jawadmdr reported by User:Jibran1998 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "We have already decided after duniya News survey that only survey will be added after Talk page disscussion. This survey is not reliable and I have already challenged this on talk page. Wait for concensus"
 * 2)  "Read the link that states sampling method. Only 56 districts out of 350 and random interviews. Not a professional survey"
 * 3)  "Dont include a media based survey. It clearly states that random people were asked. Opinion survey conducted by a authentic survey organisation with a strata based sample be included only"
 * 1)  "Dont include a media based survey. It clearly states that random people were asked. Opinion survey conducted by a authentic survey organisation with a strata based sample be included only"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

persistent edit warring since last night, even though administrator allowed the survey in question to be added to [Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018


 * A game is being played by three politically motivated users Jibran, Masterpha and wikiohlic they edit back to back to add pro PTI blog / controversial surveys. Let Talk page discussion to decide the merits of survey for inclusion. I have started a talk page new section since yesterday. Jawadmdr (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Jawadmdr is wrong. Despite already having been blocked 1 day for similar editing warring he continues to do the same. Here is another diff where he reverts our edits: As for the three editors being politically motivated, I would like to remind him that I was the one who added the previous surveys which were in PMLN’s favour, showing double digit leads. The only political motivation is coming from you, who insisted on adding a biased lead which would put the article in favour of PMLN, as well as changing the graph to show an old, outdated revision from march which would still show the pmln far ahead. маsтегрна таLк  12:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  he says ‘see talk page’ despite there being no consensus for the poll being removed on the talk page. He has clearly violated the 3RR against edit warring. And if you are wondering how I got to this edit war report, I was checking his user contributions to see whether he had once again disrupted the page. That is how serious this disruption is.  маsтегрна  таLк  12:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Masterpha See talk page initiative by me to resolve the issue and  and discuss instead of trapping in 3R using 3 accounts. I can file SPI like you did and failed. Jawadmdr (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This user is solely on Wikipedia (by seeing his edits history) to edit these two articles relating to Pakistani General Elections and even after an administrator allowed for a survey to be added to a article (btw the survey was published by SDPI whose previous surveys were added to the article), but because he did not like the survey he does not want it to be added, even though according to his own argument (about number of constituencies surveyed) almost every survey then should not be added. - Jibran1998 (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * go ahead. File the SPI. I did not use three accounts, it is just that you are insistent on a POV push, which is why your edits are being reverted. I do not feel threatened by that because I know that I am not sockpuppeteering and am certain that a check user on all three accounts will produce different results. Unlike you I do not use open proxies to duck my way out of SPI’s. Anyway that investigation is over now. The talk page discussion you initiated is great: but wait for support until you delete a poll which is backed by most editors and admins on the article. маsтегрна  таLк  14:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Until 01:00 UTC 25 July 2018. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Usualzukor reported by User:CommanderOzEvolved (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 851424472 by CommanderOzEvolved (talk)  I added a comment there on the talk page. Size of the material is never justification for keeping it. In fact, here the very *vastness* of this WP:OR, off topic, fanboy digression screams that much louder for it's immediate purging -- then it's discussion. You need to provide good *secondary* sources that actually makes such analysis to replace this material."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 851423949 by 2Memphis (talk)  undid unexplained revert."
 * 3)  "Doesn't work that way. There's simply more explanation of the deficiencies there on the talk page. Removed unduly large segment which is wholly off topic. Vast tracts of text devoted to decades of arcane pre-production details of OTHER movies is not standard for articles about movies, and is completely unnotable. This WP:OR makes it's own analysis from primary sources. Notability (and includability) can only be demonstrated via secondary sources that provide the connection and conclusions."
 * 4)  "/* Background */ Removed unduly large segment which is wholly off topic, unnotable.  See talk page about this too."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Wonder Woman (2017 film). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is removing an entire section and 3 different editors have reverted it. That user kept removing the entire section regardless. CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log) 06:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Accuser made no attempt to resolve the matter on the talk page before accusations and this (rapid!) escalation. Accuser seems to think that size of material is justification for inclusion (needs some remedial training?).  The size of the material here is the main problem.  Large tracts of off topic WP:OR needs attention and discussion, not summary replacement followed by threats and power games.  This is run of the mill bold-revert-discuss stuff.  Usualzukor (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, oops. But I would now like to add further points.
 * Firstly, many of the sources I checked in the affected section are NOT original research, which complies with WP:OR, in fact some of them are published in notable sites such as The Huffington Post and The Hollywood Reporter.
 * Secondly, I noticed that many of the source sites are archived for preservation reasons. That got me thinking whether you might have misread "archived from original" as original research when hovering over the links with the mouse. Maybe not but that's a possibility.
 * Thirdly, deleting over 23000 bytes of data without prior consensus will cause issues, especially when re-doing it after it got reverted by 3 different editors.
 * Other users mistook what you did for vandalism and so did I (and the Special:AbuseLog that tagged your edits as such), but I'm now thinking that you may just be going too overboard when removing content. Thus, don't blank whole sections abruptly but take other approaches to remove offending sources wherever found, and preferably in a way that doesn't draw controversy. CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log) 07:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, "3 different editors" was an undue and too-early characterization. One of them (2Memphis) was "suspiciously-new" and who's revert had no explanation (such a revert makes it look like someone could be trying to fake a consensus).  The last "two" took place within just a few minutes.  The only editor (of the "three") to actually care that I reverted them (w/ detailed justifications) was you.  That ain't no consensus.  :-)
 * It takes time to see the formation of either 1) a balanced congenial discussion, or 2) an actual vituperous edit war. A few ordinary bold-revert cycles is too early to justify your escalations IMHO.
 * You say you're concerned mostly about vandalism. Sounds good to me.  Let me suggest that an occupational hazard of that specialty is that everything looks like a nail.  In the future, please examine the fuller picture more carefully before going forward with that confirmation bias.    Usualzukor (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The reverting has stopped and discussion transferred over to the talk page, so I'm going to close this now with a reminder that you should always do this instead of getting into revert wars. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Minimumbias reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Both warned)
Page: Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

User being reported: Minimumbias

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:

Comments: Edits were made to move around other people's talk page comments which was contested and reverted, editor has persisted. Very grateful for this to be resolved by neutral administration. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to invite any administrator who is responsible for this case to see what is really going on in this Talk Page [] and possibly some older discussions in detail. This editor (OnetwothreeIP) had repeated made personal remarks and even personal attacks towards me. Now, the initial undones were due to OnetwothreeIP on my edits without providing any explanations. I have tried to avoid edit war even before OnetwothreeIP threatened to report here, as one can see clearly in history []. Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Accusations of personal attacks on my part are complete nonsense, User:Minimumbias has literally accused me of libel which is very concerning per WP:No legal threats and other personal remarks and suggestions about me personally. I believe I asked them to not be so hostile, and that was considered by them as a personal attack. Those issues are completely separate to this issue.
 * My undo-ing of their edits was explained both in edit summary and in the talk page. As the procedure dictates, I said to User:Minimumbias that I wanted to discuss the issue before reporting them here, but they said I should report them here anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

__________________

I suggest people directly look at the evidence in []. Also, I have another editor User:StanLeeP who testified in that talk page and whose words objectively supported my actions and behavior. To be objective, I had displayed the complete editing timeline in [], as one can easily verify from the editing history of the Talkpage.

What I did was combining some sections with similar topics without altering at all the content or order of discussions - in fact, I am one of few main participants in each of this section. However, editor Onetwothreeip's central point is that I had "no permission sought to change others' talk page entries, changing/deleting headlines (undoing)"/"You do not have the permission of the editor who made the heading". I had referred this editor repeatedly to the relevant Wikipedia policies that there is no such thing called "permission" when it comes to merging similar topics and modifying headings (especially when there are duplicated discussions), but was ignored. On the other hand, Onetwothreeip had offended editor StanLeeP by leaving out or misplacing StanLeeP's discussion with me. The Wikipedia policies I'd consulted in Talk page guidelines include:

''Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.''

''Avoid posting the same thread in multiple talk pages: This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link. If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and link to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why.''

''The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.'' Minimumbias (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not my "central point" to this edit warring notice at all. I thought you would use that very new user who agrees with you on everything. The moving around talk page entries by Minimumbias was very odd and unnecessary so I restored them to the best of my ability. The problem is that they could not accept their moving around talk entries was disputed and engaged in an edit war to try and keep them, not about what the guidelines say on moving talk page entries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * No, nobody "uses" me. Please do not use provocative language. And I don't know how you drew the conclusion that I agreed with Minimumbias on everything. I first expressed my concern on the Talk Page regarding summer policy which Minimumbias did not completely agree. I then offered my argument and discussed with Minimumbias further. Changes were then made to the article. Some time later Minimumbias invited back to the Talk Page on some other issues and we had some discussions. I only reported what I saw yesterday without favoring either party.StanLeeP (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

__________________

If it is possible, I'd like to countercharge editor Onetwothreeip for starting and engaging in edit war by violating the 3R Rule. This is why much earlier I stated in that Talk page ([]) that I'd report this editor here before he/she did. But it turns out he/she was faster in his/her action. I have listed every details in the timeline in that Talk Page. But here is the complete reverting timeline:

1) First revert by Onetwothreeip at 22:41 and 22:47 on 21 July 2018‎: []. No explanation given in edit summary. During this process, Onetwothreeip left out or misplaced my conversation with editor StanLeeP.

2) At 01:15 21 July 2018‎, I started to manually clean the chaos (this is not a revert, because editors StanLeeP and Onetwothreeip had made numerous edits before I did), explaining reasons and Wikipedia policies in all edit summaries. Second revert by Onetwothreeip at 01:22 and 01:23 on 22 July 2018: []. No explanation given in edit summary.

3) At 01:27, 22 July 2018‎, I reverted for the first time Onetwothreeip's unexplained reverts in 2). At 01:29, 22 July 2018, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit for the third time: []. No explanation given in edit summary. 4) At 01:32, 22 July 2018, I reverted for the second time Onetwothreeip's unexplained revert in 3), stating "Unexplained edit" in my edit summary. However, at 01:32, 22 July 2018‎, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit for the fourth time, violating the 3R rule: [].

5) At 01:33, 22 July 2018, I reverted for the third time Onetwothreeip's revert and made efforts to avoid edit war (e.g, in my further edit summaries I stated clearly "I'd like to make changes to avoid further edit war"). Minimumbias (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries are not compulsory, they are optional. "Unexplained edit" has never been a good reason to make an edit on its own. Even still I explained my edits in the talk page. I'm not sure why you're claiming you wanted to avoid an edit war, when I asked that we discuss the matter you said I should just report you anyway, so I did. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Minimumbias and User:Onetwothreeip are both warned. Either of them may be blocked if they touch or relocate any other editors' comments on the talk page without first getting a general consensus for a rearrangement. The edit warring policy applies in full force to article talk pages. As it states in WP:REFACTOR, . EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree with this. It was my understanding that contentious talk page move-arounds were reverted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:Dilpa kaur (Result: Warning, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

'''This page is subject to 1RR: I also see no attempt to resolve the issue on Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir. This user has already been warned for edit warring here recently.''' Dilpa kaur (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Reverting obvious vandalism (by a clear sock) is WP:NOT3RR
 * Plus there is more to See User_talk:DBigXray -- D Big X ray  08:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * IP hopping socks luring experienced editors to violate 1RR violation? Try again. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What DBigXray is falsely calling vandalism were quite reasonable and policy-grounded edits by the IP. There is also no evidence that the IP editor is a sock. Even if it was, there is no justification for DBigXray's revert of meaningful edits. I see that DBigXray has come to the talk page (but with a loaded question) after I filed this report. This may be WP:GAMING to avoid sanctions. I would also recommend a block for DBigXray's friend Accesscrawl (an account registered 7 months ago but quite familiar with an old sockmaster from before his time/with language resembling a topic-banned user) for this incivility. Dilpa kaur (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly User:Mfarazbaig had used Karachi, Sindh IPs. thats where these IPs above geolocate to as well. CUs dont publicly connect IPs to IDs.
 * Secondly; Yes, of course. lets believe (instead of blocking) all the the Socks from the SockFarm Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital and start blocking all editors on their hit list. Way to go.
 * Thirdly, Based on your own contribution history, I have this opinion that your only purpose here is to participate in meat puppetry by supporting Pakistani POV in controversial articles and filing reports. -- D Big X ray   10:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: DBigXray warned for 1RR violation. That editor's claim to be reverting vandalism makes no sense. Also, I have semiprotected the page for three months. When IPs write edit sophisticated summaries it makes me think that some kind of campaign might be going on. I notice that User:Dilpa kaur, the filer of this report, was reported at ANI back in February for concerns related to their Kashmir editing. No action was taken at that time. But if it seems that some editors are not able to edit neutrally on the topic of Kashmir, sanctions are possible under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Miss HollyJ reported by User:TheDoctorWho (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:54, 22 July 2018‎
 * 2) 00:39, 23 July 2018‎
 * 3) 00:48, 23 July 2018‎
 * 4) 00:53, 23 July 2018‎
 * 5) The following revert was a partial revert completed in three parts:
 * 6) 03:27, 23 July 2018‎
 * 7) 03:31, 23 July 2018‎
 * 8) 03:32, 23 July 2018‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:55, 23 July 2018‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No official discussion took place on the article talk page however, a discussion took place in edit summaries and in this section on a user talk page regarding the material in question.

Comments:

also left a notice regarding the same material on the user's talk page (seen in this diff) which was reverted by the user prior to the fifth revert. The Doctor Who (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm following Wikipedia's guidelines on proper sourcing. Recaps are not considered reliable sources when it comes to talking about a controversy with the public, which I have informed you multiple times. I asked you to provide the "media coverage" you speak of and still haven't done so. I added an actual reliable source, The Washington Post. Miss HollyJ (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Miss HollyJ, even if you disapprove of the sources that User:TheDoctorWho wants to use, this is not a big enough concern to allow you to revert without penalty per WP:3RRNO. Normally, agreement on quality of sources is reached through discussion among editors. There may still be time for you to back away from the situation. Otherwise, you could be blocked for WP:3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My edits were reverted 4 times by that user as well. I let them know that they can't use recaps as a source because all that they include are summaries of the episode which are already listed in the article under the episodes section. I read it and there is no mention whatsoever of controversy or criticism. I don't think that warrants a discussion on an opinion amongst editors when the facts show there is no proof in that source to back up their claims. I asked for the "press coverage" they talked about and still haven't been able to provide it. Miss HollyJ (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Miss HollyJ, unless you think you were undoing a BLP violation there is no exemption here for your reverts. Are you sure you won't take the deal, and agree to wait for consensus? EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I will agree to wait for a consensus before reverting any further, however, I stand by what I said. Miss HollyJ (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support block This user clearly had some kind of personal grudge against the paragraph that they kept on reverting. The user broke the 3RR rule by reverting the same edit 6 times. The user had no intentions of going to the talk page to discuss their edits, instead using the edit summary as way to express their anger. The user claimed that the paragraph wasn't controversial, however; it was featured in multiple articles online and in the show itself (which many users pointed out). After that didn't work, the user claimed that the sources weren't reliable. The sources were from Global Television Network and The Hollywood Reporter which are both reliable sources. On top of that, in another edit the user took out info that they said was a "personal opinion". The line was added to provide a neutral point of view, plus it has a reliable source in TMZ. Disruptive editing and 3RR. I do support a block. Computer40  «»  (talk)  22:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "This user clearly had some kind of personal grudge" No I did not. 1) That is your opinion and 2) I was never angry. And not once did I say Global wasn't a reliable source. I would love for you to pin point exactly where it is I said that. I said a recap isn't a reliable source no matter where it's from because all it is is a summary of the episode. Also, I never undid the sources that listed The Hollywood Reporter. I left that there. And finally, the article talking about Devin was used as a source on a line that said "Many came to the defense of the two" which is not accurate at all. That TMZ article only listed the personal opinion of one former houseguest, Devin. Miss HollyJ (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I also don't think you should be calling for unjustified bans given your reputation on Wikipedia. You've been blocked numerous times.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * I'm not a disruptive editor and haven't been blocked/banned once. Miss HollyJ (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because someone was blocked in the past doesn't mean they're not allowed an opinion. People don't get unblocked for doing the same thing wrong, which means understands what they did wrong in the past and in my opinion has done an exceptional job not making the same mistakes again. Pinging  who also reverted your removal to see if they have an opinion.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well given that their call to ban me included mostly lies about me, I don't think they have any credibility and I have the right to defend myself against baseless smears against my name. Miss HollyJ (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Computer40  «»  (talk)  00:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's extremely inappropriate to bring up in a noticeboard filing that has nothing to do with me. I have nothing to do with your edit warring. Computer40  «»  (talk)  00:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Stale. If I'd seen this report shortly after you reverted 5-6 times I would have blocked you; however, it is now 18 hours later and no further issues have arisen. Equally, however, if you continue to edit-war on this article you will be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Davidmholland reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), as ip
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  switched to new version
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)  after this report and notification on user talk

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and, and for the later version:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion about is ongoing at Talk:Coriolis_force, without input from this user.

Comments:

Not only edit warring, but also adding obvious original research to the article. - DVdm (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Hairy Dude (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 15:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC) The reverts were actually undos with one intermediate edit, so this is not the exact version reverted to.

Diffs of the user's reverts: The last two edits above are self-reverts so don't count towards 3RR.
 * 1) 01:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC) standard undo edit summary, no further explanation
 * 2) 03:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC) "There are no fucking guidelinbes, it's whatever works, and this works better"
 * 3) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) standard undo edit summary
 * 4) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) rollback
 * 5) 07:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) self-revert: "Wrong button pushed, and corrected. The other method makes columns which are too far about from each other, and therfore do not read as two parts of a single list. THis technique is better."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC) removed by User:Beyond My Ken 07:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) "rev MOS foolishness"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is primarily a conduct dispute. BMK was invited to explain their reverts on talk but did not. Discussion was attempted on BMK's talk page, but proved fruitless as he refused to even tolerate the presence of my comment.

Comments: BMK is displaying a shocking lack of civility in using profanity, not providing meaningful edit summaries, not discussing on talk when invited to do so, and removing talk page comments. He also displays contempt for consensus-based editing guidelines. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I had a frustrating interaction with this same editor just a few days ago concerning edits to Bellows Falls, Vermont. Beyond My Ken began an edit war over edits made to align the article with policies and guidelines.  Beyond My Ken left this message on my talk page stating they were "pig ignorant" to policies and guidelines.  Discussions can be found at User talk:Magnolia677 and User talk:Beyond My Ken.  Thank you!  Magnolia677 (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – I'm not sure this was a 3RR violation. BMK reverted you twice, then accidentally reverted you with Twinkle vandalism rollback, self-reverted to go back and use the regular undo function (self-reverts are exempt from 3RR), and finally reverted you again. I think that only counts as 3 reverts. Whether any action or discussion or anything else needs to take place though is another question. You may prefer to take this dispute to ANI instead, as it involves more than one issue. Linguist un Eins uno (Linguist111) 12:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not alleging a 3RR violation. I thought I'd included a note to that effect, but apparently not. I've added it now. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment #4 and #5 is a self-revert edit and you can see WP:3RRNO so BMY did not violate 3RR rules Hhkohh (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

User:99.230.105.217 reported by User:Strikerforce (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "no need to merge"
 * 2)  "Do not merge"
 * 1)  "Do not merge"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lexus India. (TW)"
 * 2)   Warned for removal of maintenance templates, with specific reference to previous warnings for 3RR yesterday
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion is ongoing on the article's talk page with no input thus far from this IP user.


 * Comments:

While the 3RR has not yet been violated with regard to the merge tag, this same IP user removed a (properly placed, in my opinion) redirect tag on the article less than five days ago. Striker force Talk 19:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP editor is warned they may be blocked if they remove the merge tag again. If you disagree with the merge, you should participate in the discussion at Talk:Lexus India. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment IP editor has now made a third and fourth revert, post-warnings.  Striker force Talk 13:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's a third revert post-warning. The same diff is listed twice in the revert list. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I will remove the duplicate. Striker force Talk 14:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours, since they continued after the warning. I have no idea whether the merge should be done, but they shouldn't be removing the banner that links to the merge discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Dbcnmlanl reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked indefinitely.)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added FEARCE"
 * 2)  "fixed"
 * 3)  "ADDED FEARCE - HAS laur status"
 * 4)  "adding the new FEARCE code description - LAURs have been issued"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Copying from public domain sources without attribution. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on KIVA (software). (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * The edit-warring was not the only problem: there was also copyright problem, promotional editing, editing with a conflict of interest, and failure to take any notice whatever of messages expressing concerns. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Qexigator reported by User:The Vintage Feminist (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) New sub-section added (with bare url links as refs) "Connected legislation" (diff A)
 * 2) Sub-heading made into a main heading (diff B)
 * 3) Expanded sub-heading "Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" (diff C)
 * 4) Additional paragraph added to sub-section "Post-act events" (diff D)
 * 5) Diff 1 of the user's reverts
 * 6) Diff 2 of the user's reverts
 * 7) Diff 3 of the user's reverts
 * 8) Diff of user merrily carrying on regardless (diff E)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Diffs A, B, C and D are a series of edits by Qexigator which I think adds undue weight to two additional pieces of legislation. Diffs A, B and C are essentially two stubs about two other pieces of legislation. Diff D includes a wikilink for the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill and a wikilink for the Trade Bill both link to the section created in diffs A, B and C.

In my revert I left the additional paragraph added in diff D but removed the sub-section "Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" as it was overkill. After his first revert (Diff 1 of the user's reverts) I reverted saying that - including the additional legislation was not a problem but the paragraph was enough of a mention and diff. Since then he keeps reverting saying that I must desist missiing the point of this revision and that TVF can create articles per own advice.

Qexigator has also added this diff to the article's talk page stating Why not cool off, TVF, pause awhile, reflect, and avoid intervening disruptively as if there is a problem, where there is none. He goes on to say, ...the edsum explains sufficiently what will be self-evident to a visiting reader concerned with this topic: ... unlike TVF's incomplete and unhelpfullly repeated: ... he then goes on to quote me – except it is not me! The quote is which he mentions is nothing to do with me, it is his own work (diff D).

He also removed the 3RR warning template which I added and replaced it with the same Why not cool off, TVF... post diff. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * No reverts for 24 hours, and discussion is being thrashed out on talk. To be honest, I don’t think protection or blocks are going to be useful here. If you can’t come to an agreement, try the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. (As someone with a strong view on Brexit and related topics, I’m probably not best placed to try and adjudicate the content). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Constance1929 reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "incorrect information, not cited"
 * 2)  "removed: this is a resume, self promotional"
 * 3)  "speedy deletion: self promotional, not notable"
 * 4)  "removed: no source information on this"
 * 5)  "source link expired - no source"
 * 6)  "removed, no source"
 * 7)  "/* Recent work */ no source, out of date information"
 * 8)  "/* Speedy deletion nomination of JonathanTwingley */"
 * 9)  "←Replaced content with ' JonathanTwingley '"
 * 10)  " JonathanTwingley "
 * 1)  "removed, no source"
 * 2)  "/* Recent work */ no source, out of date information"
 * 3)  "/* Speedy deletion nomination of JonathanTwingley */"
 * 4)  "←Replaced content with ' JonathanTwingley '"
 * 5)  " JonathanTwingley "


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikibossmaninit reported by User:Smartin Mellner (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Possible sockpuppet of User:Jonadabsmith. Ad hominem attacks and edit warring, attempts to promote obscure political activist Luke Nash-Jones. Smartin Mellner (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The name Smartin Mellner is a reference to Martin Sellner, who leads a white supremacist outfit Generation Identity that failed to launch in the UK and is known for aggression towards Nash-Jones. Clearly, "Smartin Mellner" has taken offence to this accurate sentence, and seeks to censor the truth:

"However, he is despised by the actual far-right, for his objection to their calls for an 'ethnostate' white homeland." [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibossmaninit (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The draft has been declined as it does not have appropriate sources. I can’t offer any views on the content as I am not neutral; I despise Trump and can’t stand his annoying whine. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  06:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:24.172.13.66 reported by User:Billhpike (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:IRRELEVANT WP:IRI"
 * 2)  "Removing unnecessary information about the school from the history section"
 * 3)  "/* History */  removing unnecessary content from the history section of the school page"
 * 4)  "editing history"
 * 5)  "Editing history"


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


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


 * Comments:

School IP — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If the IP user won't respond, it may be best to restore the school block. The IP was blocked for as much as two years in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Another IP has made substantially similar edits, so I've also posted at WP:RFPP. I still think that this IP deserves a long term school block. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * for 1 month by Dlohcierekim. DrKay (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:72.33.2.25 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* In the media */ completely unsourced"
 * 2)  "/* In the media */ revised juvenile wording"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 851775621 by ClueBot NG (talk) rv false positive"
 * 4)  "/* In the media */ rm unsourced cruft"
 * 1)  "/* In the media */ rm unsourced cruft"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Not at 3RR, but disruptive and aggressive edit warring behavior by likely IP sock of an experienced user.

IP links to a school, due to wording used in edit summaries here and familiarity with warnings and policy (see what was left on my talk page here and what was said here as well as at the same AfD here), user is obviously not a newbie and probably has an account but is choosing not to use it. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * for 48 hours by MelanieN. DrKay (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:70.114.222.190 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: 60 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 851876722 by Crboyer (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 851876619 by Crboyer (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 851876546 by Donner60 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 851876476 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 851876303 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 851876277 by Crboyer (talk)"
 * 7)  "Removing entire section due to proof of relevance. A single person throwing a tantrum on twitter and tabloid trash running with it to "generate" a click bait headline isn't a controversy."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * by Mz7. DrKay (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Briancua (Result: Warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Knights_of_Columbus
 * 2) Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Knights_of_Columbus
 * 3) Talk:Knights_of_Columbus

Comments: This is an issue that has gone on for several months. I thought it was resolved, but then it flared back up again. Contaldo80 has placed scare quotes around the phrase "culture of life" because he says it "is not a real thing" on both the article about the Knights of Columbus and the daughter article about their political activity. When this first happened, I opposed it, as did Lionel. After the issue resurfaced and discussing it on talk was unsucessful, I requested a third opinion.

Two other editors weighed in, both of them arguing that the scare quotes should be removed. On the basis of this, I removed them in both articles. Contaldo subsequently reinsterted them in both articles. He was reverted by Work Permit on the main article, and by me on the political article. He placed them back into the political article. Rather than continue to edit war, I am submitting the matter here. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * . DrKay (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Knson1 reported by User:DrKay (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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: Talk:George II of Great Britain

Comments:

There are five reverts if we include the logged out edit, four if we don't. DrKay (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:koavf reported by User:TheSnowyMountains (Result: Warned)
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:  

Comments: This editor has maintained a stance that every single movie article on wikipedia is formatted incorrectly and has tried to push his agenda by edit warring on these two pages for months: Thoroughbreds (2017 film) and Mother! This is despite the fact he has been unable to find one editor to agree with his edits on the talk page and despite the fact that movie articles that he claims are formatted incorrectly have been listed as featured articles, which are considered the best articles wikipedia has to offer. When asked why he doesn't edit other movie articles to reflect how he feels all movie articles should be formatted, his response is that he doesn't have the time to do so even though he's had the time to engage in edit wars on these two pages for months. His repeated reversions are in violation of the page's consensus and there is no precedent for his repeated edits on any other movie article. TheSnowyMountains (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I side with Koav here. The wrestling articles about events like Summerslam and Wrestlemania include spoilers. Besides, the lead it is important to summarize the article even if it gives 'too much away' (which is not a clear line). You pointed out articles, I can point to a lot of articles where the lead gives the spoilers away. Please respect Koavf's edits and know they are within policy. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that the format of the articles are better one way than the other. That's not the issue here. What I'm arguing is that this user is violating multiple wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding edit warring, the three-revert rule, disruptive editing, and adhering to the talk page's consensus. If he wants to argue that every wikipedia film article is wrong, there are places he needs to discuss that and obtain consensus rather than engaging in edit wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the nature of the edit warring is relevant to the discussion. I will step out of this debate now . JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

User:TheSnowyMountains, do you want to check the "diff of 3RR warning" link again? And are you sure you want to post this since you're the IP editor as well and your account is exclusively used to edit war and remove notices from your talk? I'll post an RfC for this. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you've just made multiple false accusations about me I am sure I want to leave this as it is and let the admins deal with your clear edit warring and three-revert rule violations.TheSnowyMountains (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The report is stale, but I am not impressed with Koavf abusing rollback and have warned him of this. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:97.122.171.91 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop."
 * 2)  "/* YouTube */Added truth"
 * 3)  "Come on, if it can say at top of National Review it’s conservative, how is this any different?"
 * 4)  "Added important info"
 * 1)  "Come on, if it can say at top of National Review it’s conservative, how is this any different?"
 * 2)  "Added important info"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Vox (website). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

There's now another revert, done after having been notified of this 3RR report. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Учхљёная reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 852108683 by Учхљёная (talk): Still acting as a state symbol; RV per dishonest and inconsistent summaries. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 852107870 by ScrapIronIV (talk) RV per dishonest and inconsistent edit summary; no evidence of copyriğt provided, work falls under protection of article 1259 of Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation No. 230-FZ of December 18, 2006."
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 851992991 by Учхљёная (talk). (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 851846887 by Учхљёная (talk). (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Copyright violation on Long Live our State. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Long Live our State. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring to include copyrighted lyrics to the article. As this was not a state anthem, but a proposed (and rejected) anthem, the Berne conventions rules apply, and is copyrighted until 50 years after the author's death. My reversions are exempt per WP:3RRNO #5.  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * . I'm annoyed. You see that section marked "diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" that has nothing in it? That's where you could have explained why Учхљёная's edits were unquestionable and unambiguous copyvios (and remember that WP:3RRNO says you shouldn't rely on this exemption to give you a licence to edit-war). As I see it, the text was in there for two years (that doesn't make it okay, but at least makes it a grey area), and another editor previously wrote "Seriously, this song is NOT copyrighted. It's from a DEAD country. 1943. Really? It's open source because it's under the copyright act of the Russian Federation." So I've protected, which forces you to go to the talk page and discuss. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:75.102.250.54 reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852118861 by 64.124.20.194 (talk) reverted vandalism WP:NPOV"
 * 2)  "fixed writing style"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 852110176 by Ktrimi991 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 852080148 by Flyer22 Reborn (talk)"
 * 5)  "removed original research, unsourced content, and WP:NPOV"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 852034394 by 2605:A601:54A8:39:8E3:63D3:C78E:7F91 (talk)"
 * 7)  "removed original research, primary sourcing, and WP:NPOV"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 852000701 by 2605:A601:54A8:39:D59B:6A54:8139:3927 (talk) advice from one artist to another: instead of watching your wikipedia pages, work on ya craft. and be honest with people."
 * 1)  "removed original research, primary sourcing, and WP:NPOV"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 852000701 by 2605:A601:54A8:39:D59B:6A54:8139:3927 (talk) advice from one artist to another: instead of watching your wikipedia pages, work on ya craft. and be honest with people."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I asked them on their talk page to give their rationale on the article's talk page, and wait for comments by other editors. They placed a comment, but did not wait for consensus and rv again twice. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I also warned the 64.124.20.194 IP because it is warring against the reported IP on The Book of Daniel (album), Danny! and Where Is Danny?. The 75.102.250.54 IP stopped editing after this report, and another IP of the same IP range started to continue reverting . Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The 64.124.20.194 IP is continuing warring even after my warning. Maybe both need to be blocked. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your response here was deleted. Danny! and Where Is Danny? need semi-protection as well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * . Semi-protected for 3 days. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have semiprotected the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:109.144.208.30 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852196579 by Nzd (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 852193913 by Nzd (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 852191678 by Spike 'em (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 852190591 by Nzd (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852190591 by Nzd (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

edit warring on recently unprotected page Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * and now they are edit-warring on this page. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * for disruptive editing Mz7 (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also semi-protected the article for 1 month. Mz7 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2409:4070:808:50ce:a8ed:6421:55ca:e9ea reported by User:Balagoovi (Result: Reporting user blocked)
Page: User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anand_Neelakantan&diff=852169369&oldid=842614692 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anand_Neelakantan&diff=852169430&oldid=852169406 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anand_Neelakantan&diff=852169477&oldid=852169463 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anand_Neelakantan&diff=852169545&oldid=852169513 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balagoovi (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

User:Bonadae and user:Bonadeaphone are disruptive editors


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   11:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

User:RagaBhakta reported by User:Kishfan (Result: Warned)
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: [diff]

Comments: This user is doing persistent edit war on so many pages including Mohammed Rafi, Christianity in Kerala etc.-Kishfan (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . I note than none of the editors posted to the article talk pages. DrKay (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:81.159.197.137 reported by User:Money emoji (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852136259 by KNHaw (talk) What on earth? Can a moderator please take a look at this? KNHaw? No wonder your page says "semi-retired" I think you need to retire for good."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 852135951 by Money emoji (talk) Why would I bring it up on your talk page? You are not a moderator. You are a community activist (I've looked at your page). I already have spoke with a moderator on the matter and I believe the issue was I didn't reference properly. I find it funny how you're dodging the question I put to you on Peter Hawking's qualifications and trying to lead me down a rabbit hole. NOW STOP THE CAPS"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 852135491 by Money emoji (talk) The fact they "brought it up on Quora" has no relevance. This man, Peter Hawkins, spent 3/4 years of his life studying this at one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Do you refuse to acknowledge that? My other source was actually based on public feedback as well and if you actually take part in the poll most actually define it as more left than "left of centre""
 * 4)  "Undid revision 852135039 by Money emoji (talk) This is absolutely bonkers. I think someone with a degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from Oxford University is far more qualified to speak on this matter than you'll ever be."


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

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


 * Comments:

He's been repeatedly asked to bring up the changes on the talk page, and claims (is lying) that he talked it out with a "moderator" and everything is ok. For the record, I agree with him, but he's not using reliable sources. <b style="color:#060">💵Money💵emoji💵</b> 💸 21:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * by Ronhjones . DrKay (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Dael4 reported by User:Power~enwiki (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2018-07-27 00:27
 * 2) 2018-07-26 21:14
 * 3) 2018-07-26 20:33
 * 4) 2018-07-26 16:59

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

A very, very long-running edit war; I've brought it to the attention of WP:NPOV/N. Dael4 has crossed 3RR but other actions may be necessary to solve this dispute. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * When a bunch of people gang up on one party in undemocratic fashion then the warring stipulation should be put on them. I am one against many Dael4 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "One against many" and "undemocratic" are contradictions in terms here. You are trying to impose your will on a wiki page over the objections of others. You are in fact the one attempting to do an end-run around democracy.  Nevermore27  (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Two members of this edit war recently engaged in a similar and recent combative edit war in Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018, specifically User:Nevermore27  (note combative messages)     and User:Anticitizen 98. Anticitizen 98 was already warned on their talk page by an administrator for that edit war, and again by me for starting to edit war in the Ohio 2018 election article. Although it appears as though Anticitizen 98 decided to continue to engage anyway. Dael4 is probably a case of WP:CIR. The only user who attempted any sort of compromise was the reporter, User:Power~enwiki --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this is relevant to the current discussion. I've been on the receiving end of these edit wars, not the instigating side.  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours by Enigmaman . There was a clear breach by User:Dael4, who was lucky to escape being blocked. Any continuation of the previous behavior after the expiry of protection will result in a block. DrKay (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2409:4070:808:50CE:A8ED:6421:55CA:E9EA reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

(Balagoovi (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852172004 by Bradv (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 852171894 by SA 13 Bro (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 852171676 by PlyrStar93 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 852171602 by PlyrStar93 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 852171561 by Bradv (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 852169966 by Balagoovi (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852169966 by Balagoovi (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852169966 by Balagoovi (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852169966 by Balagoovi (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852169966 by Balagoovi (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

user:Bonadae and user:Bonadeaphone are desruptive ediotrs
 * Comments:


 * . Balagoovi blocked. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jamie.green.75 reported by User:Schistocyte (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852274591 by Schistocyte (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 852274335 by XYZtSpace (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 852274237 by XYZtSpace (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 852274017 by XYZtSpace (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Wreake Valley Academy. (TW)"


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

Update: The user is engaging in active edit warring. They are clearly aware of this because they deleted the warnings from their talk page then went ahead to revert again  and again  without an explanation.  — Schistocyte  ( talk ) 20:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . Both User:Jamie.green.75 and User:XYZtSpace have broken 3RR and the latter seems to have misused rollback as the edits are not obviously covered by Rollback. There is no discussion on the article talk page. I have blocked Jamie.green.75 for refusing to engage in discussion and ignoring warnings, and have revoked XYZtSpace's rollback user right. XYZtSpace did try to engage in discussion and posted to the user talk page, but should not have continued to revert or rollback when the inserted material was not obvious vandalism. DrKay (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Cirflow reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Other edit-warring blocks?:
 * 1) 4 times blocked for edit warring

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - (he just left a WP:JDL one-liner, going against what Doug, me, and Wikaviani have said to him on many occassions.[] He continued to edit-war, a mere three minutes after .)

Comments:

"Cirflow" is a long-term WP:TENDENTIOUS editor as he 1) constantly adds unsourced content 2) constantly adds content accompanied by non-RS sources (such as blogspots) 3) is very fond of edit-warring 4) ignores warnings as much as he can, including those given by veteran users/admins. We could literally file ten ANI reports about his disruptive editorial pattern, but this primarily limits itself to the rampage he's causing on the Artsruni dynasty articles, just one of the many articles in question. On this very page, as we speak, he's edit warring against me, and. All three of us have warned him numerous times, and have expressed numerous times that he can't add the content, as the sources are not reliable. To no avail.

Some of the warnings given by Doug, me and Wikaviani: -------

Looking at the compelling evidence and the overal editorial pattern, its safe to say that this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. Has been editing on Wiki for 4 years (which he even proudly proclaims), but he absolutely doesn't care about Wiki's policies and guidelines. God knows how many articles have been disrupted by him in these past few months/years. Even after getting blocked on no less than 4 occassions for edit-warring, he still doesn't care. Its unfortunate, but more than enough rope has been given and literally dozens of "final chances". - LouisAragon (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If you look at the edit history of my edits to Artsruni, You will see in most/all of my reverts I adjust the content to fit consensus- they are not full reverts. I removed the 1544 date as discussed in chat by Dough Weller, but all the other 800 characters of content is cited by Simonian and an Anthropologist yet you still say it is not reliably sourced while simultaneously give no justification as to how that even is! You have no right to remove well cited content and doing so is against wikipedia policy and so my reverts are justified in this case. Additionally, I still never broke 3RR as it was outside of the 24 hour range. User:Doug_Weller needs to come and back me up! Cirflow (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Another revert, as we speak. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Still outside of 3RR, and still cited content that is backed by reliable sourcing that you continue to criticize and consider unreliable despite there being no proof of that being the case. If you look at the chat, you will see I am adhering to consensus with Dough Weller, but unfortunately -You- refuse to compromise and continue to accuse me of Vandalism and article disruption!Cirflow (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, you're talking about the 3RR as if this allowed you to edit war. I took the time to explain you on your talk page that edit warring does not mean a 3RR breach and i even posted a link pointing to the paragraph about this on your talk page :, however, you keep going on with your disruptive edits. Therefore, i would say that is right. You seem to have serious WP:CIR issues ...---Wikaviani (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

If anything you are the Incompetent one-WP:CIR. I have been working with Doug to adjust and find a viewable source but all you and Wikaviani do is delete my C I T E D revisions without legitimate justification. You are disruping the article with your tendentious levels of contempt for my edits.Cirflow (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: You also havent replied in the talk section I made about this little schism you made, proving that YOU are the defiant and obstructive one Louis!Cirflow (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * first, please learn to indent a thread properly. second, this "source" you try to include in the Artsruni dynasty article is just one example among many others that shows you need to read carefully what is considered a reliable source on Wikpedia (WP:RS).
 * For your information, when you have "wordpress" in an url this means your "source" is a blog and therefore completely unreliable for us on this community encyclopedia. Doug Weller and Louis Aragon repeatedly explained you that Blogs, Facebook, etc are not considered reliable sources, but you keep going on and you dare qualifying your edits "C I T E D revisions", just incredible for an "experienced user" ...---Wikaviani (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The sole purpose of the Wordpress article is to back up the Simonian source, and besides, it is written by an expert and has college written academic material from Wayne State University in its makeup therefore making it reliable. The facebook thing was on a separate page and I removed it as per consensus and recognizing its invalidity. This still does not justify your removal of the Simonian citation, as well as the additonal material it backs up... you should self-revert so that you do not continue to be Tendentious editing as per the subsections under “Characteristics of Problem Editing”

“One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism.”

“One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources”

“One who reverts the pertinent cited additons of others”

User:Wikaviani, User:LouisAragon: You are violating all of these, as well as edit warring.

Cirflow (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In a rush, on iPad. I've got Simonian and it doesn't back your claim, see . This editor doesn't understand RS and misrepresents Sources. Doug Weller  talk 04:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, he also has a battleground mentality : .---Wikaviani (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You said in talk that the Simonian source stated that it was around the 1520s not 1544 and I did add that, what you are referring to in regards to “not backing my claim” are the prior edits which I personally remediated. I do understand reliable sources, I am a college student so of course I do as well.Cirflow (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I did not say that. I said Simonian's words were that "Hemshin was under Ottoman control in the 1520s" - he doesn't comment on the Artsruni dynasty so you can't use him as a source for its dissolution. Doug Weller  talk 07:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fine, at this rate ill just give up. Thanks for reverting my perfectly good, 863 character consensus bound edit about the line of Artsruni who ruled Hamamshen! At this rate Ill just go edit somewhere else im done here if even my well cited revision is being contested by everyone I quit.Cirflow (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You claimed the blog was originally published at a university which made it ok. That's too ambiguous to mean its reliably sourced, and in fact it's only a the first paragraph, in a different font, which says at the bottom "Published in Wayne State University". In fact even that's wrong, that paragraph is an abstract from here and the rest of the blog is just that, a blog post which says at the bottom "Accoring to the research by Vahan Ishkhanyan and my research". I'm beginning to think either you are very careless or are just copying sources from elsewhere without reading them yourself, as you did with Simonian. And at WP:RSN everyone who looked at the source and your text agreed that the source did not back your text. Doug Weller  talk 07:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * . Reported editor has agreed to stop editing the article of his own volition. As a complete outsider, I confirm that a source is inadequate if it does not explicitly support the claim made in the article. DrKay (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852121342 by Walter Görlitz (talk) unsourced, contradicts other sources and his own statements (which are sourced). Also, it's blatantly not true, FYI."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Mesut Özil. (TW)"

Talk:Mesut Özil/Archive 2, Talk:Mesut Özil/Archive 2, Talk:Mesut Özil/Archive 2
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Long-term edit war to censor referenced material. When the content was added, I verified the content, translating it from Turkish to English and verifying that the claims were substantiated. I was not able to verify whether the sources met WP:RS, but that does not seem to be the problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Previous diffs:   Zine is also busy on Seven Years' War, Dov Hikind and, well, everywhere else they're editing. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * . I have verified the content: the claim in the article is verifiable. I think the sources do meet the RS guideline, since one is Hürriyet and the other is Stewart Coggin (football writer for the London Standard). User:ZinedineZidane98 is therefore reminded that there are insufficient grounds to remove this material from the article, and it should not be removed until consensus changes. DrKay (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Drsopher reported by User:Slightlymad (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Links to cathy allyn page"
 * 2)  "/* Production */False information removed."
 * 3)  "/* Production */Bad information. The film’s UPM didnt quit. The source of the article corrected the facts on twitter."
 * 4)  "Added links"
 * 5)  "Links"
 * 1)  "Links"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has been adding link to an article that's being considered for deletion and removing reliably cited information, claiming it's false. I suspect that this editor is also closely associated to the subject (or being paid to edit the article) even though he/she denies this. Tks,  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * by Fish and karate . DrKay (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:SithLordSparklePants reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff 21:53, 26 July 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff  01:34, 27 July 2018
 * 2) diff 02:13, 27 July 2018
 * 3) diff 11:00, 27 July 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:UNC_Eshelman_School_of_Pharmacy

Comments:

This person says on their Userpage that they are Always proud #UNCAlumni! and that is clearly more important to them, than following our content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The last diff was reverted by someone reviewing a COI edit request that the person made after I explained how to do that. They added the content anyway after it was rejected. They are not over 3RR but the committment is clear. Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * These edits were reverted by Jytdog as the result of a COI detected by Jytdog. This COI is being resolved on the talk page, please see there. I did not fully understand the undo edit code and undid the undo's to correct this. This issue is being resolved. This conflict with Jytdog was posted on the Noticed board by SithLordSparklePants (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC). This is continued harassment due to an COI that is being managed. Yes, I have made mistakes in my editing, but as one can see this is an newer account and I am learning. I should not be banned by simply learning.
 * Everyone has to learn. Your first comment at the article talk page was an attack. You have not responded on your own talk page. You have been aggressively editing BOOSTER crap into our project. We call that not here to build an encyclopedia -- you obviously came here to promote your alma mater and thus yourself. This is what conflict of interest does to people.Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to mention this. Trying to work with you to get your COI managed is not "harassment". Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarity in your edits is always helpful and does not come in the form of repeatedly pasting tomes of wiki how tos. It is unclear how the external, non-UNC refs were BOOSTER. Please list BOOSTED 'crap' that was not well referenced, because it is unclear. COI disclosures are important, and this one is being managed. Being militant and harassing individuals because of a COI is not warranted. From the history page, it is clear that Spartan1977 was also aggressively edited by you without clarity as to the edits. This is a trend specifically on this page, which makes me concerned as to Jytdog has a COI or at least a bias regarding the entity that needs to disclosure. SithLordSparklePants (talk)


 * by Bbb23 for sock puppetry. DrKay (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:InterCity(IC) and User:Fisoz92 reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

Users being reported: and

A review of the recent page history will show the two users battling back and forth over the ethnic makeup of Hungary, each citing their own preferred sources.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warnings given to Fisoz72; warnings given to InterCity(IC).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: InterCity(IC) has tried to open communication but Fisoz92 has not engaged at Talk:Hungary. Fisoz92 has contacted me directly, claiming not to understand the problem. I am not personally involved in this conflict, and have no idea whether either of the users has a better case to make; I only know that they have both refused to engage in proper discussion to resolve the dispute and that both have not violated WP:3RR.

Comments:


 * respectively. I blocked InterCity(IC) for longer because he has been warned multiple times before and reverted again despite discussions here and elsewhere, whereas Fisoz92 is a new account. DrKay (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Fypgs reported by User:Editor abcdef (Result: 24 hours)

 * 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:
 * This user does not respond to any attempt at communicating with them. If they're not even responding to notices on their talk page any attempt to talk with them on these articles' talk pages would be futile.


 * Comments:

The user is repeatedly adding unsourced content and removing sourced ones without any explanation in the infoboxes of the Free Syrian Army, Southern Front, and Revolutionary Commando Army pages. They have been notified and warned multiple times, but there has been no attempt by them to respond to any of these. The disruptive editing of these pages continues. Editor abcdef (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DrKay (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:PinkAmpersand (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted edits by PinkAmpersand (talk) to last version by Jytdog"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 852300577 by PinkAmpersand (talk) don't edit war on a guideline. take it to talk."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 852300084 by PinkAmpersand (talk) this is a guideline not a niewspaper"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Their warning to me, which I hope should suffice


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


 * Comments:

I made what I felt to be an uncontroversial change to a guideline page, to incorporate a consensus from a past RfC that has never been formally solemnized in the guidelines. I am well aware that one must be careful when BOLDly editing a policy or guideline page, and if someone had reverted my edit and explained why, I was (and am) prepared to discuss the matter on talk. Jytdog reverted my edit with only the vague admonition that "this is a guideline not a niewspaper." I did not (and do not) see that as a clear objection to anything in my edit, and so I restored the content, with an edit summary asking for further clarification, and responding to my best guess at what they'd meant (that the RfC was a historical event, not a piece of guideline or policy). They simply reverted again, with their stated rationale being that I was edit-warring. I do not like to revert twice, but I also do not think it is fair for someone to be able to revert my addition without giving any clear reason why, despite being asked to, so I restored it again. They then left me an edit-warring warning, and promptly reverted again with rollback.

I am aware that, whatever Jytdog may have done, I reverted twice on a guideline page. If this boomerangs, so be it. But if they want to accuse me of edit warring, when they're the one who made the first and last revert, they're the one who never gave any clear explanation for any of their three reverts, they're the one who described it as an edit war literally while making a revert, and they're the one who used rollback in direct violation of the rollback guideline, then I think it's best that this be reviewed by an admin.

FWIW, I'm about to go to sleep, and upon awaking will be busy till about 8 PM Eastern tomorrow. I've said everything I have to say, though, so I accept whatever result may come of this. If that involves me getting blocked, feel free to increase the length by however many hours are between the time of the block and 8 PM, so that it can be preventative to the intended extent. (I know that that sounds sarcastic, but it isn't.)  — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000">( Je vous invite à me parler )  02:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * drama. just describe the change you want at WT:RS for pete's sake, and don't try to force a change to an essential guideline. This is not rocket science. I've self-reverted the rollback, which I should not have used, and properly reverted, giving yet more reasoning.  I opened the discussion on talk btw: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources. I do not believe pinkampersand intends to further force a change and has finally responded at the talk page, so this appears to be quite done. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Both editors' behavior was far from ideal but the mistakes were undone and discussion is now underway. DrKay (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:FindingTruth01 reported by User:Aspening (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reason: Transcript in citation contradicts all text written in this section. READ the source material everyone. The whole thing is twisted."
 * 2)  "Trolls keep adding (can play this game til eternity guys)"
 * 3)  "Incorrect"
 * 4)  "Removed incorrect partisan comments"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Kevin Sabet (HG) (3.4.3)"
 * 2)   "Level 2 warning re. Kevin Sabet (HG) (3.4.3)"


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


 * Comments:

This user has been deleting a cited section from Kevin Sabet for a while now, but this is the first time they have violated 3RR. Multiple patrollers have reverted them. I've tried to explain to the editor on their talk page that the info appears cited but they have continued to revert. Aspening (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . (The warnings in the initial 3rr report do not mention 3rr or edit-warring.) DrKay (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Lzzy303 reported by User:Jasmir54 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reversed to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=851672061

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Infobox removed
 * 2) Intro replaced with text with no proper sources and references
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communion_and_Liberation

Comments: The new user Lzzy303 keep spamming his reverting without source his changes in the infobox (that he removed without proper explanations, it's not enough what the official association website says, I answered on the talk page. Jasmir54 23:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not sure Lzzy303 is a sock puppet of or not. But i start to not assume good faith on  which falsely claim himself joined wikipedia many year ago but in meta:Special:CentralAuth/Jasmir54 shown it is not, as well as casually throw bare url to Communion and Liberation as citation to support the content. The article seem attacked by ip user to throw under quality accusation material, rather than quality verifiable material. Other user such as  (Talk:Communion and Liberation/Archive 1) also feel the article need cleanup.  Matthew_hk   t  c  01:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know why the user Matthew_hk keep stalking my edits, I always partecipated in the discussions in the Talk Pages and I properly motivated my edits with riliable sources of Italian News Papers like La Repubblica, La Stampa, etc, while the user Lzzy303 didn't. The User Matthew_hk is actually patrolling many Italian Banks pages (like Banco BPM, Banca Carige) and keeps mantaing the 3 decimals standard with point (after we talked in my talk page if it's possible to use more decimals because if you use exactly 3 decimals on the Italian Banks infoboxes, Italian people can actually misunderstand and read a much bigger value), but he stopped answering days ago in that discussion and he is keeping stalkering me instead, by the way it's his problem not mine. Jasmir54 04:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * And yes, I used to make few edits wikipedia without registering not long before weeks ago, it's not a violation. Have a nice day. Jasmir54 23:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not using socket puppets, hopefully the administrators can verify this, though I can understand why you have suspects, as I am siding with Lzzy303 (at least, so far). As for , I made a number of observations on the talk page, you're invited to read them. You can cite a good source, as a newspaper, but if the article states (for example) "the trial on banks was dismissed" (and I looked around and couldn't find any information on a re-opening of the trial) you cannot use it as base for a whole paragraph where you state as a fact that banks are under control. Similarly if a page is old, the trial went on and the verdict was changed, you cannot cite a reliable source reporting the first trial results as definitive and ignore the final trial. Moreover the official bibliography of the founder has at least a certain degree of historical accuracy. Similarly if an article on a newspaper contains an accusation, it's an accusation which may have some grounds, but it's not to be reported as a fact on wikipedia. I am honestly tired of user Jasmir54 saying "Your sources are not reliable" (all of them?) without any proper explanation or attempt to answer my questions (it's the only message he wrote, something like 10 times I believe), while I sometimes used the same articles as Jasmir54 only reading them (as for the banks case), other times citing official documents (for instance "The fraternity is recognized by the church" and cite a letter from the Pope, I cannot see a better citation for this). I could go on, but I believe a look at the talk page of the Communion and Liberation page would be better.GioA90 (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A small extra: I invite the administrators to read the "services" in the info box. As I stated in the talk page, such accusations should be extremely well documented, but they're stated as fact and without citation...GioA90 (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please proper source your edits. Have a nice day. Jasmir54 06:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As you can see that's the only statement he's throwing around, without arguments and completely ignoring any argumentation about how currently the citations are not properly used.GioA90 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * this is English wikipedia not Italian-language wikipedia, and even Italian had billion (miliardo), i don't understand the logic to replace billion with 1,000 million, given the first appearance of the word billion in the infobox was already link to short billion. Also, English use comma as separator not dot (i.e. in Italian it is 1.000,00 but in English it is 1,000.00) . Template:infobox company already suggested that not throwing too much significant figure. Lastly, it is you casually throw citation into the article that still not yet able to fully verify the accusation, but you chose to remove the maintenance template. (Special:Diff/850511692) Matthew_hk   t  c  11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * and i don't get the logic to remove the infobox from the article either. Special:Diff/851621751.  Matthew_hk   t  c  12:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As said, though I can see why it would seem like I'm their sock puppet, I'm not. I visited the Communion and Liberation page last week only to find that throughout the course of the past month, any information regarding the organization's history, mission, structure, and publications had been stripped from the page by and had been replaced with questionable criticism of the organization. I repeat, everything had been deleted from the article except for questionable information defaming the organization. As mentioned by GioA90, some of the criticism was presented as fact when the sources cited were speculative. Other criticism (for example, the 100 million budget) did not even have sources. Though there is definitely room to cover the criticism an organization has received, it's not right that the entirety of an organization's Wikipedia page be solely comprised of questionable criticism. That is clearly a biased move. Seeing I know a lot about this organization, I made a Wiki account to do some editing. At first, I added a section on the history of the organization, another on its structure and mission, and I deleted information that I thought was questionable or that didn't have any citations. Jasmir54 was quick to undo all of my edits over the weekend saying that my citations were not correct. I had cited Vatican documents, the organization's official website, the founder's official biography, and other publications concerning Communion and Liberation. Yesterday, I went back to reinsert the history section, the mission section, and more on the structure. I also created a "controversies" section where the criticism Jasmir54 so badly wants to display could go. My edits were marked as vandalism. The infobox was my bad; as I was trying to edit the wrong info it contained, I accidentally deleted it. However, I was reported before I even had the chance to figure out how to reinsert it. Bottom line is, Communion and Liberation is controversial in Italy. However, Wikipedia should be a platform where readers can have access to objective information. It's hardly fair to taint this organization's image in the English-speaking world because users like Jasmir54 are allowed to vandalize pages, stripping them of objective information and distorting the image of the object in question. Again, controversies and criticism should have their place in the article, but they should not comprise the entirety of the page, stripping readers of the possibility to find out more about the organization's background, history, mission, etc., and conditioning them to negative prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lzzy303 (talk • contribs) 2018-07-24T13:43:01 (UTC)


 * , it seem the report was not properly filled with exact revert and sign of warning given. And it definitely looks likes there is some meatsock in this edit warring, namely . Matthew_hk   t  c  17:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Jasmir54 23:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * And it seem you need to be reported to ANI instead. It is just cause for other user to remove poorly sourced material which removing unsourced "defamation" material. And such action did not require external source, but adding those controversy material even as accusation, should properly sourced. I don't see you properly replied to in the article talk page, but GioA90 had posted a lengthy discussion of the content.  Matthew_hk   t  c  01:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This case was also discussed in Teahouse. Matthew_hk  t  c  01:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks :), I replied him to proper source his replacement behaviour, and surely I'll try to add new sources to the Communion and Liberation page. I'll talk on the page you suggested me. Thanks again. Jasmir54 06:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see is using proper citations, as he/she cited only official documents and the official bibliography. Please,, try to read the comments I made in the talk page and think about them! It is not only a problem of adding sources, the problem is also reading and understanding them, discriminating between "facts" and "accusations" (as much as possible). You can find the best source on earth, but if you paste it randomly without properly assessing what's inside it there's still a problem: if the reliable article states "trial dismissed. Might be reopened" and you can't find an article about the trial being re-opened (I couldn't, at least), then you can't cite the accusations as true.  Similarly, a reliable source reporting an old sentence which has changed later is a good source but you should cite the final statement of the trial (even if you don't like or think is wrong). Similarly, unless the trial is finished, you should paste information as "accusations" not facts. Similarly a source that does not agree with you POV is not automatically bad...GioA90 (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Btw I am really getting tired of rewriting again and again the same things. It really feels like you don't really care what I write ...GioA90 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi GioA90, I invited you to the Teahouse. Please don't replace contents from articles with content without reliable and independent references and citations. Welcome to Wikipedia. Jasmir54 22:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks likes bot reply. Matthew_hk   t  c  23:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is nothing more to say (ihmo). But I respect your opinions. Jasmir54 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I was already in the Teahouse asking for help before the first of you bot-style invites (as you can see in the talk page). Moreover it is useless for me to write here, in the teahouse or in the talk page of the page in question, as long as you don't try to read and understand the points I made. I am sure some of them are extremely compelling.GioA90 (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Since you said "there is nothing more to say imo",I'll tell you: ok. I am stupid, dumb and I don't understand. Could you please argument you claims of those citations not being reliable? And I would be even happier if you could argument against all the points I made in the talk page, since otherwise we're going nowhere. Thanks!GioA90 (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This case was also discussed in Sockpuppet investigations/Lzzy303. Matthew_hk  t  c  23:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This case was also discussed in Editor assistance/Requests. Matthew_hk  t  c  00:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Jasmir54 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * . The report is malformed but Lzzy303 hasn't edited since 24 July, and discussion shifted to SPI. DrKay (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jasmir54 reported by User:GioA90 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [851445699]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [851509920]

Comments:

I tried to both leave messages on the users' page and talk page. He's just erasing everything saying "sources are not reliable" (without giving proper explanations) and not addressing any of the points I make. He's also removing the flags about the page POV and content reliablity without changing and/or saying anything on the talk page. GioA90 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi GioA90, I invited you to the Teahouse, Welcome on Wikipedia and please proper source your edits with independent sources. Jasmir54 22:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Moved to proper place. Matthew_hk   t  c  00:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * merge two closely related section. Matthew_hk   t  c  00:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Jasmir54 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * – malformed report. There's no violation anyway – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply – and the report is stale: Jasmir54 hasn't edited the article for over 5 days. DrKay (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:173.73.10.191 reported by User:MrX (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852335730 by Letupwasp (talk) Consensus not yet reached on talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 852297334 by Bender235 (talk) "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.""
 * 3)  "Undid revision 852265614 by Bender235 (talk) Find a better source."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: American Politics - DS Alert. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Mother Jones not RS? */ comment"


 * Comments:

The article is under WP:ARBAPDS 1RR. IP has violated it twice, ignoring the prominent edit notice. - MrX 🖋 10:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . The previous warnings inform the IP of discretionary sanctions but not specifically about edit-warring and the 1-revert rule. DrKay (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP is just a troll, as can testify, with false claims of harassment and false and silly accusations of vandalism. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Knson1 reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

After:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:George II of Great Britain

Comments:

Reverting again immediately after coming off previous block at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. DrKay (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of previous warnings and blocks at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.147.201.240&action=history. DrKay (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Continued reverting the same article after previous block. You also seem to be warring on some taxonomy articles, and an editor has complained to you about unsourced changes. You have never posted on an article talk page. If you don't intend to follow Wikipedia policy you may not find it congenial to keep editing here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Knson1 is possibly the same person as the IP blocked on 15 July per an earlier edit warring report. The Knson1 account was created on 25 July after the IP's one-week block had expired. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:76.67.107.17 reported by User:Ivanvector (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversies */Removed uncited drivel"
 * 2)  "Removed nonsense"
 * 3)  "Ivanvector better learn to cite"
 * 4)  "Removed erroneous content lacking citations"
 * 1)  "Removed erroneous content lacking citations"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Obvious edit warrior sockpuppet is obvious. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind. They moved on to overt vandalism and I blocked them myself. I'm not really familiar with closing in this venue so if someone could take care of that, I'll owe you a beer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * DrKay (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ä

User:120.29.106.208 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Anastasia is a Disney Movie! Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova is now a Disney Princess because Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation has been sold to The Walt Disney Company for US$71.3 billion, see Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney"
 * 2)  "Anastasia is a Disney Movie! Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova is now a Disney Princess because Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation has been sold to The Walt Disney Company for US$71.3 billion, see Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney"
 * 3)  "Anastasia is a Disney Movie! Anastasia is now a Disney Princess because 20th Century Fox has been sold to The Walt Disney Company for US$71.3 billion, see Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney"
 * 4)  "Anastasia is a Disney Movie! Anastasia is now a Disney Princess because 20th Century Fox has been sold to The Walt Disney Company for US$71.3 billion, see Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney"
 * 5)  "Anastasia is a Disney Movie, Anastasia is now a Disney Princess because 20th Century Fox was sold and transfed to the Walt Disney Pictures for US$71.3 billion, see Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney."
 * 6)  "Anastasia is a Disney Movie!!! Anastasia is now a Disney Princess because 20th Century Fox has been sold to The Walt Disney Company for US$71.3 billion, see Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney"
 * 1)  "Anastasia is a Disney Movie!!! Anastasia is now a Disney Princess because 20th Century Fox has been sold to The Walt Disney Company for US$71.3 billion, see Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * DrKay (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Shoaib Akhtar Mughal reported by User:Saqib (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 852489606 by Saqib (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 852489265 by Saqib (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 852468392 by Saqib (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removing AfD templates on Mehmood Ul Hassan Siddiqui. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removing AfD templates on Mehmood Ul Hassan Siddiqui. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removing AfD templates on Mehmood Ul Hassan Siddiqui. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Removing AfD notice and doing edit warring despite warnings. Saqib (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

User:CristieJ reported by User:Roxy the dog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:

Editor initially editing in good faith, refuses my advice. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Srnec and User:Drmies reported by User:Cdfi (Result:No violation )
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page:

"Two users working together to circumvent 3 revert rule. They have removed material content from the lead-in paragraph and continue to do so despite being asked to seek consensus as part of BRD cycle on talk page."

User being reported:

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:

The above two users Srnec and Drmies appear to be working in tandem to disregard the BRD process and begin an edit war instead of seeking consensus and/or agreement from editors via the talk page as per edit warring guidelines. As they are working together, they will be treated as a single entity.
 * The users have responded to requests to discuss on the talk page with aggression, seen here.
 * They have expanded their removal campaign to include the fact that Dragut was Muslim from the lead-in . Why are they doing this? Dragut is was known as "The Drawn Sword of Islam", and the fact that he was Muslim is defining to his character and should be apparent within the lead-in. Their removal of content is bordering on vandalism.
 * They have been alerted to the fact that the content which they have removed does not violate PEACOCK guidelines as it is referenced as it appears in historical sources by definition "stating the facts", and they have not provided justification except by stating that they do not "think" there was consensus, when in reality the content was added last year and has enjoyed silent consensus since then, for approximately a year now. The removal of this content can be seen as an attempt to diminish the subject of the article.
 * The content that is being continuously removed does not fit the definition of peacock / puffery as it is accurately cited in historical sources.
 * The example given on page shows that quoting the facts is allowed.
 * It states: 'Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.'
 * This has been done. The words "famed", "respected", and "feared" have been properly cited in historical texts giving an accurate view as to the article subject's historical scope and influence, and importance. The said words were directly present in the historical texts as "renowned" "respected" and "most dangerous". The words are analogues by definition, see: https://www.wordnik.com/words/renown and https://www.wordnik.com/words/fear
 * Here is the example used in the Manual of Style constituting "just the facts" :
 * Just the facts:
 * Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[refs 1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.[refs 2]
 * Direct parallels between the content removed and the example above can easily be drawn by neutral editors and/or administrators, as the removed content has been properly cited in HISTORICAL accounts describing the article's subject.
 * The above users also stated that, in their opinion, they do not view as notable that Dragut was described this way in historical sources. However the users also contradicted themselves by stating that these terms apply to "notable military leaders in history", which I do not dispute. Therefor, using that same token of logic: as Turgut Reis is a notable military leader in history, properly referenced descriptions of his character and influence appearing in the lead-in are not "ridiculous" (as stated by Srnec []) and in fact pragmatically contribute much to a quick view of the article's subject being a "notable military leader in history" from within search engines, which lists the lead-in only.
 * These users are entitled to their opinions, but I ask that they please follow the correct process which is to CEASE edit warring and discuss on the talk page instead of continuing to make the disputed edits despite objection being clearly voiced.
 * I am placing notices on each of their talk pages regarding edit warring and am seeking formal resolution for the edit warring behavior the two users have exhibited.
 * I am placing my faith in the collective to not allow me to be banned for reporting these users simply because one of them has administrator rights on the English Wikipedia. May justice prevail.

--Cdfi (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let the record reflect that Cdfi lives in the upside-down, accusing two editors of the edit war they themselves are waging unilaterally. In other words, they are guilty of clearly editing against consensus which, unlike BRD (a guideline), is a fundamental part of collaborative editing. Note also their false accusation of tandem editing, a violation of AGF (also fundamental). Also, the enormous amount of blah blah blah blah blah--what a jerk. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies Why are you calling me a jerk? You are name-calling. Why are you so hostile? If you are calling everything I wrote "blah blah" it's pretty clear you didn't read it / understand it. Also your narrative about me accusing you of what I am allegedly doing is false. You have been removing material content from the page in what appears to be an attempt to diminish the article. Stop it. --Cdfi (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's more or less why. If you want to worship some hero, try Wikia. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to stop with the abuse. You are an administrator and should hold yourself to a higher standard of conduct. --Cdfi (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

User:GoosebumpsUk1Fan reported by User:Theinstantmatrix (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 2)  "/* Plot */"
 * 3)  "Stop it it is not false"
 * 4)  "/* Cast */True information"
 * 5)  "/* Plot */It is true stop Avery Lee Jones Confirmed He is voiceing Slappy"
 * 6)  "/* Production */It is confirmed"
 * 7)  "/* Production */Twitter confirmed it so stop it"
 * 8)  "/* Cast */"
 * 9)  "/* Cast */It is not false information it is true information"
 * 10)  "True Information Leaves it alone"
 * 11)  " True information "
 * 12)  "/* Release */"
 * 13)  "/* Release */"
 * 14)  "/* Production */"
 * 15)  "/* Production */True information no jack Black Avery lee Jones voiceing Slappy"
 * 16)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Release */"
 * 2)  "/* Release */"
 * 3)  "/* Production */"
 * 4)  "/* Production */True information no jack Black Avery lee Jones voiceing Slappy"
 * 5)  "/* Cast */"


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


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


 * Comments:

The repeated insertions of "Avery Lee Jones" without citing a reliable source goes back to 18 July, and keeps getting reverted by multiple new users and IPs, citing "fake information". Earliest edit where this editor tried to insert it: theinstantmatrix (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Saggiori reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reliable source, Wikipedia, with photo of the VEGA+ console I received, with newspaper/fb posting : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VEGA%2B_V2_ISSUE_1_-_Received_July_28th_2018_after_Dispatch_of_Manufacturer_RCL_to_400_Backers_with_date_Proof_on_FB_post.jpg"
 * 2)  "MrMajors (http://retro-computers.co.uk/lee-fogarty/) is the business associate of Mr Andrews, ex director of RCL, and he is posting FAKE informations as well are moving real informations Backers as me are published. MrMajor is in a clear break of rules, due to his Conflict of Interest. See web site where he is quoted as Mr Andrews Business associate - Undid revision 852641038 by Greyjoy (talk)"
 * 3)  "MrMajors (http://retro-computers.co.uk/lee-fogarty/) is the business associate of Mr Andrews, ex director of RCL, and he is posting FAKE informations as well are moving real informations Backers as me are published. MrMajor is in a clear break of rules, due to his Conflict of Interest. See web site where he is quoted as Mr Andrews Business associate,  - Undid revision 852640479 by MrMajors (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 852548066 by MrMajors (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 852524435 by Adam9007 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User has also come close to legal threats and has accused another editor of being a criminal.  Grey joy talk 11:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, Saggiori is Jan Saggiori, He is named by RCL Director Dr Levy as a media consultant for RCL in his witness statement for the small claims action against RCL from Luton County Court from January 2018. That means his editing of the Vega+ article, and the Retro Computers article is a conflict of interest. In addition, it's been impossible to verify whether Jan Saggiori has received a new production complete Vega+, since key elements of the device are cropped out of the picture Saggiori has supplied (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VEGA%2B_V2_ISSUE_1_-_Received_July_28th_2018_after_Dispatch_of_Manufacturer_RCL_to_400_Backers_with_date_Proof_on_FB_post.jpg): The style and form of the buttons on the right hand side (cropped out of the picture), the rainbow-striped Sinclair logo directly under the screen. Presently it is impossible to determine this device isn't a pre-production model from 2016, rather than a newly manufactured Vega+. Isofarro (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also Retro Computers currently acknowledge on Twitter that Jan Saggiori is a "colleague": https://twitter.com/sinclairzxvega/status/1023924573539115008 Isofarro (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't done any threat, I reported legal facts.

I published news and direct links that reported the news, and a compatitor RGL and the associateds (MrMajor) and vandalizing the page VEGA+.

The user Greyjoy, then took the job of MrMajor, perhaps with the same IP address, as they usually do, to try to silence the news and the post I done on Wikipedia.

Police and FALCON Police are investigating MrMajor/MrAndrews/RGL, you can contact them and they will confirm this. This is not threat it just facts.

They created a fake page under my name and posted fake informations on that page trying to silence me with fake informations, see http://saggiorijan.com and they continue the harrassement here with various accounts under various nicknames to try to remove my postings.

They use a fake web site as well for RCL, their competitor (as they are RGL company), see all the Trolls happening there, http://www.retro-computers.co.uk, where they even post photos of myself stolen and modified to look bad. There is a clear conflict of interest here, as a competitor (RGL Ltd) is publishing on a wiki page of a product of their rival company RCL Ltd). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saggiori (talk • contribs) 12:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I thing that conflict of interest as is blatant here from MrMajor and the other fake accounts, are showing the real face of such people.

My post was simple announcing finally after 2 years the delivery of the fist 400 consoles, what is wrong doing so ? Why do they want to censure such information and silence backers ? Do they have an interest as competitors to do so ? These are the questions I ask myself, as they use various accounts and never do it under their real name (as I DO, using my personal account under my REAL Name and not nicks and not various accounts do act).

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saggiori (talk • contribs) 12:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

My post are simple, clear and proven (Check Twitter official RCL company Manufacturer account) :

See Manufacturer publication : https://twitter.com/sinclairzxvega/status/1022448174810718208

See my modifications, nothing biased, all crystal clear... why wanting to silence RCL, this act coming from their competitor RGL owned by their ex management Mr Andrews and Mr Melbourne ?

The Sinclair ZX Spectrum Vega+ is now (July 2018) a released handheld games console based on the ZX Spectrum and designed by Rick Dickinson[1] as a follow-up to the ZX Spectrum Vega handheld TV game which was released in 2015. On July 26th 2018, RCL started to dispatch the first batch of VEGA+ V2 ISSUE 1 to 400 Backers.

....

The company's official website is online since few months, under the new extensions "business" (retro.business)[33]

On July 26th 2018, RCL started to dispatch the first batch of VEGA+ V2 ISSUE 1 to 400 Backers. Various photos were posted on the groups as well as Facebook and Twitter. Finally the Backers will get what they pledged for. The New-Management of RCL done what RCL committed for in 2016. [34] [35] [36]

....

Saggiori, Jan. "ZX Vega+: VEGA+ V2 delivery started July 2018". Twitter. Twitter. Retrieved 28 July 2018. Jump up ^ Martin, Suzanne. "ZX Vega+: RCL Posting about the dispatching of the VEGA+ on July 2018". Twitter. Twitter. Retrieved 26 July 2018. Jump up ^ Saggiori, Jan. "ZX Vega+: Photo of VEGA+ V2 Delivered to myself, a VEGA+ Backer". Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Retrieved 28 July 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saggiori (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:106.76.223.164 and user:106.77.179.233 reported by user:Kakammaa (Result: Two IPs blocked)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=852595190&oldid=852595154 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=852593880&oldid=852589666(Kakammaa (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=852593785&oldid=852593730 This IP belongs of disruptive editor user:Bonadeaphone https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=852593693&oldid=852593300

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

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

Comments:


 * Result: The two IPs were blocked by other admins for engaging in noticeboard vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:178.164.105.70 reported by User:SWL36 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=852726632 Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=852718457
 * 2) 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=852719534
 * 3) 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=852720366
 * 4) 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=852720845
 * 5) 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=852723904

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

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

Comments:

Stumbled across this edit war in recent changes, the single-purpose IP has blanked a section on the existence of a disputed 10th century king of Norway five times in a few hours. Another user might have also violated 3RR while attempting to remove the edits, but the edit summaries suggest that the IP was not editing in good faith: "Removed absolute shite" was the first edit summary of the blanking and then they were not provided for several later reverts.

Also, this user received a final warning against reverting content on their talk page 90 minutes ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:178.164.105.70.
 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks. The IP editor has never used a talk page, so it's hard to tell what their concern is based on. The skepticism about the existence of Harold Fairhair seems to be based on scholarly sources. Notifying User:Alarichall since they are the editor who added the skeptical material. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)