Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive367

Page: SeaTac/Airport station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vanguard10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 22:10, May 2

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:42, May 3
2. 20:45, May 4
3. 00:10, May 5
4. 15:17, May 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I still am hopeful for cooperative discussion. However, this noticeboard report should be closed as inappropriate at this time and all parties encouraged to cooperate and seek peaceful resolution by discussion (talk page discussion or, failing that, RFC). To maintain enthusiasm for Wikipedia, I ask that no sanctions be taken against SounderBruce. Please close this complaint and encourage cooperation. Vanguard10 22:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If I were an administrator or had some sort of managerial capacity in Wikipedia, I would encourage both editors, who are good article writers and have brought articles to FA/GA (SounderBruce on transit, Vanguard10 on aviation) to try to work things out and, if a genuine effort fails, try the airport and transit wikiprojects for advice, or even RFC. I would discourage quick Twinkle reverts. I would close this report as technically failing 3RR and no 3RR warning. A non-standard resolution would be to also suggest a talk page discussion with each editor writing three sample versions, which would encourage them to think about alternatives. Vanguard10 23:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Page: Mohammed Rafi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wolf Cola

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
Pinging the crazy-haired admin for input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN - ROAR, I am the crazy-hair admin! Why have you summoned meeee?!! Yeah, so this has been handled. I ran into this debacle today and saw that it was an edit war over content, and I blocked both users as a result. Wolf Cola appealed with an unblock request and stated that he believed the other user to one of others that were causing disruption and alongside sock puppet accounts. I had Wolf Cola promise me to stop reverting that article, and I unblocked immediately afterwards. He understands that he dun goof'd in this situation and that this wasn't a situation to repeatedly revert over (even if the account was a IP hopper / banned user - which I haven't gone to figure out). Looking at his contributions and experience, I can definitely tell that he performs well with counter-vandalism and handling disruption; he's just not yet experienced with situations where the suspicion is present but the edits and the behavior aren't blatantly obvious, and that's where this comes in and why this report was filed. Wolf Cola graciously accepted my offer to help train and mentor him, and I feel that he understands to be mindful of what he's reverting in the future regardless of suspicions. Should it please and sparkle the jury, I recommend that we consider this matter resolved and closed ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure that close is longer than any five of mine combined here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

No charge for going beyond my character limit, right? ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Mohammad Rafi which was removed by me. Last but not the least, when I reported user Wolf Cola for sock puppetry, this admin immediately closed the investigation without blocking Wolf Cola. Atleast he would have investigated user Wolf Cola, his talk page is full of warnings which clearly tells that he has been vandalizing the wikipedia whole time. Please answer my questions if you think I deserve a reply.Kishfan (talk

) 23:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kishfan: I think you're awfully familiar with Wikipedia processes for someone who has 44 edits in total. And stop with the vandalism accusations before you are blocked. Oshwah handled the situation perfectly properly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN Thank you very much, I already new the answer. And on what account would you like to block me? For asking a question. Very funny and thanks once again for your kind reply.Kishfan (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@

personal attack which results in blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

23:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, emptiness of your reply is well heard. You take good care of your self.Kishfan (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Enough. I'm sorry that you're unhappy with how I handled the situation here and chose to educate and help the user instead of being punitive, I really am. But that's not

assume good faith, help the user to understand what happened, brush them off, unblock them a few minutes later, and encourage them to move on, don't feel bad, and turn the situation into a positive learning experience - and I'll give hours of my time to do that any day before I want to consider otherwise ;-). You can be as upset and insulting as you want toward me; it won't hurt my feelings one bit. But when you start acting chippy toward another editor who isn't myself and because they're telling you how the case was handled and because you didn't see the punishment handed out the way you wanted, that's not going to fly. This discussion is now closed. Thank you for filing this report (yes, it was a legitimate report to file and I do appreciate that a lot); it's time to move on now :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

23:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I am glad to exercise my right to ask. It is amusing that you are so merciful with some editors and trust me, I did move on. Just wanted to know the reason. Kishfan (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:
I have reported the ip and his editor for sock puppetry. I did not involve in any sort of edit war. I have only reverted the obvious vandalism which is not edit war. This user HFM Expert has a history of sock puppetry and edit war here [14] and was also blocked.Kishfan (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, evidence is clearly there of you engaging in

three revert rule in the process. This was the reason that an edit warring investigation was opened against you. Also, kindly do not go around making baseless accusations against other users whether it is me or anyone else, as this is also an offence that can result in you getting blocked. Regards. HFM Expert (talk

) 13:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected - but no violation No-one is ever going to block an editor who is reverting the removal of sources by SPA random IPs and one-shot editors. What we probably need to look at here is the behaviour of those editors, of which there appear to be a few, mostly with very few edits. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

three revert rule in the process this is why I started the investigation. HFM Expert (talk

) 13:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply then. You must know this before reporting someone since you have an edit war history. I did not make false acusation because you remained block for edit waring in past and your edit war history clearly says that. Than you for your concernKishfan (talk

) 13:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I think your edits appear to constitute vandalism when they are being mass reverted in the way they were. HFM Expert (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Kindly do not revert anymore edits if you wish to contribute to an article than discuss it on the talk page, and you certainly have a history of edit warring currently. Do not make any more baseless accusations against other users otherwise I may have to take the matter further up. HFM Expert (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear. You were the one removing sourced content, as this makes very clear [15]. Not only that, but you were referring to his edits as disruptive. I suggest you step well away from continuing this editing pattern, or you will be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite When did I remove content? I just observed his editing pattern and observed that he broke the three revert rule. I advised him to discuss any changes to the article on the talk page. How am I the villain here? I have been on Wikipedia for a good year now, and abide by all rules and make sure other editors do also. HFM Expert (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite You are mistaken, I am just trying to help him out here. An editor with minimal experience. HFM Expert (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You've just done it again [16]. You are removing sources and content and you are now edit-warring to keep your disruptive editing in the article. There is only one outcome here, and that is a block. I suggest you revert your last edit, or that will be the outcome. Black Kite (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Filer blocked after continuing CIR and disruption issues. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Page

Arabic Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839969602 by Rhododendrites (talk) I showed the bias in Arabic Wikipedia as a verifiable evidence - I was reverted without verifying thr evidence of bias. Discussed on my talk page."
2. 21:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839964815 by Shellwood (talk)Revert explained on my Talk page"
3. 21:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839964110 by Shellwood (talk)i ask for patience as I discuss the matter. This is now a 3RR and I respectfully ask for a consensus before my edit is reverted."
4. 21:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839963127 by Shellwood (talk)Undid revert and requesting consensus"
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC) to 21:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Evaluation and criticism */ Arabic Wikipedia Administrators Islamic Bias"
   2. 21:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Evaluation and criticism */ (عبادة الشيطان)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Page

Syphon Filter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839919588 by Soetermans (talk) 3RR"
2. 15:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 839911463 by Soetermans (talk) edit is very constructive, the revert is unconstructive"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 15:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"
3. 15:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "/* May 2018 */Re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

What I am reverting is the unnecessary culling of the article by registered users so seem to believe they know best and can bully IP’s. Have not responded to user has he has only sent threats, which did warrant any response. The info Is not unnecessary and had gone unchallenged and unquestioned for a many years until on lone user personally believed it should go. I has to remain until something suitable is there to replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.29.86 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's trivial

WP:ILIKEIT. I've given you warnings, not threats. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK}

16:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Page: Oliver Kamm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leftworks1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. [21]
6. [22]
7. [23]
8. [24]
9. [25]
10. [26]
11. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28] [link]

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Page also protected as an IP has attempted the same edit in the past. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Page

Codename: Sailor V (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

195.170.33.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SBerT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Turka al Busavi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC) "Free use source, e.g.
   e-book
   ."
2. 11:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 10:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC) ""

As Turka al Busavi

1. 11:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 11:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC) "ScreenRant's reference was just copied on this article word-in-a-word."

As SBerT

1. 11:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 840046981 by 195.170.33.33"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has also been edit warring using the account

As well as SBerT was involved to editwar too. Three birds for one shot! Turka al Busavi (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we acts as a three sockpuppets? 195.170.33.33 (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage. Turka al Busavi (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Result

• WP:SPI. The user accounts were left for further discussions. Sorry for this result message, but the blocking administrator will come later. Turka al Busavi (talk
  ) 14:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. no edit summary
2. no edit summary, again
3. "per source"
4. no edit summary
5. "per source"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

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

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

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

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

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring on many pages involving the same IPs.

IPs involved:

101.9.155.69/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.82.133.138/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
49.217.129.20/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
180.204.195.184/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14.28.167.226/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.188.179.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2600:387:6:805::ba/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pages with edit warring:

Battle of Changhsing

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

Page

Sameer Tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Time left (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 07:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC) to 07:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 07:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 07:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Martrydom */Indian dogs 🐕 how many times you will delete the reality of the page"
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC) to 07:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 06:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "How many times you Indian revert the page"
   2. 06:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Martrydom */I will revert it as many times as i can"
   3. 07:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "We are not indian"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC) to 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Revert"
   2. 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Martrydom */Revert"
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) to 06:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
   1. 06:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Added the reality"
   2. 06:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Delete the fake information"
   3. 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Martrydom */Added the martrydom"
   4. 06:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Added Photo"
   5. 06:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Added photo"
   6. 06:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Added name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on
   TW
   )"
2. 06:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
3. 06:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Note */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

[32][33][34] Clearly

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Page: Santa Marta de Pateros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Srppateros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Unnamed forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff

Diffs of the users' reverts:

1. Srppateros Diff 1
2. Srppateros Diff 2
3. Srppateros Diff 3
4. Unnamed forever Diff 1
5. Unnamed forever Diff 2
6. Unnamed forever Diff 3

Comments:
I came across this case as an uninvolved editor as the first party ventured to the

@Stormy clouds: In the future, please follow the instructions at the top of this page and notify editors you report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: - apologies. I applied the uw for edit warring, but missed the intended warning, which I should have used. Such oversight was entirely accidental, and will not happen again. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Page:

Comments: User is editing the page by repeatedly ignoring idioms to make a baseless propaganda. "Failure", "Partial victory" and "Decisive victory" has obvious and precise meanings but User:EkoGraf insists on US-SDF PoV interpretation against the clear ground result that even his sources admit it. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

First, Mazdakabedi, the Administrators' noticeboard is used to report when a user has violated Wikipedia's 3RR policy, 1RR policy, etc. I haven't made any violations of 3RR or even 1RR (which applies to all Syrian war-related articles) and you have not provided any evidence to confirm this as required by Wikipedia's policy to make this report. Also, before making this kind of report, Wikipedia's policy requires you to send me a warning, which you didn't. Finally, Wikipedia's policy requires you, before making a report, to also attempt a discussion on the issue on the article's talk page so to try and resolve it, which you also didn't. Besides this whole report not being according to Wikipedia's policies at all, it signals a violation on your part in regards to Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith from your fellow editors. I would also like to note that Mazdakabedi himself made two full reverts of my edits [35][36] in less then 24 hours, which is indeed a clear violation of 1RR that applies to Syrian war articles and could get an editor blocked.

To continue, to the reviewing administrator, the issue here is that the battle which is the topic of the article saw the Syrian Army capture 4 villages from the SDF, which then in turn recaptured 3 or even all 4 of the villages from the Syrian Army (based on which source is cited). Contrary to what Mazdakabedi has stated, none of the sources are calling the end result a Syrian Army victory as he has constantly been inserting. In fact, the sources point to an overall Syrian Army failure since they were wholly or mostly driven back by the SDF. Mazdakabedi has also resorted to removing the source cited that all four villages were recaptured (as well as the cited info) and has resorted to calling the reports (made by such as the Washington Post and Reuters) US/SDF propaganda. I warned Mazdakabedi that edits based on our personal opinions of the situation are considered unsourced Original Research which isn't allowed per WP policy, but I was ignored. Furthermore, his removal of the sourced content and its reference, personal comments of the sources and this report itself points to a major POV-pushing violation. Finally, I would like to note that an anonymous IP today made virtually the same kind of edit such as Mazdakabedi (removal of sourced content and its source and making an unsourced edit), which makes me to suspect that the IP in question is possibly Mazdakabedi. And even if its not him the removal of sourced content and its source by an IP would then possibly require temporary semi-protection of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

PS Another editor, unlike Mazdakabedi, has proposed a compromise solution on the article's talk page which I have stated that I would support. EkoGraf (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs. NeilN ^{talk to me}
  15:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Page: SeaTac/Airport station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vanguard10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 22:10, May 2

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:42, May 3
2. 20:45, May 4
3. 00:10, May 5
4. 15:17, May 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I still am hopeful for cooperative discussion. However, this noticeboard report should be closed as inappropriate at this time and all parties encouraged to cooperate and seek peaceful resolution by discussion (talk page discussion or, failing that, RFC). To maintain enthusiasm for Wikipedia, I ask that no sanctions be taken against SounderBruce. Please close this complaint and encourage cooperation. Vanguard10 22:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If I were an administrator or had some sort of managerial capacity in Wikipedia, I would encourage both editors, who are good article writers and have brought articles to FA/GA (SounderBruce on transit, Vanguard10 on aviation) to try to work things out and, if a genuine effort fails, try the airport and transit wikiprojects for advice, or even RFC. I would discourage quick Twinkle reverts. I would close this report as technically failing 3RR and no 3RR warning. A non-standard resolution would be to also suggest a talk page discussion with each editor writing three sample versions, which would encourage them to think about alternatives. Vanguard10 23:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This report was archived by the bot without getting a response. I presume that this was a mistake, so I'm reposting this here. SounderBruce 06:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  WP:3O has already been looked into, so I'd encourage both editors to focus on coming to a talk page consensus before making any additional changes to the article's wording. An RFC would be a great next step if 3O doesn't work out. clpo13_(talk
  ) 22:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Page

Thomas Wolfe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Brougham90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 03:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 03:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC) "Why are you so stupid that you would refer to a cartoon character no one remembers?"
4. 03:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC) "What the fuck does Ernest Hemingway who blew his brains out with a shotgun have to do with Thomas Wolfe? Have any of you ever written anything in your life? I know you day dream of Papa Hemingway. I assume you insert the Lil Abner quote twice in every wiki page."
5. 03:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC) "the author of that Hemingway sentence is promoting his homosexual lifestyle by referring to his father figure's masculine persona. While I support his right to that lifestyle, I think he needs to address his man-love issues elsewhere."
6. 19:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC) "The writer of that Hemingway line quotes something to be found later in this profile, uses and adverb Hemingway wouldn't have and refers to Hemingway as possessing a "masculine style" which is a reflection of his own sexist worldview."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC) "General note: Censorship of material on
   TW
   )"
2. 03:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Censorship of material on
   TW
   )"
3. 03:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
4. 03:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuously removing content because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I've reverted and warned 4 times so far as well as reported to AIV as a vandal/NOTHERE account. Nanophosis (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• User:Brougham90 is a new editor so, Nanophosis, maybe "NOT YET HERE" is more apt. Sure they are edit warring, and edit warring is edit warring even if you're right, and in this case they were right. Someone said about that deletion that it had "still no sources", a puzzling comment since it concerned a deletion--well, there's no sourcing for Hemingway's "masculine" style, which at any rate is a pretty hollow and sexist term long left by the wayside. Note also that the editor removed the offending phrase (offends me too) from the lead, in which it has no decent place, but not from the article, where the sexist commentary wasn't included in the first place. So if any admin wants to block Brougham for edit warring...no, no one would want to do that. Rather, I hope they'd look at the content of the edit and the meaninglessness of the arguments for reverting (invoking JUSTDONTLIKEIT is as lame as it gets). Who put this crap in the lead? Drmies (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Nanophosis, aren't you a member of the welcoming committee? Don't worry--I'll take care of that welcome template for you. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies - There's a good chance that the homophobic edit summary made by Brougham90 and the user calling me an idiot dissuaded me from welcoming them, but I would also argue that's my personal problem, and I shouldn't be so quick to "bite" new users for their edits. Anyway, thank you for being a neutral third party and making me take a step back, I probably wouldn't have even noticed my bias if not for your (harsh, but necessary) comment. I gather that "harsh, but necessary" is a phrase that describes you well, haha. Nanophosis (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Who put that crap in? This person. LightandDark2000, please be more mindful next time. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Stale Drmies successfully defused the situation. clpo13_(talk) 22:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Page: Strawberry Lane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Magic Palayok, My Guitar Princess, Hindi Ka na Mag-iisa
User being reported: 110.5.69.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]

Comments:
This ip address has being posting fake information for months now. He/she uses different Ip addresses, and adds a certain actress in Tv shows she didn't appear. Is there any way to finally stop this IP user for good? Like a range block or something. Check his contribution pages, he does nothing but post fake TV appearances of an actress.Hotwiki (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  WP:ANI. clpo13_(talk
  ) 22:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Page

Greg J. Marchand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Omnibus98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 840252205 by
   WP:AFD
   . Page is to be improved by removing promotionalism during AFD discussion. If you have a bone to pick with someone please do not let it affect the editorial process of articles."
2. 18:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Very honest, running a tad close to WP:Libel, but facts are more important."
3. 18:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Re-posted non-promotional version. Appears Promotional users have been
   WP:Banned
   . Added to Watch list."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
2. 18:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"
3. 18:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (
   TW
   )"
4. 18:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also reported at

Closed AFD. Deleted page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN Still requesting block, user is not letting up on talk pages. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Ohnoitsjamie. clpo13_(talk) 22:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Page

Eleni Foureira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

Page

Najib Razak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wisecrack259 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Corruption accusations */ Politically biased interpretation of the issue with very few credible references."
2. 08:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Corruption accusations */ Politically biased interpretation of the issue with very few credible references."
3. 08:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Corruption accusations */ Politically biased interpretation of the issue with very few credible references."
4. 08:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Corruption accusations */ Erasing irrelevant, politically-motivated interpretations and references."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC) "/* May 2018 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Another user "ArtHuntress57" has edited using the same summary as Wisecrack259 - "Politically biased interpretation of the issue with very few credible references".

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours ArtHuntress57 indeffed. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Page

Craig Murray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 840371641 by Philip Cross (talk) Controversial material improperly sourced can be removed immediately without the need for discussion."
2. 13:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 840369233 by Heliotom (talk) Yes, it is controversial. (Why do you think it was inserted at all?) The original inserter cannot have it both ways. Either blogs are unreliable and shouldn't be sourced at all, or controversial statements should be supported by multiple sources. Removed immediately under Wikipedia rules without need for discussion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP Hopping content removal

See also

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

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ifit8488&action=edit&redlink=1 Heliotom (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Rangeblocks will occur if the IP continues with the "I don't have to discuss this" attitude. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

This editor's IPs trace to the same location as an IP hopper I reported a few days ago here. Furthermore, the currently blocked editor I reported here (later expanded to 2 weeks after he returned) seems to be boasting on Twitter about the activities of the IP user causing problems here. I would suggest there is block evasion in progress as well as some IP hopping. Philip Cross (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: More blocks handed out. If disruption continues, drop me a note on my talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Page: "Polish death camp" controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hippo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

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

Comments:
This is pretty straight forward. Hippo43 was blocked in late April (23rd) for exactly the same edit warring [47] by User:Swarm. He then popped in around the 25th, after his block expired, do resume the edit war [48] [49] [50] although at that time he only made 3 reverts. Then, apparently having learned nothing from the block, he came to the article yesterday and promptly broke 3RR by making four reverts.

There was an RfC on this very issue. Arguments were made. The RfC was closed properly [51] by

Additionally, the article is under discretionary sanctions (for Eastern Europe). Hipp43 was notified of these [52]. Since he doesn't seem to have learned anything from their previous block for edit warring and does not appear to be interested in listening to others or respecting consensus, a topic ban in addition to any short term block would be appropriate, under DS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Warned that further edit warring will result in a topic ban. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Pages:

Previous version reverted to: Nicolás Maduro: [53], Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea: [54]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]

1. [58]
2. [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Comments:

With the recent edits included above, it appears that this user is trying to game the system. I have tried to avoid becoming part of the edit warring myself and attempted dialogue on their talk page. The dialogue has shown little results. More comments and advice would be greatly appreciated.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Noting that here [61] ApolloCarmb engages in a mild form of HOUNDING on an AfD where SPAs, IPs and editors who are clearly NOTHERE have weighed in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:E.M.Gregory what evidence is there that I am hounding? Also why does the fact that It is "an AfD where SPAs, IPs and editors who are clearly NOTHERE have weighed in." matter? ApolloCarmb (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• My interactions with ApolloCarmb are here: [62]. Notice 2018 Ariel stabbing where he had to be reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Ariel_stabbing&diff=837691111&oldid=837690773.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli Conflict proves nothing. Lets not forget that it was you who followed me to the Slate Star Codex article.ApolloCarmb (talk

) 16:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And tagged it for notability. You provoked my curiosity with your unusual editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are my experiences of ApolloCarmb wikihounding as well. I made edits to the

UNASUR article. Here are multiple other instances ([1], [2], [3]) It is a constant hounding by Apollo and it still continues today.----ZiaLater (talk

) 22:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

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

As I can see from this recent edit, it appears that ApolloCarmb is here for a single purpose as I was easily able to verify the material from the source. With ApolloCarmb saying this was "not in given source" is either lazy reading at best or biased lying at worst. They do not recognize the contents of sources and if it does not fit into their belief, they attempt to minimize its verifiability with weasel wording or other unnecessary wording. Any instances of confrontation are replied with excuses of "coincidence" or "accident". This has happened too often to not be intentional, hence why I believe this user is

ZiaLater as everybody can see you followed me to that article and reverted me which is yet more evidence of wikihounding. Simply saying "according to" is necessary for NPOV and verifability. One source saying x is y is not grounds to say x is y.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Not attempting to wikihound, I'm trying to maintain these reliably sourced articles. After noticing your contentious behavior, I have been monitoring your edits when needed. You removed sourced information in that edit and have performed edits in a similar manner in the past as well. Also, what?----ZiaLater (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, ApolloCarmb is still harassing well-established users. After being politely informed that the user is not the best with English, ApolloCarmb continued to insult the user. The user has continued with WP:Harassment and this cannot be allowed any longer.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ZiaLater, dude........what? Ok I am going to say this as politely as possible and hold my tongue because you are really starting to pis me off. EDITING SOUTH AMERICAN POLITICS ARTICLES IS NOT HARASSMENT. IF I MODIFY AN EDIT THAT SOMEONE MADE TO A SOUTH AMERICAN POLITICS ARTICLE IT IS BECAUSE THESE ARTICLES ARE ON MY WATCHLIST. IF MULTIPLE USERS EDIT THE SAME TOPIC THEY ARE BOUND TO RUN INTO EACHOTHER. CAN I BE ANY CLEARER??? Regarding me "insulting" Jamez42, I did not know what he was trying to say because english is not his first language, merely conveying to him that I did not know what he was saying is not "personal attacks".ApolloCarmb (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

ApolloCarmb, you could have just as easily stated "Hey, I did not understand this edit. Could you please explain it to me?" instead of you saying "Please stop adding gibberish that makes no sense in the english language". Also, if you were familiar with internet etiquette, you would know that using all caps is associated with argumentative behavior. Your actions are not helping.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

More Evidence of Edit Warring

Pages:

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

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

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

Comments:

I'm joining the discussion to bring attention that there may have been similar behaviour in the article of the

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

WP:DUCKTEST would determine that you are here for one motive...[1]----ZiaLater (talk

) 11:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

user:ZiaLater, this is about my "edit warring", those snide little remarks of yours have no relevance here and are solely intended to blaspheme my name to make me look bad. I have addressed those accusations above and on other noticeboards/talk pages (see my edit history). Lets keep it on topic and discuss why you are so determined to bulldoze your way into getting your preferred version of the articles in question without a consensus.ApolloCarmb (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll point out another violation of WP:3RR in the

Jamez42, I reverted your edit warring three times, not 4. Please gain a consensus as opposed to blindly reverting. Thank you.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@ApolloCarmb: You're still gaming the system...----ZiaLater (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My response

I reverted you twice on the

You have no ground to say I am wikihounding. I edit South American politics articles, so do you, therefore we run into each other. With regards to my supposed "battleground behaviour" I am only new and am improving as I go along. I think I am not fully aware of the rules.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week More edit warring at Jude Collins NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• CU blocked, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Page: Fabian Bruskewitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] Here I encourage Contaldo80 to seek dispute resolution through the appropriate forum.

Comments:
This dispute centers around the inclusion of the word "disparaging" in relation to comments made by the article's subject on homosexuality. AN IP user and myself have expressed the conviction that this word violates