Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive340

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User talk:80.116.134.46 reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: Both users warned)[edit]

Page: Johnny Weissmuller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.116.134.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Version from before all the reverting took place: [1]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] (since it is an obvious vandalism and the subject is an old issue, the warning of vandalism has been sent to the IP's talk page)

Comments:


The IP address clearly violated the 3RR, performing vandalism, despite of the warnings.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC))

If its vandalism edits, with vandalism warnings, from...a vandal. Why isn't this at AIV? TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood:, I am sorry, did I understood you properly? "from...a vandal"...? Are you serious? Please be aware such improper epithets may result in an incivility issue. Why do you think that 3RR violation does not belong here?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC))
KIENGIR, You were the one calling it vandalism. Not me. TimothyJosephWood 21:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood:Sorry, the problem was with my English comprehension, I apologize. Regard what I'have written null and void.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC))
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment Checking NeilN talk to me 21:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned KIENGIR, you are edit warring to restore your preferred version, not reverting vandalism. Also, you did not warn the IP about our WP:3RR rule which you need to do before coming here. So, stop edit warring and please stop false characterizing these edits as vandalism. NeilN talk to me 21:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN:, FYI, that version that you call "preferred", is the correct consensused version right now, that for two other users also thanked for my edits who are patrolling and editing the page. And yes, the IP edits are obvious vandalism, since Johnny Weismuller was born in Hungary, not Romania and the IP's aim was to falsify this information. Reverting vandalism is not considered as edit warring, I am amazed for your warning, I did not harm any rule and I have to refuse the charge of "false charachterizing", since Cluebot, who made one of the reverts also charachterized it like so. I acknowledge I've missed the warning of the 3RR, I won't miss it in the future, but please, also investigate as an administrator much more carefully such cases, you judged too early. And how can it possible that violation of the 3RR is not sanctioned, for IP addresses would exist a different rule? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: There is zero discussion on the talk page about this and you changed the longstanding version last month. [7] You are much closer to a block than the IP is because I did investigate carefully. --NeilN talk to me 21:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:, please, in the talk page there are multiple sections discussing about the birthplace. However, there is not such any rule in Wikipedia that any bold edit should be discussed immediately. Considering that my initiative to correct the information totally sharp and punctuate was received by also one user who first by mistake reverted it by thanking me after all, as an other uses did, since people are not so much advanced in Hungary matters especially as I do. So I don't understand your above remark about how I would be closer to any block, since I did not harm any Wikipedia rule. And I am still awaiting the answer of my question, that for IP adresses is there a different rule regarding 3RR or not? (you know, because long time ago when I was run into a 3RR by mistake, I was immediately punished, I just want to know really that administrator's have the right to judge/ponder over 3RR a posterior, since as far as I know if 3RR is broken the reason does not matter, the person is sanctioned). Thank you for time and answer!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: The last substantial conversation was over ten years ago, was obviously not about your change, and was a mess. The IP won't be blocked because they weren't warned properly and the Cluebot revert was a false positive - it doesn't count. You are closer to a block because you are edit warring and falsely accusing the IP of vandalism which can be seen as harassment or a personal attack. --NeilN talk to me 22:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN:, Despite the last conversations were so long ago, noone contested my edit and the IP introduced such false information that was not even present in the earlier state, so I have to refuse again that I would "falsely accuse" the IP of vandalism, and I'd consider hilariously amazing if someone would see it as a harrassment or a personal attack (and I'm telling this over a long-long experience regarding similar issues). You can also check easily what is Hungary or Romania by the person's birthplace, so it can be easily concluded without any deeper knowledge why my statements cannot be a false accusation. I see, because of the Cluebot, the 3RR did not happen after all, but then even if I would have warned the IP for the danger of 3RR, nothing would happen after the next revert....I just want to know, if someone crosses 3RR and he was not warned for avoiding 3RR before, that won't be sactioned?.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC))
Try to discuss the issue with the IP. The city today is Romanian, it was Austro-Hungarian at the time of his birth. Full stop. It's not that insurmountable to get that across. But I suspect that language barrier and an unwillingness to communicate are both factors here. El_C 22:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked KIENGIR for 48 hours (not their first block). To answer their question, obviously I don't speak for all admins, but I always look if the editor was warned in some fashion or are aware of our edit warring policy before blocking for edit warring specifically. --NeilN talk to me 22:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Sebebineydiki reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 3 days)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [8]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [9]
  2. [10]
  3. [11]
  4. [12]
  5. [13]
  6. [14]
  7. [15]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Sebebineydiki has chosen not to use the talk page.

Comments:
It appears after edit warring earlier in this particular article(8 Feb, 4-5 reverts), Sebebineydiki restarts their edit war on 1 April. No attempts to resolve issue(s) on the article talk page. And judging from Sebebineydiki's editing history, said editor needs to be notified of AA2 sanctions. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:96.8.1.144 reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: 60 hours)[edit]

Page
Gurbaksh Chahal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
96.8.1.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773913295 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) Too many trolls like Chisme on this page. Wikipedia editors please lock page from abuse."
  2. 00:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773885471 by Chisme (talk) Stop trolling this page. You are officially getting notified in violation of this."
  3. 00:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773883577 by Chisme (talk) You are now officially trolling and in violation of all Wikipedia rules."
  4. 23:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773881179 by Chisme (talk) Refer to my last edit and comments."
  5. 23:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773880954 by Chisme (talk) There is a specific section dedicated for any controversies. Refer to it as its stated."
  6. 23:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773880661 by Chisme (talk) User reported for obvious vandalism and disruptive behavior."
  7. Consecutive edits made from 23:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC) to 23:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 23:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773880041 by Chisme (talk) No citation or reference ever stating Felon. Next time you will be reported for abuse and vandalism."
    2. 23:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773880185 by Chisme (talk) This is not a platform for a personal vendetta. You will be reported. Follow the rules."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gurbaksh Chahal. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. I note with that the field marked Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page was left blank. Please attempt to use the article talk page next time, Sportsfan 1234. El_C 05:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Отрок 12 reported by User:Jamietw (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Religion in Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Отрок 12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "UNEXPLAINED? go to talk page i explained it very largely... if you have any problems with understanding do you own research. every soucres bring numbers about 75% for 2012 more than 80% for 2017. research and read before deleting my changes which valid"
  2. 11:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "deleted till consensus about numbers and validity of the source"
  3. 09:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC) "i explained on discussion page why arena arent reliable. also its funny how non russian users of wikipedia trying to impose some numbers for article about russia, while i am russian user and live here. please stop. you cant know better from abroad"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. Religion in Russia (HG) (3.1.20)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Religion in Russia#Levada and Sreda Arena 2012 surveys

Comments:

After discussion on talk page, consensus for current statistics to stay, user will not accept this and has now decided to post on my talk page basically accusing me of being an anti-Russian American. Jamietw (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

sure you got it right mate --Отрок 12 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
i explained everything every single bit why article now is FALSE TOTALLY. if you have problems with reading do it slowly. --Отрок 12 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Aydinsalis reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [17] or [18]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  5. [23]
  6. [24]
  7. [25]
  8. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
User:Aydinsalis has been edit warring the removal of titles from the Uzun Hassan article since 26 March 2017‎. Most of his broken English consists of accusations;"These fake. There are no sources indicated.", "All of this is false. They do not have the source!!!", "Uzun Hasan was never the Padişah of Iran". Aydinsalis' comments on the article talk page; "You can not understand, they are false? Even written source? What is written in the source? Can you tell? Evidence does not exist, sources deleted."

I posted information pertaining to (H.R. Roemer, "The Safavid Period", in Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. VI, Cambridge University Press 1986, p. 339), in which I supplied a link which clearly shows the source does state Uzun Hassan previously held the title of Padishah-i-Iran. To which Aydinsalis responded, "We can refer to it. It's a reliable source. I do not mind. But this will be one-sided. We need to show all his titles and the main title.", yet Aydinsalis removed this source and information, [29][30], stating, "Uzun Hasan was never the Padişah of Iran".

Aydinsalis then posted on my talk page, "This is not about Hassan. The source is about the Safavids, and about Shah Ismail. Please refer to the source of Hassan and Aggoyunl ... The king's titles can be 100. You do not need to write them. We only need to write a formal title. Uzun Hasan Shah of Iran was not. Because at that time there were no Iranian state.".

I do not believe this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. Their personal animosity and ignoring of a university source shows they are incapable of editing neutrally.--Kansas Bear (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

As of 16:27, 5 April 2017, Aydinsalis is still edit warring.[31] After posting here, he reverted an IP on the Uzun Hassan article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
And another revert! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


In the article Timur Timur's title is displayed: amir. But there was another official titles: sahibgiran, amir of the Turan, gorgan... Uzun Hasan has no official name: Shah of Iran. His informal names are many: Sahigiran, sultan of the Acem... What we have to show all of them? As far as my opinion, "These fake. There are no sources indicated.", "All of this is false. They do not have the source!!!" yes, it is. I meant the following sources.
Muʾayyid S̲ābitī, ʻAlī (1967). Asnad va Namahha-yi Tarikhi (Historical documents and letters from early Islamic period towards the end of Shah Ismaʻil Safavi's reign.). Iranian culture & literature. Kitābkhānah-ʾi Ṭahūrī., pp. 193, 274, 315, 330, 332, 422 and 430. See also: Abdul Hussein Navai, Asnaad o Mokatebaat Tarikhi Iran (Historical sources and letters of Iran), Tehran, Bongaah Tarjomeh and Nashr-e-Ketab, 2536, pages 578,657, 701–702 and 707

I checked, it was not written that way. Moreover, it is not reliable sources, the first source. Do you think that this is not true? I wrote about this talk page. Why did not you protest? Roemer writes about the Safavids. This is his personal opinion. Other sources do not confirm his opinion. Do you think that this is not true? You can also specify other sources, can you find? Aydinsalis (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 21:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:209.118.32.225 reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Dennis Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 209.118.32.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [32]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 21:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MySuperBelt85 reported by User:Babymissfortune (Result: Indef blocked)[edit]

Page
Mafia III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MySuperBelt85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774067376 by CityOfSilver (talk)"
  2. 02:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774060536 by CityOfSilver (talk) We will see"
  3. 22:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774027041 by Gwendy (talk) There is no platform for Mac, so I will keep deleting it until you understand it. Blocks and bans won't stop me."
  4. 16:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773944498 by TheDeviantPro (talk)"
  5. 07:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773924755 by Babymissfortune (talk)"
  6. 06:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773908849 by Triptothecottage (talk)"
  7. 02:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Frequent reverting. He also stated that "Blocks and bans won't stop" him. Babymissfortune 03:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Montgg reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Blocked 4 days)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [40]
  2. [41]
  3. [42]
  4. [43]
  5. [44] (yet another one this time he left the Afd header - other than that.... Seems like same revert - added Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC))


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:Montgg] (not by me - multiple warnings).


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:
He's also removing an AFD tag in the process. He's basically returning to a very old version removing all negative information and returning fluff. This is an SPA (with a user name that looks like the name of his firm montgg / Montgomery Assets Inc.) that is making clear COIN changes - going back to before my involvement (which started with the AFD in April) - this pattern has been going on also in March. I suggest that besides any steps versus Montgg that the page also be at least semi-protected.Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 4 days NeilN talk to me 15:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Campbell301 reported by User:Stevietheman (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Shaun King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Campbell301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774139332 by Stevietheman (talk)"
  2. 14:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774138551 by Stevietheman (talk)"
  3. 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774130351 by Strongjam (talk)"
  4. 13:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774130351 by Strongjam (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shaun King. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 01:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Revert of disputed material */ re"
  2. 14:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Revert of disputed material */ re"
  3. 15:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Revert of disputed material */ re"
  4. 15:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Revert of disputed material */ revise"
  5. 15:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Revert of disputed material */ further"
Comments:

Campbell301 is reverting against the current consensus and WP:BLP to place poorly sourced derogatory information about the subject Shaun King. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN talk to me 18:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Campbell301 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Shaun King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Campbell301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774139332 by Stevietheman (talk)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC) to 14:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 14:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774138551 by Stevietheman (talk)"
    2. 14:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
  3. 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774130351 by Strongjam (talk)"
  4. 13:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774130351 by Strongjam (talk)"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 12:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC) to 13:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 12:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 773987022 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
    2. 13:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "/* High school assault */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Obsession with Shaun King */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 16:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Revert of disputed material */ new section"
  2. 05:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Revert of disputed material */"
Comments:

Unrepentant edit warrior inserting negative claims about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours As above NeilN talk to me 18:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:84.90.140.221 reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Alan Walker (music producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.90.140.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [46]


Diffs of the user's reverts:
(As 84.90.140.221, outside 24 hours)

  1. [47]

(As 84.90.140.221, within 24 hours)

  1. [48]
  2. [49]
  3. [50]
  4. [51]
  5. [52]
  6. [53]
  7. [54]

(As 148.69.12.92, within 24 hours)

  1. [55]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

Kept changing Walker's date of birth without citing a reliable source, has been warned for disruptive editing ([58]) and changing content without citing a reliable source ([59]), but continued to restore its edits. I suggest that the page should be semi-protected in order to stop IP address from changing or adding content without citing sources. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a month. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:TheSimorgh reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: 48, 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Iranian presidential election, 2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheSimorgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user constantly adds an unknown figure "Dr Hossein Homayoun Fard Mohammad Abadi" as the "leader and founder of Ayyaran Group" which seems a hoax to me, and an advertisment of the linked website (http://www.homayounfard.com) which does not contain any material related to the person or any political organization. At best, it is not a hoax and the person is real, but it lacks reliable sources and it should be removed.


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 13:28, 7 April 2017
  2. 16:36, 7 April 2017
  3. 17:25, 7 April 2017
  4. 17:37, 7 April 2017
  5. 17:44, 7 April 2017
  6. 17:58, 7 April 2017


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:24, 7 April 2017


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Iranian presidential election, 2017

Comments:
Please consider semi-protecting the article for six weeks until the election date. Pahlevun (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Pahlevun I've been reading your publication, and I'm particularly amused by your self consideration of situation. "to me", "unknown figure"... only self considerations of a Group and a men that you don't have enough knowledge of politicians of Iran to be able to abord the subject without partiality. I've already told you that this candidate has deposed its candidature officially at Iranian Embassy of France in Paris, event the date of the deposit of the candidature is mentioned. What are you searching exactly except censuring the information because you're ignorant about the existence of this group ? Do you think your knowledge is so perfect that it allows to give life or existence to a Group that is created since 40 years ? Being honest, you're attitude is purely partial, and only targeted to ONE candidate since we're talking. Dr H.Homayoun Fard's candidature will be relayed in few days as what I know by french press for the beginning maybe next week. Now his candidature is officially announced by the website Ayyaran for Iran that is not a hoax, and your attitude is insulting the involvement that a men is about to do for its country. I'm not sure that you had the same courage to go trough the scene and present yourself as an official declared candidate as Mr Homayoun Fard is doing. Already I demanded that situation be mediated by an administrator. My action is purely information. That's not because this candidature is not mediatical  that means that's an hoax. Official institutions of Iran, Iranian Embassy of France in Paris can be contacted to confirm information so where's the hoax ? And more over, what's your real goal ? Your actions have been systematically targeted to this publication and only since few days. What superior power do you think you have to consider that you can filter who are official candidates ? Excuse-me but your attitude is more than confusing. I'm fighting against your abusive removal to defend information and you're fighting agains my contributions to defend that this candidate and this group are not existing even an official website exists and official informations from official institutions can be reliable by contacting them. I'll respect decision of administrator. Anyway, I take the engagement to rely more sources at the first media information relay, I suppose it will be AFP agency within one week I did contact them this afternoon, they're completing informations about the subject. Best regards. --TheSimorgh (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Reza Fariborz also blocked for 31 hours. El_C 19:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Andreslarin reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page
Estonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Andreslarin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 21:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 21:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC) to 21:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 21:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 21:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 21:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

We have an editor here that keeps restoring copyrighted content - despite being informed they my not copy and paste in this manner. Moxy (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • OK, I'm not in a blocking mood right now, but I certainly see edit warring, and I see what appear to be copyright violations, though I can't go back in the history right now to see where it starts, and what should be revdeleted. Plus, the content is promotional as well. Andreslarin, that's three fundamental rules of behavior you are flaunting, and even if my time right now is limited, I will not hesitate to block you if you continue to revert while we sort this out. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Still at it...... 14:28, April 6, 2017 is when they started editing the.page....reviewing their other edits for copyvios now.--Moxy (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Theshabin13 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Westfield Annapolis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Theshabin13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "The characterization in many of those articles is blatant as well as the mall website and info ref"
  2. 02:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "Website and most sources are clear on phrasing"
  3. 01:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "Phrasing and grammar see refs"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Bon-Ton. (TW)"
  2. 01:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "/* "Upscale" */ new section"
  3. 02:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit-warring to include "upscale" */ new section"
  4. 02:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Welcome! */ reply"
  5. 02:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "add"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Broadly disruptive editing across a wide set of department stores and malls to include the word "upscale" Nonsensical supporting refs including an advertisement for handheld radios for one department store. I;'ve reverted many so am taking no action myself. Most of my reverts have been reverted by Theshabin13 with no constructive response to my concerns, which have been blanked on their talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my edits I have reverted as I followed policy and explained my reasoning each time, however I am not disagreeing with there concsencuous on the other pages. Would have happily explained this to anyone. Theshabin13 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
You have not made any kind of substantive response to my concerns: you just blanked them and carried on.Your reasoning doesn't stand up to examination. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN talk to me 02:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Arderich reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result:Blocked 2 weeks)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [60]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [61]
  2. [62]
  3. [63]
  4. [64]
  5. [65]
  6. [66]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:

Editor in question has removed the request on the talk page without adding to it or edit summary:

  1. [69]

Their sole attempts at justification are to state in edit summaries that other editors haven't seen the film, and to post film trailer links on other user talk pages:

  1. [70]
  2. [71]

Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to jusitify. He hasn´t seen the movie and came there to molest.Arderich (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Repeatedly edit warring over multiple pages as well as re-factoring other users talk page comments. Amortias (T)(C) 09:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Talleyrand20 and User:Kabyle20 reported by User:Kleuske (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Ottoman Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Talleyrand20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Kabyle20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [73]
  2. [74]
  3. [75]
  4. [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am uninvolved and do not wish to be involved, partly because I think it would not resolve anything, partly because I don't know much about the subject. Comments:

Both users have been going at it since November last year and personal attacks have been made. Both users were warned about editwarring previously. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN talk to me 14:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Earl of Arundel reported by User:Usernamekiran (Result: Interaction ban, 72 hour 0RR)[edit]

This has gone on for long enough. El_C 00:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page
John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Earl of Arundel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774325573 by Usernamekiran (talk) Nonsense"
  2. 14:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774240197 by Usernamekiran (talk): Rejected; Usernamekiran reverted changes without justification and then resorted to trolling behaviour"
  3. 03:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Lede */ Attempt to simplify wording without dabbling into WP:OR waters"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774328656 by Earl of Arundel (talk)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 04:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Voting requested for correction in lede */"
  2. 13:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Voting requested for correction in lede */Transposed"
Comments:

User edited content that is under discussion on talkpage, he is active participant of the discussion. He falsely accused me of edit warring regarding the same content/issue, just to intimidate me. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive339#User:.E2.80.8EUsernamekiran_reported_by_User:Earl_of_Arundel_.28Result:_No_violation.29

When he was issued a warning on his talkpage for edit warring, he reverted it, along with my posts attempting to get over if he had any animosities towards me, which were unanswered. He further attacked me personally (may because i am from India), stating my command over english is poor, and that I should be editing "simple wikipedia" instead. It can be seen here: User_talk:Earl_of_Arundel#Use_of_ambiguous_words.2C_March_2017. —usernamekiran[talk] 19:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not good at "reporting users", so it is my humble request to the admin who will look in this matter, to take a look at edit history of me, and the reported user, history of the article, and its talkpage as well. Thanks a lot, and I apologise for the inconvenience. Face-smile.svgusernamekiran[talk] 19:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
If you would only stop trolling the problem would be resolved. But yet you continue to antagonize, send unsolicited emails, and so forth. What am I to do? Be a good steward toward your fellow Wikipedians! Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm always good towards fellow wikipedians. It not just wikipedians, I'm always good towards everybody. At least, like you, I don't say "this might be accepted in your culture, but not in mine", I don't demoralise other wikipedians, I don't bite them, I don't issue false warnings to them, I don't intimidate other editors. You've done all that on multiple occasions. You are not even polite, you are always blunt. I'm not going to communicate with you further. —usernamekiran[talk] 19:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I've offended you in the past, but that's still no excuse for how you're behaving now - engaging in farce edit wars in order to vindicate past slights is petty, to say the least. If you want to edit this encyclopaedia then you have my blessings, but I will not stand for trolling, overt or otherwise. Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Earl of Arundel: I am not engaging in "farce" edit wars. I have always explained my reasoning properly. You were not even willing to listen to my opinions about HSCA reports. You claimed to have knowledge beyond everybody. You kept on saying everybody else was wrong except you. When I pointed out the inaccuracies in your claims (and to do that, i had to upload photos of the HSCA report itself), when you realised you were, for a fact mistaken, instead of making appropriate changes, you stood by your inaccurate edits, bringing in the issue of "original research".
    Again, I dont care what happened in the past (regarding personal issues), I am over it. But your behaviour isnt something to be encouraged for sure. And i am trying to "vindicate past slights". You made an inaccurate edit, thats all about it.
    Stop calling me troll, and other names. And who on earth are you to give me your blessings?! —usernamekiran[talk] 21:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't throw around the term "troll" lightly, so I stand firm by that accusation. With regard to your complaints, all I can say is that editors often disagree - there's no reason to get up in arms about it. None of us own the articles featured here, we only succeed by striving for consensus. Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
look who is talking. It was you who issued warnings to me, and other users, and complained formally for edit wars. All that before your 500th edit. I think it is less than 300. This is my first complaint after 2000 edits. You are the one who is making edits without consensus, and discussions; not me. —usernamekiran[talk] 22:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, it wouldn't have mattered if it had been my first edit. Furthermore, your assertion is patently false [77][78][79][80]. Care to provide diffs to your sincere efforts to contribute to the discussion? Earl of Arundel (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── your "difference" dont prove anything. I dont need to prove anything to you anymore. I already proved my point that the HSCA's conclusion of multiple gumnem was based on dictabelt evidence.

The entire discussions (thats plural) are available on the talkpage. The admin will obviously see that before making thr decision. I am not going to respond to you anymore, so please stop communicating with me now. —usernamekiran[talk] 23:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The user reverted an edit again. Possible violation of 3RR. No summary was provided either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories&oldid=prev&diff=774374416
usernamekiran[talk] 00:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, other editors have been meaningfully discussing the topic and therefore it makes no sense to support your whimsical reversions. What, specifically, do you now object to with the edit I've made (which essentially overwrites my own previous edits)? Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: You really thought it was a good idea to violate 3RR while discussing your edit warring here on AN3, Earl of Arundel?(!) And Usernamekiran, as for your part in this edit war, are you reverting simply because the matter is under discussion? El_C 02:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C: No, I am making the changes becuase even though not formally, the consensus on talkpage refelcts the agreement.
here is the difference Earl of Arundel: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories&diff=prev&oldid=774370327
and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories&diff=prev&oldid=774371683
As you can see, I manually fixed the inaccuracies. I didnt even add my own words/content. I simply added back the content added by editor "Pincrete". —usernamekiran[talk] 02:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't quite follow all that. What does Pincrete say, I wonder. El_C 02:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
PS: i made only one edit/partial reversion after the complaint was lodged. —usernamekiran[talk] 02:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It was one too many. Reverting should have effectively stopped as soon as this report was filed. El_C 02:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @El C:To be honest, I viewed Usernamekiran's edits as borderline vandalism, so no, I hadn't even considered that angle (and in the spirit of standing by the core principles of the project, I still feel that I have been faithful). That said, in retrospect, I may have crossed the line technically, but it most certainly was not intentional. Earl of Arundel (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Borderline vandalism—how so? El_C 04:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C:Here is the edit by Pincrete (this is nearest edit to the undisputed version)
(HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, although it declined to specifically identify any additional parties in its findings. HSCA reasoned that a second gunman other than Oswald probably fired an extra bullet at Kennedy, although the acoustic evidence onwhich the HSCA essentially based its conclusions has since been discredited by numerous experts.
Here is the edit by Earl of Arundel:
In 1964, the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person responsible for assassinating Kennedy. In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, although it did not identify any individuals or groups. The HSCA reasoned that a second gunman other than Oswald probably alsofired at Kennedy, but acoustic evidence which the HSCA accepted in reaching its conclusions was later discredited by experts.
I edited it to:
(HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, although it did not identify any individuals or groups. The HSCA reasoned that a second gunman other than Oswald probably fired an extra bulletat Kennedy, although the acoustic evidence on which the HSCA essentially based its conclusions has since been discredited by numerous experts.
This was the only edit on the article that I performed after filling in this report. Kindly look at the time stamps. —usernamekiran[talk] 02:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Both of you should have stopped reverting as soon as discussion was ongoing—you both look to be at fault. Though violating 3RR is taking it to another level. El_C 03:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: if one takes a look at the talkpage, it is clearly onserved that I never made edits without discussions. Most of the currently active discussions are initiated by me, including "three tramps", "oswald's stolen identity", "february 2017", "new page for conspiracies surrounding oswald", and "voting requested". If one reads "three tramps", and "february 2017"; they would instantly realise that I would never take part in edit war. You can skim theough my entire contribution history, you will find no signs. —usernamekiran[talk] 03:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C: how can i be at fault? Face-confused.svg
I performed only one edit afger the complaint was lodged. That too, the edit was obviously in good-faith, and accurate. I didnt even add my own wording, I added the content from previous edit only. :-/ —usernamekiran[talk] 03:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Because you continued edit warring by reverting after filing this report, that's why you're also at fault. El_C 04:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Appearing to be benevolent and actually being so are to very different things, Kiran. Comments such as "I'm willing to walk on any path. Choosing it is up to you. Choose wisely. I mean, we can work on wiki as friends, or we can work 'not as friends'" seems to be suspiciously malevolent, in my opinion. Earl of Arundel (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
If I had any bad intentions, I would have conveyed that message through email, or Imwould have removed it from your talkpage Earl. Kindly stop reading between lines. And again, the fact remains the same, you made inaccurate edits. —usernamekiran[talk] 03:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I really didnt want to bring this up Earl, but please take a look at this, and User talk:Stephen Singer. @El C: I insist you take a look too. Does the name sound familiar Earl? If it doesnt, this diff will definitely refresh your memories. You reverted an edit on Jim Garrison I wonder what the reason was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=773202135
And you accuse me of being malevolent. —usernamekiran[talk] 03:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── What am I looking at? El_C 04:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 Administrator note: Let's stay focused. You both continued reverting after this report was filed, which is disruptive. And this rather obtuse way you are both evading this fact, all the while sniping at each other at length—which doesn't help anything—leads me to think you should both be sanctioned. I'm thinking a 72 hour 0RR on any article, and/or a 24-hour block. El_C 04:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I agree I performed one edit. But it had nothing to do with the edit war. I did it in goodfaith just to improve (correct) the article. Whereas Earl performed blatant reverts. And Earl persoanlly attacked me yet again by saying i have "malevolent" intentions. And described previously, he has been biting me all along, discouraging me, and even saying "you should rather edit simple wikipedia". Shouldnt his behaviour be considered at all?
As to the edit on Jim Garrison, he reverted my edit without even looking at the edit! It is like its his instincts to oppose me.
And after all that, you are giving out the same sentence to both of us? It is not fair. I am willing to take any sanction, but I am requesting for Earl's sentence to be more sever than me, as he has committed many offences on wikipedia.
And for Earl and his accusation of me being malevolent. I challenge you Earl, please take a one week if you need to, but provide me with one edit that shows, gives even a tiny little sign that I behaved on wikipedia in bad faith. —usernamekiran[talk] 04:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
At what seemed like the end of the edit war, you make an "edit/partial reversion after the complaint was lodged"—which results in Earl reverting and violating 3RR. If that was your plan: mission accomplished. I take a dim view of that antecedent, however. And am leaning on sanctioning you both equally because of that (because you were first to revert after this report was filed). If it wasn't for that one edit, the edit war would likely have stopped. I even thought of protecting the article, but thought to myself: they're not going to revert now—well, you both proved me wrong. You have to own up. El_C 05:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C: Thats not a fact. I didnt have any "plan". I dont care about anything, or any user, the sole reason I started to edit wikipedia was JFK. Please take a look at my contribution history closely. You will find out I am a friendly person, and that I have always been a model editor. I didnt even add Three tramps to the article without discussing it first on talkpage, even though I knew no policy could remove it from the article. I still feel bad for User talk:Stephen Singer, Mr. Singer who is at least 80 years old and a good editor, had to suffer because of the animosity Earl has for me.
Whereas if you take a look at Earl's history, his character as an editor is muddled. He has, on many occasions, intimated other users. He even issued wrongful warnings of edit war to other users just after one good-faith edit, an accurate edit most importantly.
Again, it was not my intention to "frame" or provoke Earl. Do you seriously think I would risk my own skin to do that? —usernamekiran[talk] 05:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
You cast a lot of aspersions on Earl, but sending me to go examine some nebulous contributions is a poor way to hint that evidence exists. If it does exist, the onus is on you to compile it in a clear and concise way. I'm not going to draw conclusions on the basis of un-referenced claims—that is not how I operate. Nor, for that matter, do I presume to know your intentions when you made that last revert, or what you would or would not risk. I only follow the facts in this one isolated case. If you wish to introduce context, again, the onus is on you to do the legwork for that. El_C 05:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C: PS: please please take a look at these talkpage sections worth three-four lines. Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories#February_2017, and Talk:David_Atlee_Phillips#recent_heavey_edits_by_Earl_of_Arundel.
Also, if you are going to treat me, and Earl the same, does it mean your dont mind racism, user biting, discouraging them, telling them humiliatingly to leave this wikipedia (and go to another), intimating them, issuing false warnings, harbour animosity, revert their edits without even seeing what the edit was?
Because Earl has done all that, and you dont seem to mind it. —usernamekiran[talk] 05:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I want my evidence in the form of diffs—I don't have the time to read through walls of text. This is getting too lengthy for AN3. I suggest we continue it elsewhere, on your user talk page, perhaps. This is becoming a misuse of this noticeboard. El_C 05:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Accusing someone of racism is a serious charge—how did you possibly think that this would be okay without evidence to support it? Well? El_C 05:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • These two have been edit warring for weeks, pettily reverting each other on other pages as well as this one, with Kiran going so far as to edit war over Earl's talk page. @Usernamekiran: unacceptable to arbitrarily revert a user you were previously edit warring with. You did nothing but perpetuate disruption on an article. There's no "right side" to an edit war. The content is being amicably discussed, apart from your argumentative and raucous walls upon walls of text that only appear to fuel the flames of dispute (one needs only look at this report). The scariest thing is that you act as if you're an angel who has not extensively edit warred with and personally attacked this user as much as he has done so to you. How you thought Earl would be sanctioned and you would be let off the hook is beyond me. Another admin has responded to this report first so I will let them handle it, however were it me actioning this report, you'd both be getting above average blocks. Swarm 05:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • By all means, feel free to take over. Especially, if you're familiar with this dispute. In fact, please do, it would be a relief. El_C 05:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C and Swarm: kindly givd me 10 minutes more, then you black me for 3 months if you want.

PS: also, kindly take a look at my userpage, i just updated it. —usernamekiran[talk] 05:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @El C and Swarm: The only thing I reverted on Earl's talkpage was his revert of the warning (that was a few hours ago). And i did that only because i was not aware of the fact that users are allowed to remove the warnings after such a short period.
And no, I never attacked him. It was just him. Like i challenged to Earl, i give you an open challange to you too Swarm, provide me with only one edit (not related to Earl) that shows even a little hint of sign that I might have performed an edit which was not in good faith. I always have been a good contributor. It was Earl who attacked me. I never attacked him.
And even if you dont block me, I am leaving wikipedia to never come back. Right now.
I have done extensive study of Warren Report and HSCA. At least since last 4 years. Among many other accepted researches (not youtube videos). I thought I could use my knowledge to improve wiki. But Earl wouldnt let me cuz it is WP:OR. Next day, he might say "warren report stated there were three bullets, so it shouldnt be added in the article as OR, lets add three and half bullets."
I was in the middle of making Parbhani a good article. I guess i wont be able to do that.
Nevermind. I contacted a couple of users whom could be said as my friends, I wanted to contact a few more persons, but I am not feeling upto it right now. I believe they will send me an email in near future, as they are my friends. I believe that is something that Earl doesnt have on wiki.
I just have one last request for both of you, please look through each, and every edit that Earl, and I have ever made on wikipedia. Please. It is a humble request of a user who just left wikipedia editing forever. —usernamekiran[talk] 06:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're upset enough to leave over this. But we are all volunteers—no one has the time to go through your or Earl's edit contributions. No one here is going to do all that leg work, for either of you. It just doesn't work like that. I suggest you calm down and take a more dispassionate, philosophical view to this. And where you make claims, provide evidence that is clear, concise, and in the form of diffs. El_C 06:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Kiran here. Yes I am upset, but you dont need to apologise for that, honestly. Face-smile.svg
I have a degree in psychology among many other, and (post degree) diploma in psychiatric medication. I am very well aware of the tactics that are being used by Earl. Anybody in my place would have been a lot more than upset cuz of the way Earl treated me. @Swarm: claimed I am a bad person/editor, so he must have the diffs.
I am not feeling upto look into the history, but here you can find few links Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive339#User:.E2.80.8EUsernamekiran_reported_by_User:Earl_of_Arundel_.28Result:_No_violation.29
Earl has less than 300 total edits (so obviously fewer mainspace edits) you will be able to find offensive content very easily. And i do not want to be "selective", i neither want you to see only one side of the coin. So I insist you and Swarm to scrutinise my 2100 edits. Especially Swarm.
No matter what, I will be reading wikipedia regularly. So he can take a week or two, or maybe more, and whenver you are done with the check, you/he can send me an email from my userpage. I am looking forward to hear from Swarm. Lets see what he finds.
I had to login cuz i was unable to post this comment while logged out. —usernamekiran[talk] 06:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't apologising because I don't feel I did anything wrong. I expressed my regret—there's a difference. Again, no one is going to do this all this extremely time-consuming and tedious legwork that you keep insisting on. It's not going to happen. You may as well come to terms with that. I keep finding myself repeating to you, to no avail: the onus is on you to support claims with evidence in the form of diffs. Full stop. (For example, you claimed Earl exhibited racism—but you provided no proof. That's not cool. I want to review that diff, that one diff, if you please.) El_C 07:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Yes, i know why you used "sorry". :)
I tried to search for that diff. I found it, but it was on email. I can forward the email to you if you want. But I am not sure if it will be considered as it was "off the wikipedia". But i can provide the link to talkpage discussion where he said i have a poor command on english, and that i should be editing "simple wikipedia". it is there on his talkpage.

How about telling @Swarm: to do this kegwork? He accused me of being a bad person/editor afterall. All i want to prove is that i am clean. —usernamekiran[talk] 07:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I am logging out now. I will start editing only when Swarm (or somebody), goes through all the edits we made. Wikipedia is a big place. It wouldnt matter much if it loses an editor like me. Afterall it has got yours, and Swarm's favourite Earl. Earl who goes to Admin board like after every 20th edit. If you just skim through his history, you will realise most of his edits are on complain/admin boards, and most of his article edits are disputed/opposed. —usernamekiran[talk] 07:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Odd you exhibit all this intense animosity toward Earl, when it looks like you settled your differences when you were both here the other week. El_C 07:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I thought the same. But i guess he was just pretending there to have "settled the differences". He might have been afraid cuz I mentioned his his previous deeds. But as you can see here, he never got over the animosity that he has for me. —usernamekiran[talk] 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
care to join the discussion @Earl of Arundel:? All of us saw you reverted the blanking of this very page. —usernamekiran[talk] 19:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Swarm: You wanted to sanction us "above average". I request you to block both of us for a period of 18 months (One n half year). During that period, the users must not be allowed to edit wikipedia by any means; by creating a new account, or through an IP account. No editing at all, for 18 months. The block should be applicable for entire wikipeida, including talkpages, mainspace articles, and whatever there is on en.wikipedia
if possible, kindly make that block universal, on every wiki project. If that is not possible, please give us a formal/official warning stating that any edit on other wiki site would result in block there. Thanks.

PS: please see El C's talkpage. If i am blocked for 18 months, I will not be able to contact you. But i still stand firm by my request. —usernamekiran[talk] 19:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Here are few diffs that I think are notable here, they are in the reverse chronological order. But again, I insist both you admins should look thoroughly in each, and every edit both of us made individually. Even if takes six months. You can block us till the scrutiny is ongoing. Combined, there are 2500 edits, if 10 edits are reviewed per day, it will take at most 7 months.

Here Earl reverted a good edit possibly just because he saw my username. If he had seen the edit, he would have known I didnt removed the content. That revert lead to further debacle on the the article of Jim Garrison, which lead to the discussions on a good editor who is at least 80 years old. Because of Earl User talk:Stephen Singer had trouble for no reason.

Here Earl told me I'd be better off editing simple wikipedia, obvious intentions of discouraging me. If one looks at the entire discussion, I told Earl about his mistakes in his edits.

A conversation of Earl with another (far experienced user), where as usual Earl used weasel words. The other editor is experienced, and was talking about creating a new section on the article. Instead of being helpful, or neutral, Earl was just discouraging the editor from creating the section, stating "it will tabloid-like in my opinion", even though the theories are (still) well accepted.

Accusing other editors of being paid for their contributions.

Intimidating other users, by issuing warnings just after one good-faith edit which followed the consensus of that time. As usual, Earl did not "edit", but "reverted" the contributions of other user.

Even when the issue was thoroughly being discussed on article's talkpage, Earl took it to Admin's board.
On that board, Earl agreed with Canada Jack, but continued arguing on the talkpage of the article. He still thinks he is right about the HSCA topic (he is not). There are many (different) discussions on the article's talkpage for this very issue.

On March 7, when I properly pinged him in a discussion regarding his large edit, he didnt even reply. So much for his claim of "always being collaborative".

Throughout his conversation on various talkpages, he has treated other users like he is far more superior, and others are inferior to him. This can be seen in the discussions regarding HSCA. —usernamekiran[talk] 22:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I am logging out for at least six months now. Being compared to Earl is very shocking. I request you to sanction me as per your protocols for the edit war if you think I am at fault. I also request to scrutinise Earl's less than 300 edits, his conversations with other users, and sanction him appropirately. Thanks. Most of my time on wikipedia was nice, until Earl started editing. Even then it was nice for most of the times, as I contributed on many different fronts, and as Earl is not even much active. Thanks again. Face-smile.svg I hope Earl gets sanctioned properly. —usernamekiran[talk] 23:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • You two are now under an interaction ban for the foreseeable future. You are also sanctioned with 72 hour 0RR on all articles. I don't see the need for a block at this stage. As for articles you share, we'll cross that bridge later. El_C 00:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Charles lindberg reported by User:Simplexity22 (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Kevin O'Leary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Charles lindberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774535412 by INeeDaFatToke (talk) Officer cadet not Cadet, those are two different pages boss."
  2. 03:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "click here Officer_cadet#Canada, read the first paragraph. Clearly differentiates between Officer Cadet and cadet."
  3. 03:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Once again... A military academy and a military college are not the same thing. RMC Saint-Jean is a military college."
  4. 03:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Once again restored page to consensus"
  5. 03:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774533625 by INeeDaFatToke (talk) Explanation!?"
  6. 03:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "removed more unsourced, unexplained edits from the same user."
  7. 03:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774533252 by INeeDaFatToke (talk) Must provide an explanation"
  8. Consecutive edits made from 03:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC) to 03:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 03:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774532833 by INeeDaFatToke (talk)"
    2. 03:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "reverted vandalism by User:INeeDaFatToke"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kevin O'Leary. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 04:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:INeeDaFatToke reported by User:Simplexity22 (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Kevin O'Leary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
INeeDaFatToke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Officer Cadet is a rank held by military cadets during their training to become commissioned officers. [1]"
  2. 03:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Had to update incorrect information. From college in question wiki page: "It is the arm of the Canadian Military College system that primarily ensures the smooth transition of selected Cadets from Quebec high schools to university education.""
  3. 03:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774533679 by Charles lindberg (talk)"
  4. 03:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774533427 by Charles lindberg (talk)"
  5. 03:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774532972 by Charles lindberg (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kevin O'Leary. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Blocked for 72 hours. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

References

User:Esenotnacytriddiputs reported by User:Jc86035 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Hoklo people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Esenotnacytriddiputs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "Why should we have a discussion page when every statement is correct? It is meaningless."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 10:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC) to 10:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 10:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 774421290 by Jc86035 (talk)"
    2. 10:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Sportspeople */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 07:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC) to 07:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 07:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Scientists, mathematicians and inventors */"
    2. 07:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Scientists, mathematicians and inventors */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Recent additions */ new section"
Comments:

(The previous section was not submitted properly because I accidentally pressed the Enter key.) User has been reverted several times for bad formatting, large uncited additions, random addition of g