Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive340

User talk:80.116.134.46 reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: Both users warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Version from before all the reverting took place:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (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? Timothy Joseph Wood  20:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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))


 * Checking Neil N  talk to me 21:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , 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. Neil N  talk to me 21:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , 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))
 * There is zero discussion on the talk page about this and you changed the longstanding version last month. You are much closer to a block than the IP is because I did investigate carefully. --Neil N  talk to me 21:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

, 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))
 * 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. --Neil N  talk to me 22:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , 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. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Sebebineydiki reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 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)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 01:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 773913295 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) Too many trolls like Chisme on this page. Wikipedia editors please lock page from abuse."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 773885471 by Chisme (talk) Stop trolling this page. You are officially getting notified in violation of this."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 773883577 by Chisme (talk) You are now officially trolling and in violation of all Wikipedia rules."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 773881179 by Chisme (talk) Refer to my last edit and comments."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 773880954 by Chisme (talk) There is a specific section dedicated for any controversies. Refer to it as its stated."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 773880661 by Chisme (talk) User reported for obvious vandalism and disruptive behavior."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 773880041 by Chisme (talk) No citation or reference ever stating Felon. Next time you will be reported for abuse and vandalism."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 773880185 by Chisme (talk) This is not a platform for a personal vendetta. You will be reported. Follow the rules."
 * 1)  "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)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gurbaksh Chahal. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * . 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)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "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)  "deleted till consensus about numbers and validity of the source"
 * 3)  "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)   "Level 3 warning re. Religion in Russia (HG) (3.1.20)"

Talk:Religion in Russia
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 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)


 * Discussion on the talk page, and here, suggests ownership issues <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Aydinsalis reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: or

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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,, 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. 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)


 * . El_C 21:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:209.118.32.225 reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * . El_C 21:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MySuperBelt85 reported by User:Babymissfortune (Result: Indef blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 774067376 by CityOfSilver (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 774060536 by CityOfSilver (talk) We will see"
 * 3)  "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)  "Undid revision 773944498 by TheDeviantPro (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 773924755 by Babymissfortune (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 773908849 by Triptothecottage (talk)"


 * 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. Baby miss fortune 03:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   03:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Montgg reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Blocked 4 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 774139332 by Stevietheman (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 774138551 by Stevietheman (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 774130351 by Strongjam (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 774130351 by Strongjam (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Revert of disputed material */ re"
 * 2)   "/* Revert of disputed material */ re"
 * 3)   "/* Revert of disputed material */ re"
 * 4)   "/* Revert of disputed material */ revise"
 * 5)   "/* Revert of disputed material */ further"

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! Talk • Work 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 774139332 by Stevietheman (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 774138551 by Stevietheman (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 774130351 by Strongjam (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 774130351 by Strongjam (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 773987022 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 7)  "/* High school assault */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 773987022 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* High school assault */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Obsession with Shaun King */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Revert of disputed material */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Revert of disputed material */"


 * Comments:

Unrepentant edit warrior inserting negative claims about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As above <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:84.90.140.221 reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (As 84.90.140.221, outside 24 hours) (As 84.90.140.221, within 24 hours) (As 148.69.12.92, within 24 hours)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Kept changing Walker's date of birth without citing a reliable source, has been warned for disruptive editing and changing content without citing a reliable source, 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)
 * for a month. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:TheSimorgh reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: 48, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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)


 * . Reza Fariborz also blocked for 31 hours. El_C 19:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Andreslarin reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

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., 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)


 * Copyvio. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The characterization in many of those articles is blatant as well as the mall website and info ref"
 * 2)  "Website and most sources are clear on phrasing"
 * 3)  "Phrasing and grammar see refs"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Bon-Ton. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* "Upscale" */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* Edit-warring to include "upscale" */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* Welcome! */ reply"
 * 5)   "add"


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

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)
 * Comments:


 * 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)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Arderich reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result:Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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


 * 1)

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)
 * 2)

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)


 * 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)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 774325573 by Usernamekiran (talk) Nonsense"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 774240197 by Usernamekiran (talk): Rejected; Usernamekiran reverted changes without justification and then resorted to trolling behaviour"
 * 3)  "/* Lede */ Attempt to simplify wording without dabbling into WP:OR waters"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 774328656 by Earl of Arundel (talk)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Voting requested for correction in lede */"
 * 2)   "/* 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. Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive339

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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran  <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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)
 * 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?! — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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 . 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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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
 * — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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)


 * 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)


 * 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". — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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)
 * 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)
 * Borderline vandalism —how so? El_C 04:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[talk]   02:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the edit by Pincrete (this is nearest edit to the undisputed version)

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)

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. :-/ — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[talk]   03:21, 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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran  <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[talk]   03:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * how can i be at fault?
 * 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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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. 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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[talk]   03:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

- 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)
 * 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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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)
 * 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? — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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)


 * PS: please please take a look at these talkpage sections worth three-four lines. Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories, and Talk:David_Atlee_Phillips. 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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran  <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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. 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.  S warm   ♠  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)

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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[talk]   05:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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)

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. 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 Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive339 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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[talk]   06:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Kiran here. Yes I am upset, but you dont need to apologise for that, honestly.


 * 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 to do this kegwork? He accused me of being a bad person/editor afterall. All i want to prove is that i am clean. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[talk]   18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * care to join the discussion ? All of us saw you reverted the blanking of this very page. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[talk]   19:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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. I hope Earl gets sanctioned properly. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran  <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[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)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 774535412 by INeeDaFatToke (talk) Officer cadet not Cadet, those are two different pages boss."
 * 2)  "click here Officer_cadet, read the first paragraph. Clearly differentiates between Officer Cadet and cadet."
 * 3)  "Once again... A military academy and a military college are not the same thing. RMC Saint-Jean is a military college."
 * 4)  "Once again restored page to consensus"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 774533625 by INeeDaFatToke (talk) Explanation!?"
 * 6)  "removed more unsourced, unexplained edits from the same user."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 774533252 by INeeDaFatToke (talk) Must provide an explanation"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 774532833 by INeeDaFatToke (talk)"
 * 9)  "reverted vandalism by User:INeeDaFatToke"
 * 1)  "reverted vandalism by User:INeeDaFatToke"


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


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


 * Comments:


 * . El_C 04:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:INeeDaFatToke reported by User:Simplexity22 (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Officer Cadet is a rank held by military cadets during their training to become commissioned officers. "
 * 2)  "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)  "Undid revision 774533679 by Charles lindberg (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 774533427 by Charles lindberg (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 774532972 by Charles lindberg (talk)"


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

User:Esenotnacytriddiputs reported by User:Jc86035 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Why should we have a discussion page when every statement is correct? It is meaningless."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 774421290 by Jc86035 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Sportspeople */"
 * 4)  "/* Scientists, mathematicians and inventors */"
 * 5)  "/* Scientists, mathematicians and inventors */"
 * 1)  "/* Scientists, mathematicians and inventors */"
 * 2)  "/* Scientists, mathematicians and inventors */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 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 galleries, etc. They refuse to comment on the talk page. I don't really know how to handle this sort of situation so I'll just leave it here for someone else. Jc86035 (talk) <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left">Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I know there technically aren't any 3RR violations here, but it feels pointless to keep reverting them and I'd probably have ended up violating 3RR first. Jc86035 (talk) <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left">Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 06:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Bgc7676 reported by User:VietPride10 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "What part of "leave this wrapped" do you not understand? Making the column that stretched out ruins the entire formation. Stop changing it."
 * 1)  "What part of "leave this wrapped" do you not understand? Making the column that stretched out ruins the entire formation. Stop changing it."

I have tried numerous times to explain to the user including going on their Talk page to try to resolve the issue, however, they have continued to ignore my edits and just have been reverting them. VietPride10 (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * . Only one revert cited. Report is missing the 3RR warning and attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page fields—what gives? El_C 06:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:212.109.6.184 reported by User:Ylleman (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning, user is anonymous

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion, article is undergoing deletion

Comments:

The article is undergoing a deletion discussion. Since that discussion started, an anonymous user has vandalized the article with a spurious claim that the organization the article discusses is in fact owned by Russia Today. For the record, I am the originator of the deletion debate and think the article should be deleted. However, I feel that vandalizing the page is unproductive. Ylleman (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . Favonian (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Paperkings reported by User:Justeditingtoday (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2017 Stanley Cup playoffs

Comments:

I have not personally warned Paperkings nor been involved at all. I saw the series of reverts while recent changes patrolling and they just keep ignoring the multiple people who have reverted them and continue edit warring. Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ktrimi991 reported by User:Anastan (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 774635368 by Anastan (talk) Although you did not edit for some days you reverted me within minutes."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 774635486 by Anastan (talk) The problem is not the gallery. It is not a problem for me to delete myself. The problem is you following me around."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 774632905 by Anastan (talk) The user is coming after me again. Someone else can delete gallery but not the picture in the body."
 * 4)  "Added picture in the body of article. Someone excluding Anstan who follows me around can take it to talk and then delete gallery. It is not a problem."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 774145765 by 91.148.92.123 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Added picture in the body of article. Someone excluding Anstan who follows me around can take it to talk and then delete gallery. It is not a problem."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 774145765 by 91.148.92.123 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User was already warned numerous times for edit warring, and also got blocked less then two months ago for that. Now he reverts trivial gallery, removed per WP:IG and WP:NOTGALLERY, without any talk page comments as usual. Also, user is harassing everyone who revert any of his edits with comments about stalking and banning editors to edit on articles.

Warned for edit warring so many times, i can just list few of those (diff, diffARBMAC warning, etc, etc, etc, just look at his talk page...) Also, SPI on him was stale, so it was closed without action. In short, WP:NOTHERE. --  Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  19:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reported this editor to administrators in the past. This user has been following me around in order to dishearten and force me to stop editing since some months ago. Although Anastan had not edit any article for some days they reverted me within minutes. I do not accept Anastan to revert me. I have tried to discuss with this editor in the past and the result has always been the same, failure to find consensus because of bad will of Anastan. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything stated is simply not true. Editor has reverted numerous other editors, also never agreeing to talk or communicate, he never commented on talk pages, and as you can see, he is banning editors to revert his edits. everything was false. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  19:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * For disruptive editing per prior warning and subsequent edit summaries containing accusations of wikihounding. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Efc1878 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not me and not at Davies's talk but: 

Comments:

There were several reverts done between the third one I listed and the fourth; I think they were self-reverts in a belated attempt to comply with 3RR but I could be wrong. Note that this user might have clicked the undo link next to my username in the edit history then removed the automatic text in the edit summary box.  City O f  Silver  22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . How is the first revision (not diff) a revert? It's the same as the diff in previous version reverted to. Please preview your report next time. That said, looking at the history there does appear to be four reverts. El_C 05:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd reported by User:Jon Kolbert (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continues to add unsourced or poorly-sourced material without having reached consensus on the talk page. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User made no edits after your 3RR warning here made 9 minutes prior to this AN3 report.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you posted the differences in the edits. While it's true I have made a few edits today, none of them are reverting the same information. For example, I added 3 different sources to the article. This is not the same as edit warring in the same source three times. Not every edit is considered a revert. There is no evidence that I reverted any content three times.
 * Also, I have not actually added any content to this article, besides sources. I have restored content which was removed without consensus. I have also removed content which was added against consensus. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR does specify that it's any reverts, not just reverts of the same material.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it's pretty suspicious behaviour to accuse someone of edit-warring when you're an involved editor. Jon Kolbert actually made several edits today. His goal is to remove the Mr. Wonderful nickname from the O'Leary WP page. This is odd, as the nickname is well-sourced. He never even posted on the O'Leary talk page to attempt to resolve this issue. It's also suspicious to post on someone's talk page a warning, and then immediately post an accusation on the notice board. The point of a warning is to wait and see if someone makes another revert. Jon should have attempted to discuss the removal of the Mr. Wonderful nickname on the talk page, and achieve consensus for this change. This is not good-faith behaviour. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * El_C 05:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Apollo The Logician reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Police investigation */  it is clear from the picture."
 * 2)  "/* Police investigation */"
 * 3)  "/* Suspect */deletion of sourced info"
 * 1)  "/* Suspect */deletion of sourced info"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User's talk page history has about a dozen blankings of 3RR warnings. Here's one from before the above edits:

User was blocked on 23 March with the message: "As you failed to take my warning that further edit warring would result in a block to heart, and have in fact continued to edit war across multiple articles since being warned and while a discussion regarding your edit-warring is ongoing at AN/I, I have blocked your account."


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


 * Comments:

User is continuing to aggressively skirt and occasionally break 3RR while telling other editors to stop edit warring, two weeks after a one-week block for edit warring. When warned for edit warring on the 2017 Stockholm attack article today (as well as the above skin-colour edit warring, they've also broken 3RR over the death of a dog - 1, 2, 3, 4 and later 5 - and the driver's nationality - 1, 2, 3) Apollo claimed not to understand the relevance of the warning and then self-reverted their last dog edit. McGeddon (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They were all over a period of 2 days. Nothing was broken. Also I self reverted because I found out there was a consensus to leave the dog out, I still haven't a clue what that Edit warring warning was about.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As you're aware you don't need to violate 3 reverts to be blocked for edit warring. When multiple users have reverted you, and aren't obvious vandalism, and you put the edit back it counts as edit warring. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody has ever defined what edit warring is. Nobody has ever said where the line is. It seems very subjective.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Pretty clear repeat of previous edit warring behavior. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Andral reported by User:TheBD2000 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user was warned by two separate users on his violation of WP:1RR but he has not corrected the issue yet. TheBD2000 (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They were reverted days ago. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Dino nam reported by User:UserDe (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Special:Diff/773546713
 * Special:Diff/773732563 UserDe (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Battle of Cao Bang (1979). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has a history of edit warring and has been warned before. Claims to be reverting 'disruptive editing'. Also see Dino nam: talk.


 * You need four reverts to violate 3RR. Only two reverts is fairly mild for this board. I suggest that Fury 1991 (why aren't they listed here? It doesn't seem very even-handed) join the user on the article talk page, which I would hope both of them start using as soon as possible. I think the result should still be able to communicate and summarise the aftermath in a few words, not simply link to it without comment. Calling the a Chinese victory result "disruptive," however, feels like it's going a step too far. Dino nam should at least prove to the rest of us that it is disruptive—falling well outside consensus. El_C 02:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already made my point on talk:Battle of Cao Bang (1979) for long, yet neither user:UserDe nor user:Fury 1991 have ever clarified their point there. Dino nam (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But calling the edits disruptive requires more than what you wrote. Anyway, see if my latest edit made sense to you. El_C 06:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My point was the Chinese accomplished their goals and it should be recognized as such. Vietnam lost. Period.Fury 1991 (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * That's the wrong attitude. No nationalism, please. El_C 02:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny. I am American.Fury 1991 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * That's why I mean it was disruptive editing. No explanation, no clarification on talk page (although I've already made my point there waiting for counter-arguments), and moreover, no RS to back his point. Dino nam (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:RegalHawk reported by User:CFCF (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 774798700 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 774798541 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk) to last revision by RegalHawk. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 774798316 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 774798233 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 774798200 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 774798156 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 774798097 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 774798005 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk) to last revision by RegalHawk. (TW)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 774797819 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 774797643 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 774797480 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 774797351 by 185.104.184.142 (talk) You are begging to get blocked."
 * 15)  "Undid revision 774797264 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 774797070 by 185.104.184.142 (talk) Jytdog is not a credible user. He has had a history of edit warring, just like you."
 * 17)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): Stop your edit warring. You will be blocked if you continue. (TW)"
 * 18)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk) to last revision by RegalHawk. (TW)"
 * 19)  "Undid revision 774796043 by 185.104.184.142 (talk)"
 * 20)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk) to last revision by A Great Catholic Person. (TW)"
 * 21)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk) to last revision by RegalHawk. (TW)"
 * 22)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk) to last revision by A Great Catholic Person. (TW)"
 * 23)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk) to last revision by A Great Catholic Person. (TW)"
 * 24)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk) to last revision by A Great Catholic Person. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Such conduct must be acted upon. Whether it is a warning or something more is up to you. Carl Fredrik talk 19:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking at minimum a week-long block. I'm seeing a clean block log, which surprises and confuses me. El_C 19:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, reverting a sock. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Then go to WP:RFPP. WP:CLAIM is all well and good, but reverting 40 times is disruptive. El_C 19:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:96.8.1.144 reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: One week—page semi'd)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Duplicate text by Wikipedia troll. This section is already in Personal Life as this pertains to any known figure that has a legal issue."
 * 2)  "Incorrect on adding founder to BlueLithium. As well as Chahal not being CEO. See www.gravity4.com/leadership and wiki page for Gravity."
 * 3)  "Wikipedia Troll keeps adding content that is repetitive and in section 3 of Personal Life."
 * 4)  "/* Career */Wikipedia Troll keeps adding Chahal resigned citing an incorrect article. When on Wikipedia page for Gravity4 and Gravity4's website listed his as Chairman & CEO. http://www.gravity4.com/leadership"
 * 5)  "Removing content from opening narrative as it is already in personal life. Krishna was not a co-founder of BlueLithium. And Chahal remains CEO of Gravity4. Just see their website and the Wikipedia page itself."
 * 6)  "Incorrect knowledge to Wikipedia as article in question is wrong. Check www.gravity4.com/leadership page for accurate knowledge. Chahal remains CEO of Gravity4."
 * 1)  "Removing content from opening narrative as it is already in personal life. Krishna was not a co-founder of BlueLithium. And Chahal remains CEO of Gravity4. Just see their website and the Wikipedia page itself."
 * 2)  "Incorrect knowledge to Wikipedia as article in question is wrong. Check www.gravity4.com/leadership page for accurate knowledge. Chahal remains CEO of Gravity4."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warring after release of last block. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . By Huon. Page semiprotected also for one week. El_C 19:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Reverts 4 through 7 (four of them) are a straight up 3RR violation. Reverts 1 through 4 constitute four reverts in 24 hours and 28 minutes - an obvious attempt at gaming 3RR after a warning was issued. Reverts 6 through 9 also just barely skirt the 24 hour restriction.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

For the past three days Factchecker has been edit warring on this article against multiple users. It's also obvious that their edits have no consensus on the talk page - additional users (not just those who reverted him) have objected to their edits. Requests to seek consensus and slow down have fallen on deaf ears. At one point Factchecker tried to invoke a "BLP exemption" even though this is not a BLP issue (it's about an institute. Note that to the extent the founder of the institute is discussed, Factchecker did not limit themselves to changing just the text relevant to the founder, but just performed wholesale reverts, including of text unrelated to the founder - which shows that in this particular case crying BLP is just an excuse for egregious edit warring.

I notified Factchecker that he violated 3RR on April 7 and asked him to self-revert. He refused. I was still gonna let it slide because I though the warning might slow them down a bit. That hasn't happened. The only discernible effect of the warning appears to be that Factchecker became careful about reverting just outside the 24 hour window, which is an obvious bad-faithed attempt at WP:GAMEing the restriction.

The user has been on Wikipedia for awhile, they have several blocks for this kind of behavior under their belt, and they should know better. They are also acting as if they intend to continue with this behavior.

Oh yeah. One more thing. After I notified Factchecker, they showed up to an article they've never edited before and reverted me in what appears to be revenge-reverting and stalking. What makes this particularly nasty is the fact that the user whose text I edited had simply made a mistake in their edit and in fact, when back and reverted Factchecker back to my version. That shows that Factchecker didn't even bother to consider the merits of my edit (or the other user's) but simply was looking for something to revert me on just to get his kicks in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User notified.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * El_C 08:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The edits were clearly BLP exempt and the other participants in the edit war had the burden of producing text that didn't exaggerate or misrepresent the sources. Would have been nice if you gave me a few hours to respond. Fact checker _ at your service  01:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:A Great Catholic Person reported by User:CFCF (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): Solution - get off Wikipedia - I will revert to YOUR version later. It's over. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): It doesn't matter, you will get blocked for a few days if you continue edit warring. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): Do you want to get blocked? (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): Only warning on your talk page. (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): I gotta go to my next class soon, I can't use a computer there. (TW)"
 * 6)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): Stop wasting time and look at the deal. (TW)"
 * 7)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): Deal: I can leave it. But only if you stop now. (TW)"
 * 8)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): Read my message. (TW)"
 * 9)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): You will get blocked if you keep doing this. (TW)"
 * 10)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): Stop edit warring. (TW)"
 * 11)  "Reverted to revision 768497421 by Raghuaditya (talk): Better version. (TW)"
 * 12)  "Reverted 1 edit by A Great Catholic Person (talk): Wrong. (TW)"
 * 13)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): So, you want to get blocked because of an edit war? (TW)"
 * 14)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): Discuss here with other users if you want these changes. (TW)"
 * 15)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): I don't like content copied from another page! (TW)"
 * 16)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): You're the sockpuppet (according to other user) though! (TW)"
 * 17)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk): Stop edit warring. (TW)"
 * 18)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk). (TW)"
 * 19)  "Reverted 1 edit by 185.104.184.142 (talk). (TW)"
 * 20)  "Reverted edits by 185.104.184.142 (talk) to last version by Sro23"
 * 1)  "Reverted edits by 185.104.184.142 (talk) to last version by Sro23"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Such conduct must be acted upon. Whether it is a warning or something more is up to you. Carl Fredrik talk 19:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There is already an ANI thread here, the IP has been blocked for evasion, and overall, they had almost fifty reverts in 24 hours of about a half dozen different users. So... is this really necessary? Timothy Joseph Wood  19:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking at minimum a week-long block. I'm seeing a clean block log, which surprises and confuses me. El_C 19:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well if you're firing up the ban hammer, I hope you're prepared to swing it thrice, because there were at least two others who broke 3RR, including probably the most prolific anti-vandalism editor on the project. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Reverting a sock. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then go to WP:RFPP. WP:CLAIM is all well and good, but reverting 40 times is disruptive. El_C 19:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was at RFPP for 25 minutes before an admin (me) picked it up. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to see 40 reverts. Especially over something that trivial. Next time, leave the WP:CLAIM and wait 5 minutes on ANI or 25 minutes on RFPP. El_C 19:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one looking at the page history in disbelief? It's not as if this was serious defacement or anything. El_C 19:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * El_C No you are not the only one. I recently had a similar incident, and though there were 4 of us that reverted the user, eventually each of us got to 3RR and each independently decided to stop reverting and wait for admin intervention (which took half an hour, even with postings on multiple boards--it was a slow night). The fact that an admin is not immediately available is no excuse to continue reverting a user who is obviously going to keep smashing the revert button. I'd like to see harsh warnings for all the users in question that gratuitously broke 3RR. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we stop with the incorrect "broke 3RR" assertion? "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" is exempt, per WP:3RRNO. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but even if the IP in question was 100% guaranteed to be a sock, why the hell revert 40 times when the edit in question is relatively minor anyway? Do do so simply with regard to WP:3RRNO is pointless and WP:POINTY at the same time. Just request protection, wait it out and then revert. I cant see how anyone could say that what these guys did in this situation was appropriate. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:76.14.173.8 reported by User:32.218.39.235 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:   

Comments:

76.14.173.8 has been repeatedly adding copyrighted material plagiarized from Business Wire. Three different editors have tried to explain to him that this is unacceptable. 32.218.39.235 (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Vergiotisa reported by User:Gryffindor (Result: Protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Edits by User:Pepperbeast were also reverted by User:Vergiotisa. Gryffindor (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Full protected for 24 hours. The problem is that this user has started socking on IPs, and is easily autoconfirmed on their main account, so in order to prevent any further disruption I have to lock the template entirely. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User: 81.230.149.213 reported by User:Springee (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Same edit by logged in editor Reversion added since filing complaint but prior to Ed Johnston's notice 
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] No warring given to IP editor.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is currently a long discussion and RfC on the talk page and editor BjörnBergman has participated.

Comments:

Based on the edits made by the IP I suspect this is an IP used by who was recently warned about edit warring on this article. []. The IP's topics of interest match and BjörnBergman originally made the changes the IP was restoring. IP's edits including oldest people topics. [] BjörnBergman's edits []

I don't think this is bad faith editing nor do I think this is a deliberate attempt to sock edit. Springee (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If User:BjörnBergman has recently been blocked for edit warring on the same article then this doesn't give his IP any exemption for doing the same thing. I have notified both the account and the IP of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added a 5th reversion by the IP editor. That edit was done before EdJohnston's notification.  However, per this edit (and the previous edit) I believe this IP is used by BjörnBergman[].  Springee (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your point with this diff must be that a post by BjörnBergman was later updated by the IP, suggesting that the two are the same person. So we should combine the edits of BjörnBergman and the IP when deciding if 3RR has been violated. That gives us a string of six reverts by this editor going from April 8 through April 10. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, based on the edits I believe this is the same editor. Springee (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours to User:BjörnBergman since it's a repeat violation, and three months to the IP. User:BjörnBergman has now resumed editing without responding to the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Chisel1000 reported by User:Jax MN (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:List of defunct Johns Hopkins University societies]

Comments:

The Talk page makes my point clear. This is an unsubstantiated group, which may not exist. Strangely, the user (Chisel1000) who insists on adding it is claiming it may be a continuing group, while he is placing it on a list of DEFUNCT groups. The user has neglected to engage a discussion on the Talk page. I'd like to have the page protected, please. Jax MN (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Those are not diffs—those are old revisions. Please list diffs as field instructs. El_C 20:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FIXED. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 21:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ordinary Person reported by User:BlueSalix (Result: Unclean hands)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The material was unambiguously deprecatory to the subject of this BLP. However, we do not demand that BLPs only contain flattering information about their subjects. The material was sourced to articles in WAVE-TV, the Louisville Courier, and ABC News, all of which are prima facia RS. This was a thinly-veiled attempt to "game" an active AfD by invoking specious BLP claims to "trim" just enough from an article that it would qualify for deletion under BLP1E. Not even the most minimal attempt at discussion or notification of participating editors was made, the undo button was simply freely used as a bulldozer. This gaming tactic, a fairly rote and established one, appears to have once-again worked as there was a snowball of "delete" !votes from well-intentioned editors who only saw the version of the article that had been massaged by Ordinary Person and, quite reasonably as a result, !voted "delete" while declaring BLP1E the reason. (I would probably have done the same had I only seen the edit-warred version of the article.) BlueSalix (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Saw this at ANI per the Wikihounding thread there. BlueSalix was clearly aware of the 3RR per this edit summary, and made four reverts in 24 hours , , . I warned  them after that instead of reporting because I did not think it appropriate since they hadn't been warned yet. While they have been on the talk page since the warning, Ordinary Person was not contacted in the attempted resolution, and this looks like a bad faith edit warring report by user who has consensus on the talk page going against them on a BLP. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SpyMagician reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 48 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted edits by Bearcaat (talk) to last version by SpyMagician" — Reverting vandalism is exempt. El_C 08:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by Magnolia677 (talk) to last version by SpyMagician"
 * 3)  "Reverted edits by Magnolia677 (talk) to last version by SpyMagician"
 * 4)  "Reverted edits by Magnolia677 (talk) to last version by Port(u*o)s"
 * 5)  "Look. This incident was horrible, but the wording here and the over placement don’t help. Rolling back."
 * 6)  "Reverted edits by Bostonbiologist (talk) to last version by Magnolia677"


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


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


 * Comments:


 * El_C 06:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . El_C 08:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677, as well. El_C 08:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:ChrisOliver reported by User:Curb Safe Charmer (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has engaged in disruptive editing over a three week period. None of their reverts to the article have had edit summaries. A series of warnings of increasing strength have been added to the editor's talk page, but the editor has not constructively engaged with the editor community and instead has deleted the warnings unheeded. This morning, the editor has engaged with others for the first time, but only to accuse me of conspiring with others in an edit war.

In my view the editor has failed to engage constructively and failed to take any notice of the warnings. At the root of the issue is their seeming desire to have their own name feature prominently in the article, contrary to the WP:COI policy. Other editors declined the creation of a dedicated article about the charity that the editor founded, and they now want to promote the charity prominently on the RGLI page. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. The version of the page that the editor keeps reverting puts the charity in its proper context, in a section about how the RGLI is being commemorated.

I would have requested protection for the page, but I fear the editor would continue to edit disruptively once the protection was lifted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . El_C 09:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not seeing it. If you were to only have tried speaking plainly to the user instead of through templates. Let them know what your concerns are (edit summaries, for example). Or let them know that there is a discussion on the article talk page. I'm concerned with biting the newcomer in this instance. Many of your diffs do not seem like reverts, but simply additions. Some of your diffs do not even involve the user in question (one is an error). Sometimes, less is more. I will drop the user a note, sure, but as far as AN3 reports go—and I see a lot—at first glance, this is not a very convincing one. El_C 09:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since posting the dispute I realised there was a problem with my diffs, which I have now fixed. Sorry about that. I thought the editors had gently raised the concerns with the editor in question? Both in the summaries, in the article talk page and in the editor's talk page? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that the user is allowed to blank their talk page, all of you should not have been repeatedly reverting them. It is their talk page(!). El_C 09:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. It is just that they didn't engaged with those warnings. Diffs where editors tried to use the edit summary to draw the editor's attention to the discussion on the article talk page:  Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you able to comment on the root of the issue, whether it is appropriate for the editor to be including their own name in the lead section of the article - isn't that contrary to the COI guideline? If this isn't the right place to discuss that, do I raise separately in another noticeboard? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate for them to do so. You should have tagged their page with and let them know that they should not be editing the article, but making suggestions on the article talk page instead. There is the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, so you may want to list them there. This board is for edit warring (and 3RR violations), which I'm not that convinced the user engaged in to the extent that it warrants a report here. El_C 09:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The primary purpose of ChrisOliver appears to add information about the Royal Guernsey Light Infantry Charitable Trust to Royal Guernsey Light Infantry. ChrisOliver started draft:Royal Guernsey Light Infantry Charitable Trust. It was declined and since has been adding content about the trust to Royal Guernsey Light Infantry.
 * A "Chris Oliver" is listed on the trust under "contacts" as "Principles" at http://www.lesemrais.com/. The lesemrais.com link was added by ChrisOliver and is visible as the last link in "Other links" here: The Royal Guernsey Light Infantry Charitable Trust Jim1138 (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a note to the user about our conflict of interest policy. As mentioned, you may also want to list the entry at COIN. El_C 09:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:124.189.34.50 reported by User:J man708 (Result: Page fully protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Prior to edit war

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 23:13, 11 April 2017
 * 2) 21:41, 11 April 2017
 * 3) 21:15, 11 April 2017
 * 4) 21:13, 11 April 2017
 * 5) 13:22, 11 April 2017
 * 6) 20:54, 10 April 2017
 * 7) 20:10, 10 April 2017
 * 8) 10:01, 10 April 2017
 * 9) 02:10, 10 April 2017
 * 10) 23:23, 9 April 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Page edit history, currently littered with their undos.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page conversation (which, I might add [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_man708&action=history has had my response undone on more than one occasion)

Comments: This user has 28 undos in the last 96 hours, not one of which has given any form of custom edit summary. may have additional information to add. EDIT - Has since made an additional undo of the same info on the page in question. - J man708 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This IP also has a history of the weeks before, continually marking Melbourne Victory as assured 2nd place finishers (even though they could've finished not 2nd from that position) and undid users' (mine, MM's and Jman's) reverts of their edits despite explanations in edit summary and talk page (example diff). Furthermore, lately wrote on users' talk pages but then deleted Jman's responses to them, so doesn't seem interested in discussion (diff). --SuperJew (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Those are not diffs—those are old revisions. Please list diffs as field instructs. El_C 20:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on. That's a touch pedantic. "Hello 911, what's your emergency?" "Man... Gun... Shot... Bleeding..." "I'm sorry, please use the template fields as instructed and have a great day!" *Beep*...
 * Clearly the evidence has been provided. Nonetheless!
 * Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5, Diff 6, Diff 7, Diff 8, Diff 9, Diff 10, Diff 11... - J man708 (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I fixed the Diffs. It is indeed a bit pedantic... a single click at upper left will take you to the diff. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not an emergency. To prove that, I'll let another admin handle it. I expect those submitting to do the leg work, others admins may care less. El_C 21:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have fully protected for a week. Along with the IP, and  have edit warred in the past few days and probably all three should have been blocked. I see that there is no discussion on the talk page and this should have been taken to WP:RFPP two days ago. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You say I see that there is no discussion on the talk page, yet I see discussion right here. Also it's hard to see discussion when the IP in question keeps deleting replies, such as here and here. Furthermore, if you look at the history, there are edit summaries by, and myself explaining our reversions, yet the IP doesn't once explain themselves and barely participates in discussion. Lastly, fully protecting the page is harmful to the project as it won't be updated in the upcoming weekend's matches. --SuperJew (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries are no substitute for discussing the problems. Commenting on an editors talk page has its own problems as the editor is within their right to remove the comments. Doing it on the article talk pages ensures that the comments will remain. And if someone removes them then that can be escalated. Would you prefer that I had blocked all three of you? By the way you can use Edit fully-protected or ask an admin directly to update the matches. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to ignore the fact that the IP removed comments from Jman's talk page, and also ignored the discussion on article talk page I linked to. Regarding updating of the matches, this is the scope of an average weekend, around 50 edits. Would you like to be the admin responsible for updating it? --SuperJew (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP editor as SJ pointed out has been notified on several talkpages and seldom responds, but will constantly undo edits they don't agree with. I'm sorry, but protecting the page is the wrong outcome. - J man708 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just copy out the table and paste it in another space. Make the updates and then notify me. I paste it back in with the matches updated giving you credit. Or I can block all three of you for edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of the user swappping IPs? If not why not just ban the IP and unprotect? If the IP socks with another IP page protection will be the only option though. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of. Seems to be just a Static IP. - J man708 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP continues to delete others' comments. Clearly not interested in conversation. --SuperJew (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have reduced the length of the protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the page could be semi-protected instead? Could you do something about the IP editor? They're still vandalising talk pages - Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5... Also, they're deleting SuperJew's talk page response, then after adding (at the time) unconfirmed info to the talk page continued to revert, talk page after being undone by more than one editor AND having it bought up prior, on the relevant talk page. - J man708 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And now they're deleting Matilda Maniac's talk page response. - J man708 (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked one week. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers dude. I'd ask for the page to be semi-protected, but the information will be correct until the current lock expires. Thanks again. - J man708 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks . For some reason I didn't get the last ping from . CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey . You need to ping and sign in the same edit. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * And I unprotected the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I'll screw that up again in the future. Thanks all, enjoy your holidays! - J man708 (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Rishabh Bishnoi reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 775094437 by 2601:188:1:AEA0:DD8E:74CD:FBC3:49C8 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 3)  "/* = List of Shia Khalifas (Caliphs) */"
 * 4)  "/* List of Shia Khalifas (Caliphs) */"
 * 5)  "/* Shia Beliefs */"
 * 6)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 7)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 8)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 9)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 10)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 11)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 1)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 2)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 3)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 4)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 5)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 1)  "/* List of Caliphs */"
 * 2)  "/* List of Caliphs */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Hadith of the Twelve Successors. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Hadith of the Twelve Successors */ new section"
 * 3)   "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Hadith of the Twelve Successors. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* April 2017 */"

On user's talk page: --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:


 * El_C 19:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 reported by User:DoABarrelRoll.dev (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 775077847 by Amaury (talk) Educate yourself on lede requirments. It must be content contained in the body of the article."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 775076856 by Amaury (talk) Including lede content not even mentioned in the body is an editing violation of WP, which requires no discussion"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 774935846 by Geraldo Perez Not important; spinoff articles include who's in it, not who isn't. The lede's a summary of the most important points included in the body (where Boyce isn't even mentioned"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Failure to follow WP:BRD. They are refusing to use the talk page and are trying to stonewall their changes after their changes were challenged by two users—myself and . Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding to "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute". Apparently, the user has decided to say something on the article's talk page regarding their issue with the content after another editor,, essentially resolved the problem. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 20:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:223.71.245.147 reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

persistent recent history of edit warring and disruptive editing at the article -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This editor and the IPs he hops to have a persistent and long-term history of edit warring at this article and several others as well. My thanks to, who quickly protected the two most problematic pages, but we should keep an eye on this guy at a number of other favored articles. --Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The format has six fields—you have left three of them blank. How come? El_C 06:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * i used twinkle, it wouldn't grab any diffs other than the reverts, and doesn't do a good version option. the warnings were still visible on the user talk page. I kinda figure ya'll would be smart enough to look, and take the appropriate action (an I was right). -- Aunva6talk - contribs 20:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "[D]oesn't do a good version option"—what does that even mean? You can use Disney princess for all I care, that is a poor excuse for an incomplete report. Assume we're dim and let us know that the user was warned about edit warring/3RR, at the very least. El_C 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Handled this from here <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Changeisgame reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 775150086 by Philip J Fry (talk) See my talk page for the sources... For the second time"
 * 2)  "/* Upcoming cast */ Guess we can leave Eichner since ones can't agree, BUT Billie has been moved to the chart... see my talk page for sources"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 775149914 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 775148348 by Philip J Fry (talk) See my talk page with sources... again.."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 775148184 by  why are you reverting this ?   Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 6)  "/* Main */  adding reasonable and well verified changes"
 * 7)  "/* Upcoming cast */  removing unnecessary section"
 * 1)  "/* Upcoming cast */  removing unnecessary section"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* AHS Cast */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* AHS Cast */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Next cast */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Upcoming cast */"


 * Comments:

I have asked the user to stop until they reach an agreement, but it is seen that they do not want to, and their motives for me really are not very feasible.  Philip J Fry  Talk to me  00:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I want to make an agreement, but this user refuses to review the sources, as stated above ,that I provided multiple times. Changeisgame (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, see the talk page, we discuss the issue and he shockingly doesn't reply... I triedChangeisgame (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * for 4 days. El_C 00:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Attar-Aram syria reported by User:2A1ZA (Result: )

 * Page: - article under 1RR regime
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=775098112 (reverting  from today)
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=775123207 (reverting  and  from today]

The reported user has been involved in numerous edit warring on articles on Middle East politics articles, he is fully aware of the 1RR on Syrian Civil War related articles, and in his second revert edit summary explicitly states that he intentionally chooses edit warring over waiting for the result of a good faith talk page discussion (which I had already started, including pinging him). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

see here. new sentence see here   blocked twice
 * Comments:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rojava&type=revision&diff=775073488&oldid=774853582
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rojava&type=revision&diff=775117062&oldid=775113007    new article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question:: 2A1ZA, why did you remove that paragraph? Is there a talk page comment where you explain this? El_C 23:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He started a discussion on the talk page only after I restored the arbitrary deleted sentence (and before starting the discussion, he didnt forget to delete it again then accuse me of edit warring for restoring a long established sourced paragraph). I will not interfere here no more and will let the admin to analyze what happened.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because there hasn't been a new position announced, doesn't mean that the Trump Administration has decided on one. So it could be argued as outdated—that's a valid argument. You can argue it's not a correct argument, but not that it isn't valid to argue. Certainly, I see nothing to exempt you from 1RR. I just don't see how you can cast aspersions on another editor, claim their "only reason to be here is to push political agendas," without evidence to back that up. You do not seem to be treating the user in a civil manner, and rejecting what they have to say outright is not operating in good faith. What reason is there not to block you. I suggest you self-revert while you still can. El_C 00:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's Dec. 2016—I misread that as 2015. Still, I don't see why it can't be in the 2nd paragraph as 2A1ZA has suggested, Attar-Aram syria. El_C 00:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * El_C, Shouldnt 2A1ZA argue on the talk page first before deleting then demand us to use the talk ?. I did indeed move the sentence to the second paragraph but 2A1ZA wanted it to be a mere three words summarizing it with : "Russia somewhat support federalism while US dont". I restored the sentence as it was and put it in the second paragraph but that is not enough for 2A1ZA. The trump administration reconfirmed that position. Stephen J. Townsend said: “It’s not my mission to create a Kurdish federal state, and we’re not liberating Raqqa for any one party, But the Kurds are only about 10 percent of the population of northern Syria. So I don’t really see how there’s actually gonna be anything called a Kurdish federal state in northern Syria“. If 2A1ZA have went to the talk page first, then we wouldnt have had this problem. As for what makes me throw accusation, aside from a look at his edits which are mainly focused on the Kurdish militias and he edit in no where else other than this particular topic and its branches, Im willing to send you an email with all the needed information that will show you the background and motives of that user. I cant write it here as it would constitute an outing. Note that 2A1ZA deleted Townsend comment in his revert of me. Now, after reading what I wrote, I will wait for you to say what you see suitable. I admit that I wasnt civil, but after engaging in months of 2A1ZA constant attempts to push his POV, I lost control and I apologize.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work for me. You can provide on-wiki evidence. I would rather keep things in the open. I suggest you try to reach a compromise. This is your last chance to self-revert. El_C 01:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Im lost here El_C, what should I revert ? you want deleting the whole sentence as 2A1ZA wish, or keep it where it is in the second paragraph as 2A1ZA suggested and actually got his suggestion fulfilled as soon as I read it on the talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You still have the option of undoing your revert—if you prefer being blocked for 24 hours and leaving that edit, that's the other option. El_C 01:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Like this I guess you mean. Ofcourse after I self reverted, I can elaborate on the american position in the second paragraph using the new sources (since the Russian position is elaborated and not elaborating the american is undue) which is my editor right, right?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are now under 0RR, for at least 24 hours, so I would be wary with partial reverts. Why not try to gain consensus and collaborating in good faith on the article talk page—which you have thus far failed to do. El_C 01:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So you just sent the message that an editor can do whatever he wants without a discussion then anyone who try to restore the the deleted materials until a consensus is reached would be under the threat of block. I prefer not to engage in that article again and keep it as a platform for 2A1ZA. I withdraw from it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor did try discussing it, but you were not open to it, discussing the editor instead of the edits themselves. I am here to enforce xRR, and seeing that you have breached it, I'd say you have been treated with quite some leniency. El_C 01:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor tried after deleting a sourced paragraph without a discussion and getting reverted, only to revert back then go to the talk page. I thought you get a consensus first not the other way around. Anyway, the article is out of my watch list. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You certainly don't have to do that. The consensus rule does not apply to SCW (see page notice), only to ARBPIA and ARBAP2. El_C 02:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

-- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd reported by User:Jon Kolbert (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Revert. The "smart as a fox" line has no context, and is not necessary. "Brash style" is an opinion. The sources describe their styles as different. This is a misrepresentation of the sources."
 * 2)  "The Mr. Wonderful nickname is used everywhere, jut just on Shark Tank. See talk page."
 * 3)  "It's not "disinterested" to call both Trump and O'Leary "crazy" on the talk page, and then frame the comparison article to imply their personalities are similar when the sources say otherwise."
 * 1)  "It's not "disinterested" to call both Trump and O'Leary "crazy" on the talk page, and then frame the comparison article to imply their personalities are similar when the sources say otherwise."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) April 9, before 1st block
 * 2) not specifically against edit warring, but against re-adding unsourced material
 * 3) formal 3RR warning April 9
 * 4) ERR Block April 9


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) two major threads


 * Comments:

Shortly after coming off a block for edit warring on this very page user continues to add disputed content without waiting for consensus to be reached on the talk page. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 3RR applied to more than 3 reverts on the same page on the same day (self-revert do not count). You miscounted. Consensus was not made for these changes to occur in the first place. The status quo version stands until consensus is reached for changes. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:115.132.0.184 reported by User:IJBall (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

Comments:


 * Note that IP's disruptive editing goes all the way back to April 10: diff. The IP has made no attempt to communicate what they are trying to accomplish either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You forgot to notify the IP; I went ahead and did that to direct them to the noticeboard. (Not sure they'll respond anyway, but still will give them opportunity.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 03:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Българ reported by User:172.58.233.89 (Result: Both blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

I am on cell phone, but it is apparent at Massagetae that there is edit warrior who does not believe in discussing his new contributions and just reverts away Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted}}

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

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

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

Comments:


 * for five reverts, page protected for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User:TexasHistory2017 reported by User:Karanacs (Result:indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: original

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is likely related to IPs who were previously obsessed with this source and were blocked as socks:  Karanacs (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User was not specifically warned about edit warring or 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Fuck all of you, I quit. Wikipedia seems like it's just a bunch of (Personal attack removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 (talk • contribs)


 * User indefblocked by Maile66 per WP:NOTTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch reported by User:Akib.H (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 775456361 by Akib.H that is what the source states, nothing to be clarified here; feel free to report: WP:ANI"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 775454426 by Akib.H, we need a reliable published source, please no WP:OR"
 * 3)  "remove tag that is unexplained and disruptive"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 775426444 by Akib.H, no unsourced OR"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 775426444 by Akib.H, no unsourced OR"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Ownership of article */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Ownership of article */"
 * 3)   "/* Vague sources, misleading information: This article is becoming a mess */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* Ownership of article */"
 * 5)   "/* Vague sources, misleading information: This article is becoming a mess */"
 * 6)   "/* Ownership of article */"
 * 7)   "/* Ownership of article */"
 * 8)   "/* Vague sources, misleading information: This article is becoming a mess */"
 * 9)   "/* Ownership of article */"


 * Comments:

User is clearly imposing ownership over the article. Reverting every edits, repeatedly removing tags and templates from the article. There have been enough initiative to resolve the dispute over the article talk page. But all in vain. Akib.H (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply: The edits were based on building (apparent) consensus on the talk page, and invite to edit (see the article's talk page). It is the OP who is edit warring again, disrupting, after being recently cautioned by admins and duly noted by  about the same article. Even after filing this complaint, @Akib.H continues to revert, remove sources / sourced content, and disrupt the article. The standards of editing behavior Akib.H expects from other editors, apparently doesn't apply to Akib.H. Since I am at the 3RR limit for 24 hours, and I don't want to cross to 3+, I am not editing that article anymore. Someone needs to look at Akib.H's disruption and continued reverts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to pint out that the admin warned both me and Ms Welch since we both were edit warring that day. However, I've today refrained from a single revert (except for readding the tags) but Ms Welch has kept on reverting despite attempts to discuss the issue on the taalk page. I've clearly mentioned in the talk page that I've been made handicapped over the article. When I began to add templates to the article, Ms Welch tried to remove them as well. This is clearly disruptive and I think, for some reasons, the user considers herself a bit privileged over others to demonstrate a sort of power in her editing. This is the first time I've come across such annoying behavior in my edit history in wikipedia which is very frustrating for me. Akib.H (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . Both users reverted three times. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. Suggest you continue using the talk page, and tag with moderation. El_C 02:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:207.88.236.133 reported by User:FuriouslySerene (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 775425519 by FuriouslySerene (talk)"
 * 2)  "This is an arbitrary application of this rule. If you insist on applying it, apply it to the entire article. The current passage is the result of a previously moderated dispute."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 775206403 by Graham87 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 775206403 by Graham87 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on DISC assessment. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on DISC assessment. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on DISC assessment. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced content and peacock term, despite multiple warnings. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 02:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2607:FCC8:BCA2:EEF0:989:1203:19C5:C96D reported by User:Mooeena (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Thompson&diff=next&oldid=774062185
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Thompson&diff=next&oldid=775469868
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Thompson&diff=next&oldid=775470175
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Thompson&diff=next&oldid=775471039

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2607%3AFCC8%3ABCA2%3AEEF0%3A989%3A1203%3A19C5%3AC96D&type=revision&diff=775471895&oldid=775470136

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The person is an IP editor who has only ever done vandalism. I think it's fair to assume that they're not interested in a talk page discussion.

Comments: The revisions are clearly vandalism. Mooeena (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . El_C 03:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:EricEnfermero reported by User:Tallsoutherngal36 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WeGoLook&oldid=771992119
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WeGoLook&oldid=771992173
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WeGoLook&oldid=771992334
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WeGoLook&oldid=771993810

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * . I'm not seeing any reverts (or diffs, for that matter) in this heavily misformatted report. Please consider using the preview button to proofread your additions. El_C 21:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'm the subject of this report. I made several (mostly consecutive) edits to the WeGoLook page one afternoon about three weeks ago. It seems that the article has long been edited by at least one person with a COI, and I think the company views the WP entry as something directly under their control. I simply removed some non-independent content (sourced to a web reference written by the company's CEO), removed some non-neutral statements, took out somewhat random mentions of the company's logo and website, and did some formatting work. That seems to have provoked a strong, if delayed, response on my user talk page, and that talk page message included mention of an attorney. I'm not planning on engaging in any edit warring, and I don't think we need to go crazy with blocking someone based on WP:NLT, but I wanted to let someone know in case it escalates. (If I wasn't supposed to comment here after this was closed, my apologies. I just couldn't see opening a separate ANI thread just for the legal thing.) EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitly WP:COI per their message on my TP. Time for WP:COIN. Kleuske (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * After El_C's closure I edited this report so you can read the header items. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:104.169.28.48 reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 22:24, 12 April 2017 Removed material.
 * 2) Revision as of 22:34, 12 April 2017 Re-added disputed material.
 * 3) Revision as of 22:43, 12 April 2017 Re-added disputed material.

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The ip-user tried to force in an addition, at a time when no consensus existed on the addition. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Added another revert by the same ip-user + clarification. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is under SCW/ISIL 1RR sanctions, which the IP user has indicated in edit summaries that they are aware of. (I opened a duplicate report which is almost identical, so I'm merging mine in.) ansh 666 23:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Recuse. El_C 23:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is Erlbaeko who violated 1RR rule on this page today twice:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * Note that he clearly marked his edits in edit summaries as reverts. Hence the violation was intentional. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Wishes. While both violated 1RR, Erlbaeko did it first and did it twice. It wasn't for a good cause either, because Erlbaeko was edit warring to keep a self-published source (Postol, notable for his dissent on Ghouta attribution), one that was needlessly repeated in the article twice, and sourced to Russia Today in one instance. The content violated WP:SPS, WP:RS, and was duplicated in two separate sections. So if both get a block, it should be proportional to the flagrancy of the violation (considerably greater in Erlbaeko's case than the IP's) Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The 1RR does not apply to reverting IPs, and single reverts are fine (it's not 0RR). That doesn't mean that there wasn't edit warring, but Erlbaeko didn't cross the sanctions red line. ansh 666 00:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Indeed, as written here, one can revert IP at will and then report them for edit warring here. I did not realize that. I guess the IP did not realize it too. Given that, I do not think that blocking the IP would be fair. My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, we don't make the rules, we just point out how absurd they are while enforcing them. Neither side is blameless. Reverting for a second straight time while pointing out that something is under 1RR is a bit silly too, if you ask me. ansh 666 03:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the comments and certain edits by the IP are questionable. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the IPs comments and edits are both questionable and sanctionable. I did revert him/her, but I did not violated the 1RR-rule. The rule says the "one revert per twenty-four hours restriction" applies when reverting "logged-in users". Note that the reverts listed by "My very best wishes" are clearly marked as IP-reverts in the edit summaries. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Result: The IP is warned for 1RR violation. Under the terms of SCW&ISIL sanctions IPs and registered accounts are under different rules. Registered users can revert IPs without that being counted against the 1RR limit. When considering if any admin action is needed, it is hardly worth it to block the IP 48 hours after the last revert, when the article is changing so rapidly. Semiprotection might be considered if there is more IP reverting in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User: Saturnalia0 reported by User:Elinruby (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Before Saturnalia0:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  revert 1, no attempt to discuss, zero, nada
 * Since the discussion happened in edit summaries, here is diff of me reverting him:


 * 1)  he reverts back, my answer on same diff an hour or so later
 * post to his user page (he's unknown on article talk page). I ask him to stop edit warring, then add link to prior NPOV discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_64#impeachment_of_Dilma_Rousseff)
 * This very new account fluently cites a lot of policies I am supposedly breaking and says "no you."
 * I explain that the article is in violation of the BLP policy and needs to be deleted if it can't be amended


 * 1)  reverts again scolding me for "edit warring"
 * I flag the page as a dab-attack, which it is. says use the talk page (!) which tells me he probably didn't read it but fine. I am taking a deep breath...


 * however this plays into the tactics of obstruction; does not seem interested in proposing his own edits, and the article really did start at libelous and is now only slightly less so. Rousseff is involved to the extent that some of her associates are involved, but even her detractors don't think she was involved in laundering money that she stole from the treasury, when you push them up to shove ;) and that's the implication here. Let's assume good faith and say that  is indeed a brand new editor who thinks DUE does not involve anything but the Brazilian press, he still engaged in disruptive editing without reading the page history or the talk page and is impeding progress on a very bad very prominent page. I came to it incidentally because someone listed it at WP:PNT and not because I have any allegiances here.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * admittedly heated but it contains information
 * 
 * -no response

Comments:


 * note that I announced plans to edit the article for balance three days ago and there were no objections Elinruby (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PS -I forgot to mention that when I notified him of the attack tag, he reverted this notification too ;) Granted the template is kinda generic and he's not the author of the page (has never done anything to it as far as I have seen, definitely not in the last four months anyway) but most people would have just blanked the section or used their words, no? Elinruby (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:NOCON is very clear. added content to a long standing version of the lead, it was contested by me, here. He added it back here with no attempt to discuss his changes in the talk page, citing a consensus regarding NPOV issues in the article (the consensus is with NPOV issues as far as I understand, there is no consensus for the specific change being discussed here). I reverted him here giving the same reasoning but expanding on why I thought it was undue, asking him to explain his addition on the talk page. This is WP:NOCON by the book. He restored it again here with no attempt to explain his addition in the talk page, but warning me of edit warring, when in fact he is the one doing so (again, I refer to WP:NOCON). I then respond to the message in my talk page and revert, at the same time thoroughly explaining my reasoning in the talk page - which again, he should be the one doing per WP:NOCON, as I have pointed out to him. We proceed with the discussion on the talk page. He added a template to my talk page which said a page I created was an attack page, but I did not create the Impeachment page, and he had already templated me with the same accusation (aforelinked), which I explained in the edit summary when I reverted it. If anyone should be the target of an arbcom for edit warring is Elinruby, who clearly violated WP:NOCON and insisted on adding to a longstanding version of the lead without discussing his changes on the talk page. Not to mention personal attacks on the talk page such as empty accusations of political agenda. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: And replies to a PA template with personal attacks. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * there you have it, folks. Incidentally, I just listed the article at the BLP board asking for help because really, the article does need help regardless of this... whatever :) I am peace out for a bit and will check back later to see if there are questions or whatever. PS I don't know what a PA template is -- perhaps this four month old account can instruct me. Elinruby (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (correcting myself) actually the account was started in January 2016 not January 2017. The gist of my incredulity still pertains; not that it would matter however, if he would deign to formulate a constructive suggestion. I've worked with editors who were likely whatever they call the KGB these days -- I frankly don't care who he is if he were willing to call a packet a packet. 07:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You do realize only a few hours had past since you decided to bring the case here and accuse me of being unwilling to discuss (a discussion *I* had to start by the way, because you refused to, ignoring WP:NOCON)? I mean I work all day and I imagine this is the case for other editors, it's unreasonable to expect a discussion to be completed in a few hours. I indicated more than once that I am perfectly willing to propose compromises if we cannot reach a consensus on what should be added, as I have done in other cases ( to cite the recent ones I could find). Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: I'll probably be proxy blocked in the next three days as it always happens when I move to a place where NET (telecommunications) is the ISP. Please ping me for my attention and I might have to answer on my talk page. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * do you realize that me and two other editors have been working on the article for months? Do you realize that most people would have just deleted the article? Give me credit for trying to salvage all that work. Reverting and telling me to use the talk page (which I had already done, twice that night and once a few days before, announcing plans for a major edit) is beyond unhelpful especially when blatant POV pushing has taken place. If you are not involved with that then fine, propose a change or oppose a change. DO something besides reverting and flinging poo. But the article does need a major structural edit and the change to the lede did not represent the article because the article too was going to change, that very night. Conceivably it would have been better to start at the bottom and work up but my time is quite limited right now and I usually do big edits in several passes top to bottom. I had set aside that night to work on it and nobody questioned my post saying I planned to do so. That said, I am about to go out of town myself and will have sketchy internet access so no worries about the proxy block, at least as far as I am concerned. It also seems as though there is no rush to judgment on this board, so... If you want to work at the article has made a proposal, go help him with that maybe? I agree that with half of what I did to the lede undone, what he suggests may be better and plan, if he has the time, to let him do what he thinks then take a look. I just want the article fixed and would actually prefer that someone else fix it, as long as they actually do. There are plenty of of other translation problems I could spend my wikitime on. While I am gone I'll check on this and on the article at least daily if I can. Elinruby (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all thank you for the ping and the update regarding the talk page discussion, I will take a look at it. Now as to your comment regarding this board's procedure: I was watching the article, I saw your numerous edits, looked at the diffs, found them constructive and didn't revert any. I reverted one, explained why I thought it to be nonconstructive. Though welcome, a warning in the talk page about editing the article is not the point. You were asked to discuss a specific change, the one I reverted, where you modified a longstanding version of the lead and was contested. This was explained to you numerous times already. This is what policy demands and process is important. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read the talk page in future. Or object to something I do there. Or continue this discussion there if you want. Since we have a ruling I don't want to re-litigate here (Although I wasn't trying to allege 3R, just disruptive editing as yes, there were three reverts and you stopped after the warning. Perhaps I picked the wrong board.) Bottom line, if you had read the talk page you'd have seen I was using it ;) and if *you* had used it we coulda discussed without sucking up bandwidth like this. Anyway, don't worry, be happy. I'll check on the article tomorrow per discussion on talk. Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * . Only three reverts are listed. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. Suggest you continue discussing the content dispute on the talk page. Try to better qualify and evaluate the potential BLP and due weight concerns, perhaps in an RfC. Otherwise, please refer to your dispute resolution options. El_C 02:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ziv2000 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 775561946 by ClueBot NG (talk) - There are Putin's bots on this page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 775561411 by General Ization (talk) Stop spreading propaganda and attribute the annexed peninsula to Russia"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 775561069 - This is internationally recognized fact - Thanks"
 * 4)  "/* Demographics */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 775548217: There is international consensus that Crimea was illegally annexed by Russia."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 775537710 by TaivoLinguist (talk) - the peninsula was illegally annexed by Russia, this is the correct 'Russian' staus. 'Stolen' should be called STOLEN"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Crimea. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Crimea. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* April 2017 */"


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


 * Comments:

Disruptively editing Crimea, refuses to engage at Talk page though advised to do so by multiple editors. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Widr (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Timothy Hamilton reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:


 * For disruptive editing. No edit summaries, no explanation for removing content. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User: AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Mcaibo_M (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (subsequently removed by User: AlexTheWhovian, apparently)

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

Comments:

None of those involved have taken this matter to the talk page. I am simply a disappointed observer who wishes to prevent edit warring regarding a minor point relating to a guideline (not a rule) which seems pointless given that, to the best of my understanding, there will no longer be an issue shortly. This sort of pedantic nonsense only succeeds in providing ammunition to the project's detractors. Mcaibo M (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if this editor is the same person at the obvious IP-hopper on the article, since they've appeared from the depths of not logging in just to file this report (if not, it seems that they do not understand what the issue is here, and have incorrectly filed a wrong report), but they have been warned about the guideline by multiple editors and still continue to force their edits. I reverted the IP(s) (plural?) after I requested page protection (the request is stills standing at this point), awaiting the result from that so that the disruption would come to a end. They do not seem to understand that the rules apply to them as well as every other editor, which every member of WP:TV has to use, so as do they. No edit-warring was intended. Cheers. --  Alex TW 16:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Page has since been protected against further anonymous disruptive editing. --  Alex TW 18:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Alex, please note that stylistic changes are not exempt from 3RR, per WP:3RRNO. You have demonstrated a penchant to keep reverting when you're right, or when you think you are right, that is not congruent with Wikipedia's edit warring guidelines. I think you reading and internalizing the 3RR exceptions is far preferable to a block, but this not the first time this has been brought to your attention. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This listing is, indeed, suspect. On the other hand, this did not involve any major defacement or anything of the sort. Best to leave disruptive edits which are relatively minor to stand while the entry waits its que in RFPP, rather than edit warring with multiple IPs. El_C 03:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SaripBB reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Is the second edit a revert? If so, of what? El_C 07:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I corrected the link to second revert.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SlackerDelphi reported by User:Activist (Result: Wrong noticeboard)
Page:

User being reported:

,, , I've been editing on Wikipedia for 11 years, and I've never made an ANI complaint before, so I hope this format will work.

Beginning on April 11, I made a number of well supported edits to the article for Republican Ron Estes, elected this week to congress. His Democratic opponent was James Thompson, a newcomer to electoral politics. My first edit, 774881397 was to change the section subtitle, “Primary results,” to the correct title, “Caucus results.” I changed that one minute later to the more precise, “Republican caucus results” 774881397 A number of other Wikipedia editors made changes in the next day, mostly correcting format and updating to reflect the win by Estes. Then I made edit 775023894

The National Republican Congressional Committee vastly outspent the Democrat, James Thompson, who received little national party support. The NRCC contributed $92,000, in part for last minute ads supporting Estes, which without any factual basis, characterized Thompson as an advocate of taxpayer funded, late term abortions, and those based on gender selection. Estes won the special election on April 11, 2017.

Slacker Delphi responded shortly afterward by deleting the words: “who received little national party support.” 775071901

(→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: Removed the false statement that Thompson received little national support. That is not true. Not supported by Reliable Source.)

My edit was accurate and reliably sourced. By removing the word “party,” SlackerDelphi mischaracterized what I'd written and accused me of a falsehood. This is hardly the first time SlackerDelphi has done this to my work, and frequently seems to do it to other editors.

Next SlackerDelphi removed the word “vastly,” claiming it had no support, though there was a prima facie case for its accuracy, in reported expenditures quoted in the text (but substantially more in unreported Superpac interventions). 775076303 Revision as of 14:20, 12 April 2017

One minute later, SlackerDelphi removed my text, allegedly because it was not factual, though it was reliably sourced to, and also via a link within that source, by the moderator of the actual debate at which the mendacious contentions claimed in the ad were said to have been made: The moderator was very upset by slanderous mischaracterization. 775076620 SlackerDelphi's edit summary was: (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: There is absolutely no support for the false stmt that the ads were not factually based.), once again essentially calling me a liar.

Three minutes later, SlackerDelphi added this text: “by 52.5% to 45.7%” to reflect the Estes' edge in the results, but redundantly inserting figures that appeared just a few lines further on in a table. 775076779

Other editors then made mostly format corrections and USER:Muboshgu  made a factual correction.

I returned to restore SlackerDelphi's inappropriate deletion of my text, “without any factual basis,” Revision as of 21:46, 12 April 2017 775115550  I should note that the mischaracterization in the TV ad attracted national attention to an obscure election.

Nine minutes later I again deleted SlackerDelphi's redundant text. 775134236

Fourteen minutes later, I added more text supported by an existing Wichita Eagle cite, and added more still and supplied and quoted the NY Times cite that supported the characterization of the ad as “venomous.” The NRCC contributed $92,000, in part for last minute "venomous" ads supporting Estes, which without any basis, characterized Thompson as an advocate of taxpayer funded, late term abortions, and those based on gender selection. National Republicans (spent) about $150,000 on the race and a Paul Ryan affiliated SuperPac generated live calls to likely voters from a phone bank. 775135227 Ten minutes later I added 775136828, which chronicled local Democrats upset caused by the lack of national party support.

I then added this text: 22:35, 12 April 2017 775138030 Before the weekend preceding the election, it was reported that Estes had raised $459,000 to Thompson’s $292,000, the Kansas Democratic party finally contributed $3,000 to the Thompson campaign and new Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez said his organization would not be transferring any funds to the election.

After numerous editors contributed, SlackerDelphi once again savaged the article, deleting including the NY Times characterization, "venomous" (ads supporting Estes ), which without any basis,... 16:12, 13 April 2017  775228375

The next day an appparent WP:SPA IP editor made all of first ever, four quick deletions, in 13 minutes of the substantial text that covered much of the section containing the disputed material, with a subject line that seems intended to mislead: Revision as of 07:29, 14 April 2017 (edit) (undo) 70.173.220.224 (talk) (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017) (Tag: references removed)

USER:Jim1138  restored the first large deletion, only to have the restoration immediately deleted.

SlackerDelphi, after housekeeping and correctional edits by prolific Wikipedia editors Muboshgu and Therequiembellishere returns at 21:23, 14 April 2017  to once again remove my text: 775411541, with the comment, (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: removed the word "finally" which is Wiki editor opinion and not supported by Reliable source.)

Then SlackerDelphi removed a good deal of the same text the IP editor tried to delete, characterizing the edits in the subject line as: 21:27, 14 April 2017 (edit) (undo) (thank) SlackerDelphi (talk | contribs) (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: cleaned up run on sentences and poor grammar.) 775435086 instead of what it actually was: Content removal, also confusing and conflating two stories on the same day by the same WaPo editor, effectively removing one of the cites, and adding a redundant cite.

Two minutes later, SlackerDelphi again adds the margin of victory I'd deleted two days earlier, me noting in my subject line at the time that it was “redundant.” 775435602  (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: restored margin of victory that was deleted without discussion or rationale.), a disingenuous characterization.

A minute later, SlackerDelphi makes another redundant edit with no subject line. 775437539 and informs Wikipedia readers who can't read a few lines further on, or able to add or subtract, that the election was won by Estes by “approximately a seven percent margin.”

At this point I tried to sort out SlackerDelphi's inability to understand that there were two different stories with different URLs and different titles by the same author in the same newspaper on the same day and to restore the well sourced and characterized text “reluctantly and finally,” that SlackerDelphi felt needed to be forever disappeared, for whatever mysterious reason. 775437757 (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: Restored deleted citation regarding party reluctance to support Thompson)

Wikipedia editors are warned not to quote from sources in a manner which would cause copyright violations. The sense of the sources, in this cases as in others SlackerDelphi has disputed and removed, clearly supports the use of those words such as "finally" and "reluctantly" as a reading of the source document will substantiate.

In my next restoration of SlackerDelphi's unwarranted deletions, I added back 775443442, 23:50, 14 April 2017 (edit) (undo) (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: Undid inappropriate deletions of reliably sourced text) “vastly outspent the Democrat, James Thompson, who received little national party support. The NRCC contributed $92,000, in part for advertisements supporting Estes, which characterized Thompson as an advocate of taxpayer-funded, late-term abortions, and abortion for those based on gender selection. As of shortly before the election, Estes had raised $459,000 to Thompson’s $292,000, and new Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez said his organization would not be transferring any funds to the election. That seems to be pertinent information of which the national and international print and broadcast media took substantial note.

Once again, three minutes later, SlackerDelphi leaps into the breach to remove the offending word, 23:53, 14 April 2017 (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: Removed the word "vastly" which is opinion and there is not RS to support false stmt. Please provide RS to support. Take it talk. Don't edit war.)775453601

This is doubly ironic: I posted in the article's TALK page on the 12th, but SlackerDelphi, whom I've noted often in the past, has recommended such action to others without apparently bothering to even look at the TALK pages on which other editors labor to achieve consensus.

Five minutes later, SlackerDelphi threatens me: Your recent editing history at Ron Estes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The word "vastly" is opinion. It must have a Reliable source to support.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)>

I responded: Actually, it's you that's involved in an edit war. You've been deleting my edits without cause. Please contain yourself until I'm finished with my edits. Activist (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Two minutes later, SlackerDelphi edits the article page once more, castigating me, but finally recognizing that two separate citations exist, possibly understanding that my second cite was indeed different, but complaining that the format of my cite, which SlackerDelphi had been trying to extinguish, was faulty 00:00, 15 April 2017 (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: fixed the horrible, messed up citation for the Wash post article) SlackerDelphi didn't fix anything that needed fixing, of course. But three minutes later, there's this correction, which seems to be a product of SlackerDelphi's day's-long confusion about the separate sources.00:03, 15 April 2017 SlackerDelphi (talk | contribs) (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: removed redundant citation that wiki editor reinserted inappropriately.)
 * I've only just returned for a moment to Wikipedia, and noticed that SlackerDelphi had once again reverted and deleted the content of my edits, in the absence of any agreement whatsoever. This seems contemptuous of the process.

775461386&oldid=775455843 01:08, 15 April 2017 SlackerDelphi (talk | contribs) (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: Quoted the Reliable Source directly and removed the non-NPOV wording of "finally and reluctantly" which is the mere opinion of another wiki editor. Better to go with RS wording directly, conforming to the source.)
 * I have to run, again. I'll hopefully be back later today. Activist (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I love editing Wikipedia. I have a wide variety of interests and make many corrections as I read recreationally. Occasionally I author articles. I'm extremely busy, but these encounters with SlackerDelphi and a few similarly difficult editors over the last decade, have been immensely frustrating. One of those was eventually banned after I complained for years about transparent, M-F/9-5, COI paid editing, but only when that editor was caught building fake consensus via extensive sockpuppetry. I have no idea what motivates the other three. I wonder how many other Wikipedia editors are ground down by such endless insupportable reverts, eventually abandoning the activity? Activist (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ron_Estes diff: 775413729

Comments:

I'd been waiting fruitlessly for three days for SlackerDelphi to respond to four of my posts to the TALK page. I just went back to the TALK page to get the diffs and found that SlackerDelphi had finally responded after I'd written all of this above. Activist (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure quite what's happening or how I'm substantively involved other than editing the page in the midst of this surrounding dispute. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Responded to that my ping was just a courtesy to an editor currently involved in making multiple edits to the article. Activist (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is AN3, not ANI. Are the walls of text really necessary? Try thinking of better summarising the dispute when you list this on ANI. El_C 03:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction and suggestion. I'll try to get to it as soon as I have time. Activist (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One final note: I just want to make it very clear that all of Activist's complains are untrue AND he made this complaint against me and he NEVER posted a notice on my talk page about this complaint as he is ALWAYS supposed to do. I'm trying to assume good faith in his editing actions but when he files a AN3 against you and does not provide the REQUIRED notice then it is very difficult to assume good faith. (By the way, pinging does not meet the notice requirement.)--SlackerDelphi (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)