Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive332

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )[edit]

Page
Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Beshogur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts

Pleace note that user Beshogur did 3 reverts of edits of other users in a time-period of 24 hours:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=752264460

(Revert of sourced 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled village Azraq and Jubah)

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=752151926

(revert of sourced 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled controlled village Azrak)

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=752147406

(revert of 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled village Jubah)

Notice

The 'Syrian National Resistance' is neutral force both loyal to SDF and Regime and using Damascus Syrian flag created so that Kurds from SAA territory and 'indirectly' SAA itself can help SDF advance on Al Bab.

A list of 13 sources of SDF control of Jubah you can find on http://wikimapia.org/28004322/Cob%C3%AA-Jubah Including Daesh sources claiming they shelled SDF-positions inside Jubah village.

Talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABeshogur&type=revision&diff=752319901&oldid=752286920

Extra reasons to report the account of Beshogur
User Bashogur was blocked for editwarring just a week ago, but never stopped doing it.
He was blocked in July 2016 but did not learn about it.
I count more than 10 warnings for edit warring but he did not stopped ding it.
He has permanently involved in edit warring, malicious editing and NPOV-psuhing following the full duration of his wikipedia-account, proving not being able to learn about warnings and blocks.
Account created for sole purpose of targeting of minorities

I also want to report the account of user Beshogur for being an account created with the sole purpose of targeting wikipedia information about Armenian, Kurdish, Jezidi, Cypriotic, Greek and other minorities,... and glorifying glorifying pan-Turkish organisations that are targeting minorities in Turkey and the region, the Turkish state.

The user that openly states he is pan-Turkisch 'Nationalist' has clearly made a account on wikipedia out of racist sentiment and objective toward all minorities that are usually targeted by pan-Turkish nationalists. A look at Beshogur account and edit history proves this.

Wikipedia is an international multi-etnic community. And users should act with respect to other peoples and etnicities. If a user is proudly targeting etnicities the user hate, based on racist motives on wikipedia, it should be sanctioned. Such behaviour focused on hate against peoples is not normal and should not tolerated here.

Please also note he was warned for this several times by multiple users.

Treats of targetting of groups of wikipedia-users

I also want to report user Beshogur for stating he wants to target what he calles 'PKK-supporters' on wikipedia. Please note that with in present day (pan-)Turkish nationalist anyone that defends Kurdish people, human rights,.. is automaticly labeled 'PKK-supporter' and the actions of TAK (Kurdish falcon fighters), Daesh, others are atributed to PKK instead to frame the organisation as a terrorist organisation to justifying the human right abuses against Kurdish people and all AKP opposition in Turkey.

In the same way they frame the Syrian YPG and the Syrian Democratic Forces, the main ally of the international coalition in Syria as 'PKK'. So in Beshogur's mind all wikipedia-users trying to stop them from targeting Kurdish, Jezidi, SDF,.. info and replacing it with false info are 'PKK-supporters' and should be targetted.

(Please note that my personal facebookpage is targeted 3 times in the last 24 hours by Turkish nationalists with attemps to hack it)

Discussion
  • Beshogur reverted twice in 24 hours, not three times, which is still a violation of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • The third one was actually also a revert of the same villages, just not done with the revert button. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @Niele~enwiki: In your list of edits where you count three reverts, two of them are consecutive edits and therefore count as only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Then by that logic 2 reverts still took place, still a violation of policy. Additionally, he is editing with malicious intent. He is trying to represent the forces advancing on al-Bab from the western side as a pro-Assad force, rather than the diverse mix of Kurds and Arabs without a strong loyalty to Assad that they really are. Since he openly admitted he is a Turkish nationalist opposed to Assad, his editing is biased because he is trying to represent these forces as evil Assadists rather than the democratic forces they themselves proclaim to be. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Let us also look at the bias of his edits. In the first revert, he cites a video on YouTube that appears to show some fighters in Jubah town. They have a Syrian flag with them. Beshogur takes this and claims the entire town must be held by the Syrian government and there is no SDF/Kurdish loyal forces present. This is an attempt to misrepresent.
        • Also, in the second revert, he cites one Twitter user to justify the town of Azraq not being taken by Anti-Turkish forces. It's literally one random Twitter user saying "no, Turks still control it!". How can he use these sources? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, it was. Your edit was just based on Twitter rumor. Beshogur (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Syrian National Resistance ('Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade') is it a group from mostly local Arabs and Kurds which loyal to the Syrian government and not have any coordination with SDF. per Kurdish and reliable sources:linklinklinklink Syrian National Resistance or ('Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade') is a group loyal to the central government(SAA). Mehmedsons (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Syrian National Resistance with their armed-wing 'Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade' is neutral brigade loyal to both SDF and SAA fighting embedded with the SDF, it was founded by the SDF in negatiation with the SAA in SDF-held Tel Rifaat and is leaded by Rezan Hedo, who is a member of the 'Syrian Democratic Council' the political wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Sources: News article on founding, link,link, link [--Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In all the acronyms and accusations -- some of which are being copy-pasted in part elsewhere -- it's hard to be clear what is going on, but it may be worth taking into account that of Beshogur's two reverts, one of them, according to the section above, may have been a revert of an edit made by an editor (Pbfreespace3) already restricted from making it. Not that this makes it OK, but it is possibly a mitigating factor. MPS1992 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Niele~enwiki, I don't know why but you are so childish. First there's nothing wrong with Turkish nationalism. If I am Turkish nationalist, so what? This has nothing to do with this kind of discussions. You're using mostly your "own sources" for the edits. Mostly Wikimapia, etc.. Dear users, please check the edit history by Wikimapia locations, you can see his name. The newly formed group, Liwa Shuhada Kafr Saghir is not SDF-affiliated but Government. It's not 'loyal' to SDF as 'your source' on Wikimapia. Beshogur (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Also Niele~enwiki called me several times as "racist", this is a big insult, I'm not racist. This guy added fake maps on Ezidkhan article which doesn't exist. And I removed them, this user reported me again and I had 24-hours ban. Reason? Because I removed fake map.
  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]

Please check: NPA Beshogur (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Also, I never called anyone as "PKK supporter" and never said that SDF is part of PKK. Beshogur (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What's the point to add Armenian and Kurdish names into Iğdır page, which the word "Iğdır" has Turkic origin.
  • What's the point to add Kurdish name into Great Mosque of Diyarbakır, which is built by a Turkic Seljuk leader. The fact of mosque is based in Diyarbakir doesn't make the mosque Kurdish. Other user said: "Haghia sophia has turned into mosque and it's the part of turkish republic. What about this mosque?". Yes, because it's located in Turkey!
  • What's the point to add Armenian name into Erzincan? Why? Because it was inhabited by Armenians 100 years ago? We are not in 1900's. So, we should add Turkish name into Yerevan, because the majority of population was Azerbaijani?
And someone calls me "racist" and "vandal" when I revert those edits. Niele is using dozens of fake DNS to revert my edits. You can see at the IP accounts, they're mostly from Belgium and Niele is also from Belgium. Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
"Niele is using dozens of fake DNS" -> don't invent completely fake accusations. I never ever have used a fake DNS on wikipedia. I only seeing a user-account that is fully dedicated on attacking Armenian, Kurdisch, Jezidi, Greek, Israeli,.. info and making racism-motivated edits against those etnicities and so as a neutral human right caring person a few times with my own public account try to stop you. And like you do, with everyone that questions you're behaviour on wikipedia you try to attack them. But not question the problem of you're behaviour toward other etnicities.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I never attacked an ethnicity in Wikipedia. Ok there were disputes with Kurdish articles but what about Greeks, Armenians, Israelis? So I should add Turkish name for Yerevan city because Wikipedia is a "multiethnic" area? I don't understand why some users are still adding fake informations on Wikipedia. You added before a fake map of Ezidkhan which took Mosul and Tal Afar. Yezidis are just a small people in Iraq, "Ezidkhan" does not exist. Stop adding fake informations on the article there. Beshogur (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I never added a map to that article, nor made a edit to the article. You where targetting other users that stopped you're vandalism of removing this valuable map and edit-warring about it. And I reverted you're vandalism once while you where editwarring over it with other users already for a while. A map picturing the area claimed by the Jezidi people as Ezidkhan and their homeland is valuable information over this culture/ethnicity. It's not because you hate the minorities that are standing in the way of you're pan-Turkish/neo-Ottoman ideals, that all attributes of these minorities are fake or you can use wikipedia to target the all articles with info over those minorities--Niele~enwiki (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah man! You never added the map. The map is now deleted. Because "Ezidkhan" is not a real place. You can not find the word "Ezidkhan" in history books, same as Shahba region. Showing those two areas as an "old cultural area" is abnormal and should be deleted. Beshogur (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Eye-opening edit-history of user Beshogur

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Beshogur&offset=&limit=5000&target=Beshogur

Everyone can look at User:Beshogur edit history and see this user is dedicating the last year of his live to target info over the minorities that are standing in the way of his pan-Turkish/neo-Ottoman ideals. Offcourse a lot of people try to revert his vandalism and constant edit warring. You can speare a a huge amount of wikipedia users valuable time by blocking him indefenitly. Because after multiple blocks and dozens of warnings he will not learn to stop edit warring and he is damaging wikipedia with his behaviour.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Other edit-warring actions of user Beshogur of only the previous days
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%C4%9Fd%C4%B1r&diff=prev&oldid=752348659
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erzincan&diff=prev&oldid=752348749
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diyarbak%C4%B1r&diff=prev&oldid=752348413
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(2015%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=752265749
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grey_Wolves_%28organization%29&type=revision&diff=750987231&oldid=750961036
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_language&diff=prev&oldid=752150216
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_in_Turkey&action=history
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_in_Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=751934965
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diyarbak%C4%B1r&diff=prev&oldid=751935157
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(2015%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=751897668
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_Civil_War_infobox&oldid=752149214, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_Civil_War_infobox&oldid=751890045
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Mosque_of_Diyarbak%C4%B1r&diff=prev&oldid=751888745
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diyarbak%C4%B1r&diff=prev&oldid=751888605
  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&action=history (!not sourced)
  15. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homs&diff=prev&oldid=751726578
  16. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(2015%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=751712033
  17. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cizre_operation_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=751709056&oldid=751612475
  18. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mosul&diff=prev&oldid=751447717
  19. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qabasin&diff=prev&oldid=751440991
  20. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qabasin&diff=prev&oldid=751440495
  21. And so on and on...

You are so childish. Did you checked the articles? They were vandalised by IP users. I have many contributions on Wikipedia and in those articles. Someone added unsourced contents and I deleted them then some IP users reverted my edits. Do you think it's an edit war?! How funny that an user call this as "edit wars". Here is an other proof about 2 times reverting in one day by Niele. Beshogur (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. [4] Here is the proof how Niele using fake DNS and reverting my edits.
  2. [5] Proof 2. Since when became Wikipedia a Kurdish nationalist forum? What is "East Kurdistan", "North Kurdistan". So, if you're writing anything in this kind of articles, you must just write Turkey, not non-existing countries.
  3. WP:3RR: [6], [7], & [8] Beshogur (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
1) I did the edits mentioned above with IP 2003:77:.... To clarify: I'm not Niele, I do not know Niele and I'm not in contact with Niele. I've been doing minor edits here and there as an IP user without having an account. By chance I ran into some anti-Kurdish vandalism by the user Beshogur and found that he is doing it systematically. I have now observed his destructive and malicious behaviour for a while by following his activity. So Beshogur is making false accusations if he exhibits the above examples with IP 2003:77:.... as "proof how Niele using fake DNS". Wikipedia should have the technical tools to separate my activities from Niele's activities. (I prefer to remain anonymous in order not to come under attack by Turkish nationalists.)
2) Though Beshogur is sometimes doing some constructive work in articles concerning Turkish history he systematically erases and distorts information about Kurdish, Armenian and Jesidi people. While I agree that comments like "racism-motivated vandalism" should be avoided, I have to say that that often exactly describes what Beshogur is doing.
3) In the above list of some 20 examples, Beshogur cherry-picked some 5 cases in which he is right, but the other cases are examples of a behaviour exactly as Niele described. If one would go deeper into his edit history I'm sure one could find 100s of such examples. (Today, being under discussion, he seems to make more benign edits, but look back in his history.)
4) Apart from his destructive and malicious edit behaviour he also calls other users "Bunch of idi...s. Beshogur (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)" on User_talk:Niele~enwiki#Stop_calling_me_racist.
I think the behaviour of User:Beshogur should not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you're a sockpuppet of Niele. You're using similar language. Wow, an IP user is writing in very-well English. I saw this for first time. Beshogur (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
In Germany we learn English at school and I also spent some time in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Another recent example of Beshogurs behaviour: [9]. User Beshogur deleted the Armenian name of the town claiming that a simiar issue had been discussed on Talk:Erzurum as if on this page some solution or consensus had been reached to delete Armenian names in similar cases. In reality on Talk:Erzurum several users said that the Armenian name should be kept because of the towns Armenian history before the Armenian genocide. If this were some isolated incident I wouldn't care but in the case of user Beshogur this is part of a systematic campaign to delete information about Armenian, Kurdish, ... people on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Neile's reverts with different DNS IP's, they're using same kind of language.

  1. [10] Sockpuppet 1
  2. [11] Sockpuppet 2
  3. [12] Sockpuppet 3
  4. [13] Sockpuppet 4

Beshogur (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

As explained above I did the edits with IP 2003:77:.... and I'm not Niele. Beshogur should stop making false accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:2.25.27.199 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: )[edit]

Page
User talk:Mr. Vernon (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2.25.27.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Pornography Addiction */ new section"
  2. 04:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "/* WHY DON'T YOU CHECK THIS - DO YOU WANT A CERTIFIED STATEMENT ???? */ new section"
  3. 04:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "/* PORNOGRAPHY ADDICTION */ new section"
  4. 04:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "‎PORNOGRAPHY ADDICTION: new section"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on User talk:Mr. Vernon. (TW)"
  2. 04:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on User talk:Mr. Vernon. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 04:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2.25.27.199 (talk) to last revision by Mr. Vernon. (TW)"
  2. 04:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2.25.27.199 (talk) to last revision by Mr. Vernon. (TW)"
Comments:

@Mr. Vernon: I already reported the user at WP:AIV, since the edits to the Talk Pages were vandalistic in nature. DarkKnight2149 04:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Aniruddhbhaidhadhal reported by User:Justlettersandnumbers (Result: )[edit]

Page
Kathiawari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Aniruddhbhaidhadhal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 05:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 02:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kathiawari. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  • Requests to discuss (in edit summaries): 1, 2
  • Request to discuss (from another editor) on talk-page: 3
Comments:

The user has posted a request for my help on my talk-page, which seems to show some willingness to collaborate. It's disappointing that he/she also made a third revert after being warned not to. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:A123soup reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )[edit]

Page
United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
A123soup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752628056 by Winkelvi (talk)"
  2. 10:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752626757 by Watchfan07 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on United States presidential election, 2016. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Supposedly new editor, edit warring aggressively over BLP vio and blog-like content - obvious they won't stop without being forced to do so. Also, shouldn't there be discretionary sanctions active for this article as it's politically-related? -- WV 10:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, the page is already under WP:1RR. And the offending user appears to be WP:NOTHERE. — JFG talk 11:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Dkendel reported by User:WilliamJE (Result:)[edit]

List of Mayday episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dkendel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752503032&oldid=752447155
  2. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752435497&oldid=752319185
  3. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752238584&oldid=752162761
  4. 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752265688&oldid=752263872 Which was a modified version of a post that had been reverted here[14]


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


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

Comments:
At least 4 editors have been involved in reverting this editor's additions to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talkcontribs) 17:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Dkendel has reverted once again. See this[15]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just adding a note that DKendel tried to delete the above comment but I reverted that. - MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:Hakan3400 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr.User200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [16]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [17]
  2. [18]
  3. [19]
  4. [20]
  5. [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakan3400 (talkcontribs) 16:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

The user refused to use the talk page on the article and instead kept editing the article many times despite being warned by me. I asked him still to use the talke page and he refused. After a while he used the talk page on the user page (not article) and yet he kept editing it without comming to an conclusion witch is against the rules. By now he still ignores me by not going to the talk page of the article and keeps editing/reverting back the edits I did by using first the talk page. Hakan3400 (talk)

User:Ag97 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Pizzagate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ag97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "Manually undid the edit by Neutrality. You have refused to negotiate and deleted my claims about why the word falsely should be removed rather than responding to them. Please stop edit warring or you will be reported."
  2. 15:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752661586 by Neutrality (talk) Article isn't a biography, so WP:BLP doesn't apply. You can't add your personal opinion to Wikipedia articles, see WP:NPV"
  3. 15:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "removed word "falsely" as per consensus on talk page"
  4. 23:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC) "removed word "falsely". That is only the opinion of the writer, the conspiracy theory has neither been proven nor disproven"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Plenty of discussion on the talk page as to why this is a serious BLP issue; user is edit-warring to create FUD about a false, fabricated and debunked conspiracy theory which makes highly-defamatory claims about identifiable, non-public living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, clear reverts. Kuru (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Richard B. Spencer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bulldog123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
[23]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 18:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC) to 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    1. 18:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 23:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    4. 23:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC) "The only person edit-warring is he who is not willing to find a compromise. RV"
Comments:

Was blocked for edit-warring three days ago -- after the block expired, the editor repeated the exact same edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not the same exact edit as the one I was blocked for, but I wouldn't expect someone of Nomoskedasticity's vigilance to notice that. I also changed it back FYI. Bulldog123 21:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

After looking at the recent edit history, it is my opinion that Bulldog123 appears to be pushing the POV that Spencer is not known for white supremacist views; each edit; regardless of subtle tiny differences, is designed to dilute the well-sourced lead sentences to make Spencer appear more mainstream to the casual reader. I don't see any improvement, at least, not to this point, in how Bulldog is collaborating on the page - in short, he's not. He's just edit-warring in the hopes that his unilateral changes stick. Rockypedia (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The behavior continues. These edits all focus on the same, extremely controversial perspective, as Rocky says. Justification on talk hinges on a hyper-literal interpretation of sources which does not have consensus. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Katietalk 03:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:86.187.163.107 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
86.187.163.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752813767 by LuK3 (talk) nothing to discuss unless someone has the goddamn courtesy to explain their objection to the edit"
  2. 13:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "DO NOT revert if you can't be bothered to explain why you are reverting. the section you are desperate to include is NOT ENCYCLOPAEDIC. NO-ONE has claimed otherwise."
  3. 13:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752813406 by Bbb23 (talk) grow up"
  4. 13:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Notable cases */ rv vandalism. do not restore unencyclopaedic text. if you believe it is encyclopaedic, then explain the objective criteria that you believe exist for items to be included in this list."
  5. 13:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752804992 by SeniorStar (talk) rv vandalism"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 11:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC) to 11:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    1. 11:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752800831 by SA 13 Bro (talk) you are reverting for no reason. that is disruptive. either explain yourself or stop."
    2. 11:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "rv the rest of the vandalism"
  7. 11:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752796289 by SeniorStar (talk)"
  8. Consecutive edits made from 10:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC) to 10:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    1. 10:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "rm jargon again, restored by a careless and rude editor"
    2. 10:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Selected court opinions */ selected for what reason? no objective criteria for inclusion = not encyclopaedic. previously restored by a careless and rude editor with no attempt to justify why"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
Do note the lack of any explanation for why people were undoing my edits, and restoring the self-declared vandalism of this edit. If the user reporting this here intended to be productive, they would simply give a reason for their edit in the summary, would they not? 86.187.163.107 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hoursSpacemanSpiff 14:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring, continous breaking of WP:BRD and WP:Consensus on the page Blacorum (Result: Declined)[edit]

With DIFF1 ([24]) started everything, the bold edit of a user was reverted because of disagreement to the last stable version. Soon after in the past days, another user reverted continously to the unconsensused version more times with this breaking WP:BRD and only then he started a discussion in the talk page. He was informed about the rules of WP:BRD and status quo ante principle there until any possible consensus, but the user still continued, despite also other editors informed him that this is not an appropriate behavior. Soon, despite not any consensus has been reached, after waiting a while, this happened again, thus has been warned in the personal page also for edit warring as prolonged that the next similar action will be regarded undoubtedly the state of edit war. With a good faith - despite the frame of repeated reverts would imply a clear edit war - nobody acted yet just made more level of warnings.

Despite all of these warnings and notifications, the user who intially made the first bold edit again commited the same revert, knowing with this he intentionally continuing edit warring, breaking WP:BRD without any consensus reached. I tried to persuade the user on his talk page - again with a total good faith - that he should revert himself because of the mentioned above, and giving a time for that. It did not happen, although this user also knows and applied WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and status quo ante principles in other cases but simply ignored them this time, I am extremely concerned.

The commited following reverts:

DIFF2: ([25]

DIFF3: ([26])

DIFF4: ([27])

DIFF5: ([28])

DIFF6: ([29])

I avoided personalization and name-calling intentionally, but if I would have done such behavior with just half amount of reverts harming WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS I would have been already reported everywhere and sanctioned heavily, I wish to believe that Wikipedia rules have weight and there are not a selected group of users who deal with different rules unlike others.

Everything else on the edit logs and in the discussion page.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. We ask you to use the template because we need all the information there, and this comes nowhere near the data we need to make a judgment of any kind. Katietalk 03:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The editors KIENGIR and Arpabogar after extensive discussions at Talk:Blacorum and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacorum still don't understand nor want to accept the WP:NPOV principles. They are against the different intro because they don't want to accept that the information (hypothesis) they push is a refuted WP:FRINGE theory. Even if we go on a consensus and there equal votes (2vs2), the principles will give weight to the specific side, but what to do when those two editors don't accept the principles? I started the discussion Talk:Blacorum#Intro, also see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Blacorum.--Crovata (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Katie, I'll do it. The above remark is again an accusation of a personal POV, although I definetly understand what is WP:NPOV on the contrary, this user is pushing his personal views and misusing the rules, even if a theory would be considered fringe, it does not mean it is refuted only this user, however not any scientific refute exists. But the problem is they simply did not respect WP:BRD principles, this is the issue here. The user even removed my notification about edit war under the pretext that "false talk page", that is ridicoulus....(KIENGIR (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
I can't believe what kind of liar KIENGIR is - what he said refers to him. He ignores the Wikipedia's editing policy, and due to personal POV he ignore and twists the policy and facts to push information on a extremely minor, refuted, fringe theory.--Crovata (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not lying, and be careful because this is not the first time you make personal attacks and uncivil comments towards other editors, only my good faith keeps me not to raise another incident right now. It is funny to hear from a user about "ignorance of Wikipedia policy" who reflects his own behavior to others, on the other hand multiple times harmed WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and started an edit warring despite many notification! Be civil and polite, with such a behavior things cannot be solved!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

User:Ukc71116 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: )[edit]

Page
Cur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ukc71116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 18:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 17:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Definition was wrong"
  4. 17:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
  5. 16:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
  6. 16:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
  7. 16:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
  8. 16:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC) ""
  9. 16:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "Updated to proper definition"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Obvious. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who to site this definition, but it cur is a breed of dog recanized by the untitled Kennel club.

Re-instate comment, not intentionally disruptive I don't tgink. Just clueless. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Pointer22 reported by User:Primefac (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Allen Meadors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Pointer22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 03:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC) to 03:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    1. 03:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
    2. 03:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
    3. 03:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 03:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC) to 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    1. 03:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
    2. 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 00:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC) to 00:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    1. 00:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
    2. 00:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    3. 00:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 00:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC) to 00:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    1. 00:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
    2. 00:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    3. 00:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    4. 00:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    5. 00:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    6. 00:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    7. 00:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 23:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC) to 23:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    1. 23:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    2. 23:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC) to 22:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    1. 22:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
    2. 22:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    3. 22:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 13:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC) to 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    1. 13:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
    2. 13:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    3. 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    4. 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    5. 13:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
    6. 13:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* References */"
    7. 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* request to remove excessive negative details */ reply"
  2. 23:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* request to remove excessive negative details */ addendum"
  3. 23:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC) "/* The new "Controversy" section */ new section"
  4. 01:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC) "/* The new "Controversy" section */ reply to pointer22, indending stuff"
Comments:

Pointer22 still insists on just editing away without reaching a consensus at the talk page (despite multiple attempts to get them to actually state what they want). As a note, a warning was placed on their talk page by Majora (they beat me to the punch). Primefac (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably should have come here now that I think about it. I reported to ANI instead. Eh. I'll remove that one. --Majora (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I'm surprised Twinkle didn't throw an EC on the talk page.
While the admins can probably see this already, this is not the first time we've had this dance. Primefac (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a further note, the editor keeps using the phrase "we" which pretty much shows a shared account issue as well. So, COI, edit warring, shared account. Fun. --Majora (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I actually read that as "we" meaning the community, as AN3 is a community noticeboard. SQLQuery me! 04:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pointer22, where another user editing the article made this comment about their use of "we". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I would also say that this example makes it clear that "we" refers to multiple users of the account, SQL. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the rule regarding who can add material (with supportive references) and who can not. Why can some remove misleading or false information and other can not? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talkcontribs) 04:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pointer22, anyone can add or subtract material from a page. However, when there is a dispute about how the article should be written, it should be discussed on the talk page (see WP:BRD for more info). I have been trying to gather a consensus on the talk page about the content to add to the article, and you keep deciding that you want your edits in there regardless of how much effort I'm putting in to reach a middle ground. Though I will say, if a user is making improper edits (e.g. removing {{reflist}} tags and/or the references themselves) they will be reverted every time (regardless of who it is). Primefac (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Still confused, if material is added that meets the criteria and is factual and is straight forward and unharming ( and most of all not based, on opinion journalism) why it repeatively removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talkcontribs) 05:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Crovata and User:123Steller reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Blacorum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Crovata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and
123Steller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)



Previous version reverted to: ([30])

  • note: meanwhile many other intermediary edits appeared, before the last revert 123Steller made a rephrasing as Crovata proposed, it was accepted, but after again in an inunderstandable way 123Steller made again a revert to the unconsensused version


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. ([31])
  2. ([32]
  3. ([33])
  4. ([34])
  5. ([35])
  6. ([36])


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: In a very tolerant way only after the 4th diff it was stated the next will be regarded as an undoubt edit warring

{{[37] -> Some remarks section Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: All this section is about this mainly

Original title: Edit warring, continous breaking of WP:BRD and WP:Consensus on the page

The original report was:

With DIFF1 started everything, the bold edit of a user was reverted because of disagreement to the last stable version. Soon after in the past days, another user reverted continously to the unconsensused version more times with this breaking WP:BRD and only then he started a discussion in the talk page. He was informed about the rules of WP:BRD and status quo ante principle there until any possible consensus, but the user still continued, despite also other editors informed him that this is not an appropriate behavior. Soon, despite not any consensus has been reached, after waiting a while, this happened again, thus has been warned in the personal page also for edit warring as prolonged that the next similar action will be regarded undoubtedly the state of edit war. With a good faith - despite the frame of repeated reverts would imply a clear edit war - nobody acted yet just made more level of warnings.

Despite all of these warnings and notifications, the user who intially made the first bold edit again commited the same revert, knowing with this he intentionally continuing edit warring, breaking WP:BRD without any consensus reached. I tried to persuade the user on his talk page - again with a total good faith - that he should revert himself because of the mentioned above, and giving a time for that. It did not happen, although this user also knows and applied WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and status quo ante principles in other cases but simply ignored them this time, I am extremely concerned.

The commited following reverts:

DIFF2, DIFF3, DIFF4, DIFF5, DIFF6.

I avoided personalization and name-calling intentionally, but if I would have done such behavior with just half amount of reverts harming WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS I would have been already reported everywhere and sanctioned heavily, I wish to believe that Wikipedia rules have weight and there are not a selected group of users who deal with different rules unlike others.

Everything else on the edit logs and in the discussion page.

UPDATE

- since the original report, Crovata deleted my notification about the warning of edit warring under the pretext "false talk page", that is amazing...

- also a new section named intro has been created with this topic I'll check on the discussion soon.KIENGIR (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)}}

      • NOTIFICATION***

- Crovata intentionally continoued edit warring as he again made and unconsensused revert ([38]) - the 7th already - despite the ANI botice and the ongoing case, despite WP:BRD process ongoing dispute since there is no WP:Consensus achieved, with bad faith remarks and accusation and threats, he really lost his head, failed to grasp Wikipedia rules and principles. He is not even respecting not just the Wikipedia community, but also disrespecting the rules Katie, it is this not an immediate block, I don't what it is....Administrators, I kindly ask you to act rapidly!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

The discussion is over. It is useless to discuss and respect the opposition side who intentionally make a fool of everyone and everything, ignore the WP:NPOV principles. The editor still don't understand and don't want to understand and accept the way Wikipedia is edited (as well the topic issues), who calls NPOV and Wikipedia principles as invalid phrases. As well, there was no official BRD or Consensus because the editor doesn't even know how they work. The editor remarks on my behavior are nothing but lies which he done (push of his personal opinion and the fringe theory). As well see my reply in the report above.--Crovata (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
No the discussion is not over, as also more users does not share your opinion and your claims. You repeat the same invalid statements about defamating others of a behavior you do "i.e. the famous NPOV". Claiming I would not understand how Wikipedia is edited is meant to be a joke, since you failed contiously the rules and deliberately crossing them. WP:BRD does not have to be official, the rules imply when it starts and ot has started, despite you have continoud edit warring. I did not lie, what you state about personal opinion - reinforced by other users - is true for you. However, I can understand you try to explain out the unexplainable, everything else are on the releavant talk pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
The editor still twists the facts by lowering and presenting the Wikipedia principles authority and policy as my personal "opinion" and "claims". He even admited that to him Wikipedia principles and NPOV are nothing but invalid phrases.--Crovata (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Why you try to coin the Administartors, I did not do such, I answered to your nonsense, I reflected that your recurrent list of false accusation are totally unnecessary.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
Now the Wikipedia principles became even "false" and "unnecessary". What will be next, that they are stupid?--Crovata (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Crovata such behavior is totally disruptive a WP:NOTHERE is suspected. You reflect your behavior and actions to other users, since you don't respect or follow the rules. I inform again the Administrators, that Crovata again continued edit warring, already the 8th (!) revert despite everything ([39]), onthe other hand as a further aggravating circumstance, he removed the ANI incident notification from his userpage, that is a very serious issue ([40])(KIENGIR (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
Removal of ANI, any notification or discussion from the user talk is no incident, again he only shows that he is not familiar with Wikipedia policy and never read WP:USER and WP:BLANKING. The editor now even accuses me for WP:NOTHERE. KIENGIR is a typical example of WP:DISRUPT and WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--Crovata (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You have to be very much afraid of the consequences of your commited activites if you try to evade in such a way. It is a shame!(KIENGIR (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
***UPDATE' - Crovata made the 9th (!!!) revert again ([41]), Administrator's, does Wiki rules matter anymore???(KIENGIR (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
The user Arpabogar again reverted the lead, and removed information i.e. quote which is in the reference, although he lied saying it is not. The user even more, like KIENGIR, shows WP:DISRUPT behavior. It seems the extensive discussions and remarks by the other editors was worthless.--Crovata (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Aha, so this way you want to justify your edit warring activity, harming multiple wiki rules and to accuse other users with a bunch of attacks, incivilities. I am very sorry for you.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
"If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed". Do you want to be sanctioned?--Crovata (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You did not cleanup or corrected mistakes recently, about policies and guidelines, you are continously harming them. The fact still you cannot stop is the proof, you are the only one has to afraid about sanctions. So please stop this kind of behavior.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
It is incredible, you're totally lost and go off-topic, invent things, lie, accuse. The policy-guideline above is about You. I didn't do a single correction on any policy or guideline, yet the article topic, discussions and issues...--Crovata (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
What is incredible is you continoue to reflect your activity to others, like you'd live in a different reality. I am very much sorry for you.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
I never did, what is really incredible, better to say amusing, is in what kind of obvious way you do it, and now did it.--Crovata (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Aha, so you never did..UPDATE: Crovata commited the 10th (!!!!!) revert ([42]), you are obviuosly keeping the rules...and with this you harmed 3RR (for today)...KIENGIR (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

I did the revert and I will continue to do it for the sake of Wikipedia, although one editor against three, as I said, because it is impossible to constructively discuss and achieve consensus with editors (WP:DISRUPT) who from the very beginning intentionally ignore Wikipedia principles (WP:NPOV), no matter how much discussion and remarks by different editors. Currently I write the report on the three (WP:ICANTHEARYOU) editors.--Crovata (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There is noone against anyone, there are rules, you continously do not respect and explain out, meanwhile accusing other's. If you think you write further reports you cannot evade about what you have committed. 3RR is 3RR as the other rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Crovata blocked two months – duration based on his extensive block log for edit warring and that asinine "I will continue to do it for the sake of Wikipedia" statement above. 123Steller is not in violation of 3RR and has not been blocked. Katietalk 15:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved party to intervene (Result: Resolved)[edit]

User Jnavas2 (previously Jnavas) seems intent to edit war over a particular line of text at archive.is: "On 2 December 2016 the site became unavailable with browsers displaying Loading spinners indefinitely. It resumed normal operation late in the day." My attempts to explain (on my user page) why an unsourced status update is not appropriate seem to have rubbed him the wrong way, and I think that any further attempt to discuss on my part will be counterproductive. 3RR has not been breached yet, and I'd rather it stay that way (hence why I'm not including diffs here). Requesting outside voices to intervene. Feel free to move to ANI or elsewhere if that's more appropriate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely sure that this is necessary, the editor has made a "let's discuss" comment at the article talk page. Hopefully a good sign that no edit-warring will be engaged in. That said, there was no tone in your comments. I don't think you could have been any more civil then you were. Any tone that JNavas2 is reading into your comments is entirely of their own making. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I have notified User:Jnavas2 that they are being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: ??, the problem is that I've already been over, at length, why it should not be added. I'm not interested in repeating myself to someone who doesn't want to hear it. What about that article talk section makes you think engaging there will be more fruitful than the preceding thread on my talk page? There's also a problem in that the new discussion section is premised on an edit war and demand that the addition stand. I can't accept that he must be pushed to violate 3rr in order for others to intervene. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites I didn't necessarily mean for you to re-engage with him, but, rather any other interested party at the article talk page. That is where the discussion belongs after all. There's no need to push for him to violate the brightline rule and be blocked. That's not really a preventative solution. Unless you think that an admin should intervene in a less official capacity? - I imagine AN/I of all places will either get the editor blocked or alternatively, the discussion will be shut down as a "content dispute". For that matter, I'll leave a comment on the article talk page. Let's see if outside input from another random editor has any good effect. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
There has been some progress made in a discussion with Jnavas2 at User talk:Rhododendrites#Archive.is. At this time it seems unlikely that any admin action will be needed. Any further discussion should take place at Talk:Archive.is#Reliability. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I don't know where you're seeing progress. The entirety of that section up to your comment took place prior to opening this. It worsened rather than progress. Now there's not even any talk of the actual issue -- just personal complaints. The long section on my talk page (which I did not start there, btw) is explaining why the content is problematic. For Jnavas to dismiss all of that with "I don't like your tone", "I disagree", etc. and then open a section on the talk page claiming to seek the very discussion he dismissed is troubling to say the least. I can copy/paste what I already said to the article talk page, but I think that would be viewed negatively (understandably). Unless someone reverts the content again and Jnavas does not revert, I don't think this is resolved. The reason I'm here instead of ANI -- and doing so without pushing him to 3RR -- is precisely to avoid a block. Ideally we would be able to turn this person around... but at the same time I'm not going to stand by and let the edit warred content remain because someone dismissed all discussion of policy/guideline with "I disagree"/"I don't like your tone"/WP:IDHT. So I will be blunt in my request for intervention: I'm requesting someone else be the one to revert the added content and either reexplain why it's inappropriate to edit war to restore unsourced trivial original research, or to explain that Rhododendrites isn't just making this stuff up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites - I understand your frustration, I'm writing up a response at the article's talk to discuss both our policies and the pros and cons of them. I don't know how progress will turn out, but, no harm in trying. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites - here's a possible happy thought. I think the issue has been resolved. Amicably even given the context under which it came here. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I've unprotected the page. Can't believe that I mixed up one week with indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Lamberhurst (Result: )[edit]

Page: Jean-Claude Juncker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: ([43])


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [44]
  2. [45]
  3. [46]
  4. [47]

Comments:
Experienced user makes little to no attempt to explain their reverts. Discussion is here. Edit warring has been ongoing since 1 December. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

When I first went through and restored Juncker and other Commissioners' articles to their prior state, anon 78.18.205.55 (talk · contribs) went through a day or so later and made a mass revert. I reached out to them in thorough detail and didn't receive a reply. Lamberhurst (talk · contribs), likely not seeing my discussion on the anon's talk, made their revert and when I tried to make a quick summation in the edit summary, I accidentally hit the enter key early, after which I immediately made a dummy edit (partially self-reverting to do so) with a finished summary. Lamberhurst reverted again, without comment and I responded in kind asking him his response to my summary. Then anon 83.70.53.69 (talk · contribs) went through a similar reverting spree and I made the similar talk comment to him that's cited above. At the beginning of this attempt, the anon continued to make reverts and I was trying to maintain the prior version until the discussion started in earnest (somewhat). I suppose I should have left the page in whatever state it ended up in after 3 attempts, but I was mistakenly trying to contain the reverts until the anon could come to the table. I probably should have posted the same explanation to Lamberhurst I gave to the initial anon as well. But given the long explanation I first gave that anon after the their round of mass reverts, the attempt to reach out to Lamberhust in the summaries and the eventual discussion on the most recent anon's page after his round of mass reverts, I at least dispute that I have made "little to no attempt to explain [my] reverts." Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
When Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs) reverted my edit on 3 December, the edit summary was "Relgion per the Village Pump". There is no such user called "Relgion" and no current or relatively recent discussion concerning infobox content on the Village Pump which I could find. The second revert on 3 December was the quizzical comment "I know but of my explanation got shoved to a dummy edit on accident but some counter would have been appreciated". None of Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs) subsequent edits contain summaries which shed greater light on the actions. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I linked the summary with the dummy above, which Lamberhurst (talk · contribs) reverted in kind alongside the first. I assume you didn't see it because the notification brought you straight to the diff rather than the page's history. As I said, I got cut off early but the Village Pump consensus I'm referring to is here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
A discussion about the religion parameter in an infobox doesn't provide a basis on which to remove pertinent information about a well-known politician, such as the fact that he was a national MP, the political party which he represented, his nationality and his spouse. Such information is present in the infoboxes concerning other well-known politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Farage. Lamberhurst (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Again, this was all further explained in the succeeding edit and which AddWittyNameHere (talk · contribs) has helped with her new WP:TROUT on the article's talk. The political party he represented is shown, and the clutter of the anons superseding all domestic party changes with European parties is the main thrust behind this in the first place. His nationality is a moot point and is a parameter I hardly see included in any infobox. I've made no changes to his spouse, so I don't know what you're talking about there. The MP information is feasibly to be included, given the proportional representation in Luxembourg, all relevant info seems to be available there (with some minor formatting issues). Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

NFLjunkie22 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Zara Larsson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NFLjunkie22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

  • link State before EW.
  • link Later state containing other useful edits performed during EW.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff
  5. diff
  6. diff
  7. diff First edit.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. prev warning
  • Previous AN / 3RR reports
  1. User:NFLjunkie22 reported by User:331dot (Result: Page protected)
  2. ANI - result: no evidence of wrongdoing

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

Comments:
Jim1138 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@NFLjunkie22: It would seem several people disagree with your edit. Do you intend to continue making it repeatedly? --slakrtalk / 03:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
no. since i's been discussed on talk page. my last edit is just a link. it hard to make constructive edits, when i'm dealing people who are open about being fans of the person and view any edit, even if it's a quote as a personal attack on her. i think we might have an NPOV issue here. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Slakr please watch this link [48]. at 0:55 you'll see she admit's outright brags about being a man hater. hating men or boys is THE definition of Misandry. but User talk:Jim1138 can't accept that, because he's a fan of Zara Larson, so he and other fans censor anything i add about her, even if its coming from her own mouth on camera. tell me. how am i supposed to make relevant contributions to an article when a fan group takes ownership of it. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Konsash reported by User:Hydronium Hydroxide (Result:Blocked 24h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&oldid=752631428 is the version before the first revert below, however https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&oldid=752807240 is IMO a better subsequent version.


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752811255&oldid=752807240
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752811728&oldid=752811541
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752812863&oldid=752812692
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752815050&oldid=752813691
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752816607&oldid=752815893


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Konsash&diff=752812515&oldid=752800461
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Konsash&diff=752816483&oldid=752812515


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  • N/A - no discussion on talk page, however repeated requests to use talk made have been made in edit comments, as well as requests to take it to talk also in the warnings above.

Comments:

The article is under Discretionary Sanctions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Konsash contacted me on my page at User_talk:Hydronium_Hydroxide#Crimea; I have responded there. Hopefully that will suffice. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 16:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Since the user went on adding their personal opinions to the articles, I blocked them per WP:NOTTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:MarcBell reported by User: Dapi89 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

See The Blitz. New editor, with some strange views, refuses to discuss and continues to revert; has being going on for since this afternoon. Dapi89 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Had to be done. He's new, so I have asked him to go to the talk page next time. He was arguing, in effect, that we should take the word of Adolf Hitler in a propaganda speech as to why the Blitz took place. I think he just needs to be educated. Dapi89 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: )[edit]

Page
Polyunsaturated fat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Zefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC) "general cleanup; rv weak evolution discussion to its own section, not lede material; copyedit; reference cannot be verified; rv primary info/sources from renamed research section"
  2. 16:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC) "(Reverted good faith edits by 79.43.194.53 (talk): Again. (TW))"
  3. 16:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC) "(Reverted good faith edits by 79.43.194.53 (talk): Repeat as unnecessary. (TW))"
  4. 15:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 79.43.194.53 (talk): Unnecessary. (TW))"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Polyunsaturated fat."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit-warring and apparent WP:OWN: Zefr started by reverting an IP three times, removing a valid properly sourced edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal, was given a 3RR-warning, and then shortly after removed the same material plus about 6K more, most of it properly sourced, with not even an attempt to discuss any of it on the talk page of the article... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The first revert described the entry as "unnecessary", which seems sufficient as an edit reason. The last revision was thoroughly noted in the edit description. Much of the removed material was primary (lab animal) research which violates the sourcing standards for human health information per WP:MEDRS. I notice Thomas.W hasn't made any edits on this article in the past 100 edits/3 years, so do not understand the urgency of bringing this article to admin attention. Why not edit it yourself? --Zefr (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
You personally feeling that sourced content is "unnecessary" doesn't exempt you from the 3RR-rules, as I clearly pointed out to you on your talk page, and instead of posting a warning on the IP's talk page, with the message "I reverted your entry because the information is minor and out of place", you should have told the IP why you regard the properly sourced and properly formatted content the IP added as minor and out of place. And removing 6.6K of content, 90% of it properly sourced (including the material added by the IP and re-added by me after your three reverts), with no attempt to discuss it on the talk page of the article first was clearly pointy. And I can't see what my not having edited this article before has to do with your edit-warring, not only on this article but also on Mangifera indica, an article that has been on my watchlist for a very long time, and is where I first noticed your behaviour, both the edit-warring and the apparent WP:OWN... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Following your notice, I acknowledged the potential value of the evolution entry by the IP user and put it here because I feel it is not lede material, as noted in my edit. And I could not verify the reference inserted, so have a "dubious" tag on it. I did address the IP user on the Talk page. In my opinion, the edits were justified and the encyclopedia benefits from fact challenges and bold removes by a long-term editor. --Zefr (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's rules do not require sources to be available online, and a quick check on Google would have led you to multiple pages with information about the source, including long excerpts from it. Which is a check I made before getting involved in this, and that you could also just as easily have done. So why the "dubious" tag? Long-term editors are not exempt from the rules, BTW, but have to abide by the exact same rules as IPs... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • commenting - unclear to me what Thomas' goal is here. The edit was actually blatant COPYVIO and by restoring it, Thomas has violated that policy. There are a host of other issues that I will raise on the article talk page but this filing stinks. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC) (redact; their goal was clearly stated above, my bad Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC))
??? @Jytdog: Zefr obviously did not know that it, according to you, was a copyvio, and obviously didn't even suspect it, so it's not an excuse for the edit-warring, especially not since he's behaving the exact same way also on other articles... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
As a third party you should have actually gotten involved and looked closely at the problem, and promoted dialogue. You vio