Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 504: Line 504:
*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]].--[[User:Crovata|Crovata]] ([[User talk:Crovata|talk]]) 06:48, 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]].--[[User:Crovata|Crovata]] ([[User talk:Crovata|talk]]) 06:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
::[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|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....([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 09:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
::[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|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....([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Crovata|Crovata]] ([[User talk:Crovata|talk]]) 11:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


== [[User:[[User:Crovata|Crovata]],[[User:123Steller|123Steller]]]] reported by [[User:KIENGIR]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:[[User:Crovata|Crovata]],[[User:123Steller|123Steller]]]] reported by [[User:KIENGIR]] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 11:26, 3 December 2016

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    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. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report


    User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )

    Page
    Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Beshogur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • @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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
          • Well, it was. Your edit was just based on Twitter rumor. Beshogur (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Twobells reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )

    Page: The Crown (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Twobells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [14]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [15] (November 19)
    2. [16] (November 20)
    3. [17] (November 20)
    4. [18] (November 24)
    5. [19] (November 24)
    6. [20] (December 1)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The Crown (TV series) § British or American-British?

    Comments:

    Do note that rather than being a report for a 3RR violation, this is a report for constant edit-warring over multiple days.

    Please see a further discussion of the editor's behavior at User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 17 § Twobells, which includes notes of previous occurrences of identical behaviour as that which is currently being reported (which, if you look at their contribution history, they are continuing even as this report processes on yet another article). The editor continues to revert even while they take part in the discussion, completely ignoring any form of WP:STATUSQUO or WP:BRD. Also noted is the editor's extensive block log, consisting almost entirely of edit-warring blocks, going as far back as early-2008. Pinging Drmargi, another involved editor who is familiar with the behaviour of the editor in question here. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is a little drama we play out with Twobells from time-to-time as he edits on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. After a couple blocks for edit warring, he's learned to game WP:3RR by slow edit warring; the pattern above (one edit a day with an occasional day off) is quite commonplace (check the long, drawn-out slow edit war and fruitless discussion over some sort of British weaponry a year or so ago). Meanwhile, he runs through a series of reasons to continue to revert, and to disengage from the corresponding discussion: a) that his edits are "non-controversial and reliably sourced"; b) that national "mash-ups" aren't appropriate (just common as can be on engWP); and c) that his edits represent "best practice" (as though there is such a notion described on WP) and thereby cannot be reverted. And it goes and it goes until he finally gives up and moves on to the next edit war. He started the same thing with Lawrence of Arabia, a film produced by Columbia Pictures and American Sam Spiegel, this morning. He has a rabid resistance to labeling American involvement in increasingly common British-American/American-British co-productions. The production at issue here was commissioned by Netflix, and produced collaboratively by Sony Pictures Television (which is in Culver City CA) and Left Bank Pictures (a production company which is British-based, but a subsidiary of Sony Pictures Television) He's pushing the show as British-only based on a website that promotes films produced in Britain. No one is questioning that the film was made in Britain, but it doesn't alter the fact that there is substantial American involvement in the production, which the article must reflect. But Twobells is determined to edit war it out, and is unwilling to discuss or to work toward any form of consensus. And so we find ourselves here with him once again. --Drmargi (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reports created after this one have already been closed. Requiring action from administrators. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ahahahahahahahahaha reported by User:DIY Editor (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Harrier Jump Jet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ahahahahahahahahaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [22]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [23]
    2. [24]
    3. [25]
    4. [26]


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


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

    Comments:

    User has repeatedly ignored and deleted warnings from different editors on user's talk page. Will not speculate or characterize behavior further, to assume good faith. DIY Editor (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You could add the link to the entire talk discussion...

    I really don't see how my revision makes things less clear. Two ideas. Two sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahahahahahahahahaha (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I did link the entire discussion. You were reported here for violating the 3RR after ignoring and deleting multiple warnings, not for disputing the phrasing of Harrier Jump Jet, although I do have concerns about the reasons behind that dispute. DIY Editor (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The same user also violated 3RR at LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:107.194.72.223 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)

    Page: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 107.194.72.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: diff


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link


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

    Comments:

    User has responded to notice from Doc James about MEDRS sourcing with personal attack (diff); please also note personal attacks in edit notes. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dkendel reported by User:WilliamJE (Result:)

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


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


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 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[29]


    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 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 reported by User:Beshogur (Result:)

    Kardzhali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Battle of Erzincan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Erzincan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2003:77:4f27:1e56:e939:eb0d:3945:c408 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [31]
    2. [32]
    3. [33]
    1. [34] Sockpuppet 1
    2. [35] Sockpuppet 2
    3. [36] Sockpuppet 3
    4. [37] Sockpuppet 4

    Those 3 IP's are similar.

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

    Comments:
    I'm trying to make Wikipedia articles better, but this IP user calls my "vandal" also, he reverted all my edits with fake DNS-accounts and called me several times "racist". This user needs a warning. He reverted my 3 edits in 9 minutes. Beshogur (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    More detailed comments oncerning the edits:
    1. [38] User Beshogur deleted content without any explanation, I reverted.
    2. [39] User Beshogur deleted content without any explanation, I reverted.
    3. [40] 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 Amenian 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. This is just one more example of why user Beshogur is under discussion on "User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The coat of arms of Kardzhali is useless, I added the city's skyline instead the coat.
    2. About Turkish loses in Battle of Erzincan was clearly UNSOURCED, never found an info on internet.
    3. The Armenian name is already counted in the etymology section. The city has now ZERO % Armenian population. That's how Wikipedia works, get your facts.
    1) How can Beshogur decide "coat of arms of Kardzhali is useless" as just delete it? Maybe some user though about why to add it. Why doesn't he start a discussion on whether it should be kept? To me this seems to be vandalism, with Beshogur hoping that nobody notices that he deletes bits he doesn't like here and there.
    2) Concerning Battle of Erzincan user Beshogur could have mentioned that he deleted unsourced material. (But why deleting immediately and not adding, at least for some time, a comment that a source is needed?)
    3) As I wrote, in the discussion in Talk:Erzurum several users said that the Amenian name should be kept because of the towns Armenian history before the Armenian genocide even if there are no Armenians living there nowadays. There was even a user pointing out to Beshogur that "You really need to (re)read WP:NCGN. It concerns not only those living there currently, but those who lived there in the past as well." It is clear that no concensus was reached to delete Armenian names in similar cases, moreover, to me it seems that most users in Talk:Erzurum wanted to keep the Armenian name. I think it is a very questionable behaviour to justify deletion of content by falsely claiming that a discussion came to that conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1) I'm 100% sure, you heard the word Kardzhali for first time today. It doesn't pass on the infobox because it became too long.
    2) Since when is "deleting" unsourced material forbidden? Was the casualties sourced? NO!
    3) So I should add Turkish name in Bagdhad, Damascus, Cairo, because those areas were ruled by Turks? Beshogur (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think concerning 1) and 2) everything has been said: it would be helpful to give some explanation if something is deleted. Concerning 3): I don't know. Maybe its similar, maybe there are differences? Why don't you discuss this on the discussion pages of the articles mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion pages on such articles are not even active. Maybe an user will see that months later. Erzincan's Armenian name is already counted in etymology section. That's how Wikipedia works. Same with Turkish cities of Western Thrace such as Xanti, Alexandroupoli, ... Beshogur (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess Kirkuk#Notable people from Kirkuk who added this section? Yes it's me. Stop calling me "Armenophobic", "Kurdophobic" or another insult such as "racist". Beshogur (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I never called you "Armenophobic" or "Kurdophobic", in fact I don't like these words, because I think they do not adequately describe what they are meant to describe, and therefore do not use them. I also never called you a racist. But looking at your edit history some of your actions seem to be racism-motivated, anti-Armenian, Anti-Kurdish, ... because you systematically delete content about certain groups of people. But I am just repeating what Niele tried to explain to you in the discussion "User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )".

    User:2.25.27.199 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: )

    Page
    User talk:Mr. Vernon (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2.25.27.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)[reply]

    User:A123soup reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

    Page
    United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    A123soup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Aniruddhbhaidhadhal reported by User:Justlettersandnumbers (Result: )

    Page
    Kathiawari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Aniruddhbhaidhadhal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)[reply]

    User:Mr.User200 reported by User:Hakan3400 (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [41]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [42]
    2. [43]
    3. [44]
    4. [45]
    5. [46] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakan3400 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

    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)

    Page
    Pizzagate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ag97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)[reply]

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

    Page
    Richard B. Spencer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Bulldog123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    [48]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    With DIFF1 ([49]) 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: ([50]

    DIFF3: ([51])

    DIFF4: ([52])

    DIFF5: ([53])

    DIFF6: ([54])

    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))[reply]

    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))[reply]
    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)[reply]

    [[User:Crovata,123Steller]] reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: )

    Page: Blacorum
    User being reported: Crovata, 123Steller



    Previous version reverted to: ([55])

    • 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. ([56])
    2. ([57]
    3. ([58])
    4. ([59])
    5. ([60])
    6. ([61])


    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

    {{[62] -> 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)}}[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=752800496"