Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:Antinoos69 reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Antinoos69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]

Previous warring to remove the content entirely:

  1. [7]
  2. [8]
  3. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

  1. NPA Warn
  2. original 3RR warn
  3. current informal warning after improperly templating me following one revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been pages of discussion and pages of WP:IDHT on the talk, including an RfC. Current discussion on my talk is just more failure to listen and failure to understand WP:ONUS

Comments:

  • [10] did it for me.  Block, tar, feather, whatever.  He might be right - I haven't had time to read it in detail - but someone who just keeps reverting regardless, even in the midst of other independent editors telling them to stop, is just the poster child for why we have a bright-line policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This isn't the editor's first rodeo. In addition to the entries in his block log, this ANI thread from earlier this summer dealt with similar disruptive editing and edit warring. Rebbing 13:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I left him a polite message (diff) asking him to self-revert his fifth revert, which he ignored in favor of repeating his demands that I engage with his lengthy argument (diff). Rebbing 13:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Continuing to revert. TimothyJosephWood 14:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Some correction and clarification. First, the referenced RfC was quickly abandoned and doesn’t concern the present state of things. Second, the delete attempt was made because editors weren’t registering the sourcing issues I was bringing up, in an attempt to force editors to recall that improperly sourced material can be removed at any time. Third, hardly any of the discussion on the talk page concerns current issues in my edit. Editors had mentioned concerns about the subject of the article, ancient history. Editors had mentioned concerns regarding the exclusion of material, failing to understand the purpose of my deletion, despite my comment made just before the deletion. Only one editor has ever mentioned any concerns regarding civil vs. religious marriage and the interpretation of secondary sources, the one who started this little diversion. Fourth, said editor has repeatedly refused attempts to gather consensus on his matters of concern, and repeated invitations to start RfCs on them. I encourage editors/administrators to actually take a look at my edit, my detailed explanation of it on the talk page, and the sole editor to have made any objections to any of it, however vague, imprecise, and ill-defined those objections may be. It makes for quite the singular case of pointless obstructionism. You may return to your Wikilegalism now. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • There has been no failure to address the user's points. Quite the opposite, they have been addressed multiple times by multiple editors, and a failure on their part to WP:LISTEN does not constitute an obligation for anyone else to rehash the same issue another half dozen times. 
They've been trying for weeks to push their own personal taxonomy of SSM, and in turn their own personal interpretation of what part of that taxonomy the sources might be talking about. Every editor has disagreed with the integration of content based on this. Feel free to read through the walls of text on talk if you have a free afternoon. 
Eventually they resolved: I will do as I please and deem proper. Period. Which they have attempted to do. The "invitations" to start another RfC have been 1) Now go start that RfC. Or are you afraid? I'm done with you, and 2) What part of done with buffoonery are you failing to understand? (Btw, if you revert me without an RfC, I'll move for or start one myself.)
The history of their talk consists mostly of EW warnings, all on articles related to homosexuality. A short term ban will do nothing since they edit in fits and starts anyway. Suggest a hearty topic ban from the subject of human sexuality generally. TimothyJosephWood 12:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
You're lying. Only once has any other editor addressed the matters raised by my recent edit, and that was to affirm knowledge of the difference between civil and religious marriage. Frankly, your ignorance bores me. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Editors had mentioned concerns regarding the exclusion of material, failing to understand the purpose of my deletion... So, concerns of other editors don't matter and the World failed to understand you... --Skyfall (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
What on earth do you think you're talking about? Certainly not the current reality. As my edit discussed here did not constitute a deletion of the sort that had been discussed by other editors previously, those previous comments are irrelevant, as is yours, quite obviously. You're having trouble with the concept of relevance, and with understanding what is currently at issue. Keep up. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Laser brain (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Bello5Packo reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Indef blocked)[edit]

Page: UNESCO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bello5Packo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user (new, SPA) keeps reinserting a contested section of original research about Ataturk and in talk page he ignores explanations about our rules of original research and proper referencing, arguing about "common sense" and WP:IAR.

Two other users agreed with my judgement. He was already blocked once for this edit warring. It looks like WP:NOTHERE, only bashing "bad Atatturk". Please help bring him to senses. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a properly filled out report, but the user in question is clearly a POV warrior and WP:NOTHERE. Indef blocked, along with the sock. Please bring other socks that appear to the attention of me or another admin. --Laser brain (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Tianderni reported by User:Smallbones (Result: Blocked indefinitely)[edit]

Page: Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: SpotOption (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tianderni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previously at AN/I: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#Banc_de_Binary.2C_Round_2
Previously at AN/I: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Banc_De_Binary.2C_HistorianofRecenttimes.2C_Smallbones.2C_Okteriel.

Previous version reverted to: Over Nagles change

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. of Smallbones
  2. of Smallbones
  3. of Mr. Ollie
  4. of Nagle

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mr. Ollie already did it

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

If this has already been filed, please delete Comments:
Banc De Binary has been subject to the most aggressive paid editing of any article in Wikipedia. It even was cited by the Wall Street Journal bottom of article. It's illegal for the firm to advertise in the US. The previous editor who tried to soften our article Barenpolti has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Why am I being reported here? Just because I removed the texts which are not verified by the cited sources? I asked you to discuss on the article's talk page[11] but you reverted me[12] without discussing on the article's talk page. I also messaged you on your talk page[13]. I am not editing for the company. You can add back the texts with reliable sources but instead you're reporting me! I think you don't have a NPOV for Banc De Binary. Tianderni (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I have also addressed the 3RR warning on my talk page[14]. Tianderni (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Here we go again. As noted above, we have had huge paid editing/COI issues with Banc de Binary. The new editor is also editing SpotOption, which is the platform behind most Israeli binary options companies. Banc de Binary is an affiliate of SpotOption. Understand that this business is a scam. Since the last time this was at AN/I, there are many reliable sources to confirm that. See Times of Israel expose at [15] and the US CFTC's federal court order against BdB at [16]. Banc de Binary was booted out of the US by the CFTC and forced to repay all its customers losses. Similar things have happened in Canada, Belgium, etc. Israel's financial authority doesn't allow them to sell to Israelis. Sizable SEO efforts, including the creation of many sites about binary options, have been used to try to push negative information out of search results. This may be part of that effort to control the message. It's reasonable to assume that a new SPA with an interest only in SpotOption and Banc De Binary is WP:NOTHERE to work on Wikipedia. Suggest block on those grounds. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Iloveinfo22 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: page protected three days; content-dispute issue raised at DRN)[edit]

Page
Michael Greger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Iloveinfo22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736293939 by Jytdog (talk) Zero consensus for including a blog post in a scientific article. Does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability."
  2. 13:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC) "per previous"
  3. 13:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC) "Rv. to good; stop edit-warring and raise any relevant points on the article Talk page."
  4. 13:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC) "Removed bit about the blogger"
  5. 04:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC) "Removed irrelevant blog post inserted into discussion. Likely self promotion."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Michael Greger. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

And it continues ... now at 6RR by my count. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • User is now participating in discussion at the talk page, so I'm thinking administrative action may not be necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 3 days. The issue has been raised at DRN and users are now engaging in talk-page discussion, so block seems unnecessary at this time. I note that Iloveinfo22's reverts did raise colorable BLP arguments, which is a factor weighing against an immediate block. (I express no opinion on whether he/she is ultimately correct or not; I merely note that the BLP concern is colorable). In any case, Iloveinfo22 is a new user and is advised to become familiar with policies and guidelines, in particular WP:3RR. Neutralitytalk 05:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User:66.234.193.118 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Star Wars (manga) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
66.234.193.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736354692 by TAnthony (talk)"
  2. 2nd revert
  3. 14:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736271903 by Trivialist (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Star Wars (manga). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [17]
Comments:

George Lucas, the creator of the Star Wars franchise, considers the entire series to be for children. 66.234.193.118 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless Lucs was not involved with the manga so he can't be an authority on the demographics of anirher persons' work. We need a source that directly identifies this particular manga as such.--67.68.161.51 (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
They have also made a 5th revert after commenting here. I have removed the category again though..--67.68.161.51 (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Katietalk 15:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Jose Enes reported by User:DatGuy (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
João Vale e Azevedo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jose Enes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 20:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC) to 20:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    1. 20:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 20:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 20:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC) ""
    5. 20:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 17:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC) to 17:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    1. 17:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Presidency of Benfica */"
    3. 17:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Imprisonment */"
    4. 17:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Imprisonment */"
    5. 17:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Imprisonment */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 16:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC) to 16:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    1. 16:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC) ""
  5. 16:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC) ""
  6. 18:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC) "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"
  7. 16:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC) "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [22]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [23]
Comments:

Warrior has been told multiple times to try to reach consensus. However, the warrior keeps reverting. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And it continues [24], [25], [26]. Meatsgains (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4 reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [27]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]
  4. [31]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning necessary The article is under very strict arbitration enforcement, and a gigantic warning sign forbidding more than one revert per day is displayed when editing.


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:
A very clear case. The article is under strict 1RR, as anyone who tries to edit it is informed. Triggerhippie4 reverted four times in the last days, including reverting twice in less than 8 hours. The violation of the strict 1RR is an automatic block, and the preceding edit warring on an article under strong discretionary sanctions should probably be taken into account. Avaya1 should also seriously reconsider their editing behavior, less sure if that is an automatic block as well. Jeppiz (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I can't think of anything at Wikipedia that is an "automatic block". Putting that aside, you should have notified Avaya1 of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SQLQuery me! 01:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23, you're right, 'automatic block' was not the right choice of word. Only meant that the level of tolerance for any violation of 1RR is usually very low. Jeppiz (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

User:89.215.196.84 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Moose test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
89.215.196.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736568802 by Sro23 (talk)"
  2. 11:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736567701 by Sro23 (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 11:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC) to 11:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    1. 11:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
    2. 11:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 11:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC) to 11:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    1. 11:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
    2. 11:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
    3. 11:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
    4. 11:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
    5. 11:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Not assuming good faith on User talk:Sro23. (TW)"
  2. 11:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Moose test. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Excuse me, why are you reporting me instead of checking with information on the article is truthful? And why you are reporting me and not User_talk:Sro23 who started the edit war in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.196.84 (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

User:81.157.239.31 reported by User:ThePlatypusofDoom (Result: )[edit]

Page
Omar Suleiman (Imam) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
81.157.239.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable. 3rr does not relate to removing inaccuracies for a BLP so I can remove this as many times as i want. I will report you if you keep adding it"
  2. 18:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
  3. 18:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
  4. 18:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736616405 by LoloLui (talk) YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
  5. 18:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736614919 by LoloLui (talk) YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
  6. 13:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736577831 by LoloLui (talk) YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
  7. 03:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
  8. 21:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736472104 by LoloLui (talk) all sources (eg Facebook) are unreliable"
  9. 16:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 736434624 by LoloLui (talk) no it isn't reliable"
  10. 02:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "Facebook daily mail unreliable"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


  1. 18:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Omar Suleiman (Imam). (TW)"
  2. 18:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Omar Suleiman (Imam). (TW)"
  3. 18:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Omar Suleiman (Imam). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I only repeatedly removed the material as it is biased for a BLP as it contains potentially libelous material that is very poorly sourced. Wikipedia rules state that:

The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

On the other hand User:ThePlatypusofDoom has repeatedly added (at least 5 times in less than an hour) poorly sourced libelous material into a BLP. The sources he uses are: Youtube, Daily Mail newspaper, http://www.peaceandtolerance.org/, https://tifrib.com, etc....

I messed up. But, it looks very sketchy when an ip is removing large chunks of content with borderline sources, especially when they are reverting a non-ip.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I messed up. I thought that trifib was an RS. Also, isn't a video of something that happened a decent enough since? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Giorgi Balakhadze reported by User:Turnless (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [34]
  2. [35]
  3. [36]
  4. [37]
  5. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Turnless#Tskhinvali Region

Comments:
This user is removing valid information of transliteration of the name of the region to the relevant name in Armenian, as the majority of the region is Armenian. Yerevantsi provided sources of why the name is relevant, but that did not stop the user from continuing to edit war and removing that information. I am no longer going to revert as that would lead me to breaking the 3RR policy as well. The user is also edit warring on South Ossetia by installing his preferred name for the region which is not nearly as common and usually only used by Georgia for official reference to the region. Everywhere else on the article the region is referred to as South Ossetia as that is also the article's name. He was the one who started a discussion on my talk page by telling me to use the talk page for his POV information that he is adding, that is the discussion that I linked above. In that discussion, I also mentioned his edits on Javakheti, and warned him that he will be reported if he continues removing valid information and edit warring however, that didn't stop him from doing so. His last revert also says to stop changing the information until a consensus has been reached despite the fact that he was the one who made the new changes by removing the information that was already present on the article. This user has been blocked before for edit warring (see block log [40]) not only on the English wikipedia but, to my recent realization, also on Commons, where he was indefinetely blocked until not too long ago [41]. The user has also just started a discussion on Javakheti after once again removing the information from the article. Starting a discussion is good however not when it is paralleled by the user's continuous push for his preffered version of the article, despite already being given arguments and sources. --Turnless (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've explained to you to use talk page but instead you were reverting, so if you report me and you have good faith you should report yourself as well. I asked you but you can't provide why we should bold neighbor country used name and show it as common name when it is not common in English speaking world. I've removed only bold text and no single source, you can't provide any proper argument why you want to promote that uncommon name and now instead of reaching consensus try to act unfair and report me here (you should report yourself too). Now about Tskhinvali region interested persons can read this discussion User_talk:Turnless#Tskhinvali_Region, you are providing your view instead of fact, Tskhinvali region is a common name and used not only by Georgia but by many international organizations. --g. balaxaZe 20:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
You started the discussion after your continuous reverting. Both Yerevantsi and I have clearly said why your removal of the information is invalid. I still commented on your discussion anyway regarding the relevancy of the name. As for the Tskhinvali region, I have already provided a link to the discussion, and explained the situation. I don't see why I should report myself as I have not broken the 3RR policy and have responded to your comments, despite your obvious ignorance to them as you are continuing to revert to your edits anyway. --Turnless (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
My reverts were because you were reverting so you were engaged in edit-war, also I was first who mentioned that we were near of edit-wars but you decided that only me is edit-warring. No my only will was to leave things unchanged to discuss, to reach consensus and only after that to make changes, but you were simply reverting my edits I didn't saw any attempt to compromise, after Yerevantsi's edit I made compromise because his sources proved that thing what I've left.--g. balaxaZe 20:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)