Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. 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:Hahnchen reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Both warned)

Page: Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hahnchen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
For the past couple of days, there has been an ongoing discussion at Talk:Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire#"CoroCoro leaks" as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Request for outside input on Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire regarding the nature of websites posting information from published material that is currently not available to the general public. Arguments have been put forward by myself and other editors saying WP:V requires that anyone can independently verify the content which is not possible as the print material is not yet available, while Hahnchen and another editor argue that being posted on this particular website which is normally considered a reliable source automatically grants it verifiable status. Despite no general consensus about the issue, Hahnchen decided to restore the contested content despite my present disagreement. I made all attempts to engage in discussion this issue but Hahnchen simply disagrees with all the points presented by multiple editors and is instead siding with another editor and restoring the content of questionable sourcing. He has also not engaged in any other arguments, other than comparing this whole situation about Pokémon fansites posting illegally obtained photographs to Edward Snowden's whistleblowing on the NSA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Also in his retaliatory report below, it shows how he effectively gamed me into breaking 3RR on this instance despite being repeatedly told that consensus is against his additions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Note how even Ryulong's Diff of attempted resolution shows him trying to discredit GameSpot's editorial process just because he too does not have access to the sources. A reliable source can certify information that would otherwise be unreliable through their professional editorial processes, that's the definition of a reliable source. I am trying to add reliably sourced information relevant to the subject, and it is consistently being reverted. Here is the source - http://www.gamespot.com/articles/pokemon-omega-ruby-alpha-sapphire-remakes-add-new-mega-evolutions/1100-6420187/ - hahnchen 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the only diff I could find when I was doing the whole automated thing that didn't work. The source is problematic and Masem and I have been saying that for the past two days but you just want the content to be posted because you think GameSpot staff members bless anything that they post.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

And GameSpot doesn't have access to the source either. They're posting content originally from the unreliable source Serebii.net where they say they found photos on 2chan or some other Japanese website of pages from the magazine. Serebii is unreliable and anyone who reports on them in a chain is unreliable. This is fact and supported by WP:V, as is the argument that because no one can go get the magazine to know if it's correct (with as what happened with IGN's reporting on The Last Guardian over the weekend) we may have completely incorrect information. At least until they make the announcement at E3 in 5 minutes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not in a position to override the judgment of a reliable source. I value the professional editorial processes at GameSpot over your judgment. I'm not interested in playing source-sleuth with you, and I don't like the game you've tried to impose on everyone else. There are times that reliable sources are wrong, and when they're wrong, they issue a retraction, and we can edit the article to reflect that. But for the last two days, you have been suppressing relevant, reliably sourced information from Wikipedia, because you don't like it. - hahnchen 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the only person to point out that in this situation this website cannot be considered a reliable source because they're reporting on rumors posted on a fansite. Yeah it's probably 100% true but when we are 100% aware that the content is not available to the general public yet we should use discretion when discussing it on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, consensus on WT:VG seemed to be that "If rumors are notable enough to post, this is good to go". Stating the leak as true information "confirmed by CoroCoro" was wrong, and correct to remove. However, changing the content to "Leaks of CoroCoro said this" changed the discussion to a whole new ballgame. We are no longer trying to assert WP:V because we aren't verifying that the content is true, nobody can do that, as you said. We are verifying the existence of the rumor, and then debating on whether or not it is within content guidelines for us to include reports of rumors. However, you became blind and never saw the discussion change, and continued to argue for the variability of the rumor as fact. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing that says this rumor is really notable to discuss. And rumor mongering isn't something Wikipedia should do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that multiple reliable sources reported on it makes it notable. They wouldn't have made whole articles about it if the information was like a leak of a single name. That the leak contained such substantial information made it notable enough for multiple reliable sources to report on, thus allowing us to report on it. But like I said, that is what the WT:VG discussion was trying to move towards, whether the information was allowed under content guidelines, as it met WP:V and WP:N just fine. But it got distracted by the fact that "the information can't be verified" because the articles are sourcing Serebii, which makes no sense. We don't need to verify the information as fact if the content was rewritten to not treat it as such. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole issue is that their known source isn't reliable so why should they be reliable? But now it's all moot because of the Pokémon trailer that was just shown.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't get it. It doesn't need to be reliable, because we should treat it as a rumor and not fact. We can verify the fact that a rumor existed, by the numerous reliable sources that reported on it. However, as I am just now discovering, WP:VGSCOPE states that rumors should not be included in our articles. That is the guideline you should be throwing around from now on, not WP:V or WP:RS. If the content says "Leaks of CoroCoro contained this", we can verify that with reliable sources. The question is, "should we?" _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No. None of the sources have treated the content as a "rumor". They've presented everything as fact. Just look at GameSpot's piece. They say that information from CoroCoro has shown up online (from Serebii) and are just presenting the information as fact because none of them are aware that CoroCoro won't be out for 3 more days.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point there. If all the sources treat the leak as fact, we can't treat it as a leak, because the sources treat it as fact. I am sure that at least one of those sources said it was unconfirmed information from a leak.... right? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The only website out of the 4 that were posted by Artichoker, myself, and yourself that refers to any of this as a "leak" was Slashgear. Gamespot, Siliconera, and Kotaku just present it as is, as did Serebii. None of them acknowledge the fact that the CoroCoro issue isn't out yet. Not to mention that official information following the E3 conference proves some of the content posted by the websites factually incorrect (the new forms are translated as "Primal").—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that Ryulong has edited the report to include diffs from other editors (in this case User:Artichoker). When I reinserted the information into the article, I also made clear of the sourcing and removed the factual inaccuracy that Ryulong complained about in this edit. - hahnchen 16:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties warned per the report below. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Hahnchen (Result: Both warned)

Page: Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&oldid=612062591

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612116810&oldid=612114515
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612142441&oldid=612142215
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612144209&oldid=612143841
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612364300&oldid=612338481
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612364973&oldid=612364635
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612365431&oldid=612365211

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARyulong&diff=612367166&oldid=612367111

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Request_for_outside_input_on_Pok.C3.A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire

Comments:
I wasn't initially involved in this, but got drawn in seeing a thread on WT:VG. Information about the subject has been leaked, and it has been picked up by reliable sources, who are reporting the contents of said leak as fact. User:Artichoker added the content on 8th June, and every time was reverted by Ryulong. After clarifying that GameSpot is a reliable source and making sure that the facts were referenced, I attempted to re-add the information, only to get Ryulong's insistence that his own amateur judgements trump those of a industry standard professional publication. - hahnchen 15:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't make a retaliatory report. There has been plenty of discussion to say that in this situation GameSpot's reliability is non-existant. You and Artichoker have just ignored and argued against it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not in retaliation, I was writing the report and you fired first, I thought it best to just copy and paste what I had into this one. I wasn't quick enough to compile that in three minutes. Let's keep it together. - hahnchen 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Being right" doesn't make you immune to breaking 3RR yourself. If a dispute is taking place, both parties should stop. There is no "right version" and both parties are at fault for edit warring during that time. There was never really substantial consensus to back up your reasoning Ryulong, and either version was both just as right and wrong as the other. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Hahnchen. Reports aren't combined like this and this is definitely retaliatory. If you had evidence for 6 reverts as you have here you could have reported already but you only did it after I sent you the AN3 warning. These should be separate as all reports are. And Blake, there was no consensus for the inclusion. Two people being unimpressed by two other people's arguments doesn't cancel one out and validate the other, even though status quo was exclusion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(Man, I've got like 5 edit conflicts trying to post this...) There was no consensus for the exclusion either. And as I said, "being right" doesn't give you divine power to break the rules. Both of you edit warred. The reasoning behind this is that if you were really right, and had consensus,SOMEONE ELSE would have reverted it to the "right version" and you wouldn't have had to. I was going to revert you myself, but Hanchen was too quick, so it is a little disappointing he got an additional strike because I was too slow. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I attempt WP:BRD every god damn time but people just edit war the content back in again. I have done everything I can to engage in discussion on this matter for the past 48 hours but everyone wants this stupid unsubstantiated but probably 100% true rumor that will be verified within the next hour posted two days ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I wanted to keep this together with the report above, but got reverted several times and thought that the 3RR noticeboard was probably the worst place to have an edit war. - hahnchen 15:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, reports are never combined as you wanted these two to be.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, although given the current edits at Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, it looks like you've gotten over it and no longer using edit summaries as shouting exhibitions. - hahnchen 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've thrown in the towel even though I totally intend to rewrite the section based on reliable sources that do not mention CoroCoro but rather Nintendo's digital E3 conference which goes live in 5 minutes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Both of these have been resolved so can we just withdraw both of them and be done with, because any block after this point would be punitive which isn't what blocks are for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever, I'm expecting a trout. - hahnchen 20:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not as optimistic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the process is here, but I'm fine with these being closed without further action. - hahnchen 21:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. The more important thing now is trying to figure out what to do with these situations in the future, which just requires more discussion at WT:VG.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: My suggestion would be to block Ryulong for 72 hours and Hahnchen for 24 hours. Someone with Ryulong's block history ought to be more careful. Hahnchen should not be trying to join him in the pantheon of edit warriors. Ryulong's revert war against the game announcement has no obvious justification in policy. A block woud be preventive in this case because Ryulong is otherwise likely to continue this pattern indefinitely. The real question is whether the block should be much longer. Ryulong has nine past blocks that appear correct. User:Blake's comments above are noteworthy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW, WP:NEWSORG specifically warns against reporting on rumor, which (until as of this morning when Nintendo actually confirmed the details) was the information being attempted to be inserted into the article. I can't speak to the actions, since this is not a case covered under the exceptions to WP:3RR. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG is a guideline while WP:V is a policy. It's true that neither one provides an exemption from edit warring under WP:3RRNO. Ryulong recommends more discussion at WT:WikiProject Video games. While discussion is good, the videogame project can't issue exemptions from the edit warring policy either. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I did agree that 3RRNO has no applicable exemptions here and can't justify the action, but I stand by that Ryulong has a very valid argument against inclusion. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties warned per the above discussion. Premature announcement of a video game (if that's what it was) is not vandalism and is not a BLP violation. There is no excuse for this under WP:3RRNO. Both parties opened complaints here and both had already broken 3RR, so it's unclear what they expected to happen. It would be better to take the to issue to admins *before* you go over the limit. If you can't control your own reverts you will face unpredictable consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Preator1 reported by User:Eflatmajor7th (Result: Protected)

Page: Ivory tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Preator1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:
I didn't put anything for the diff of edit warring because I don't understand what goes there; the individual diffs seem to make the point. I have received zero communication from this user regarding a paragraph that I don't think belongs in the article, and they have not responded to my comment on the talk page.

Eflatmajor7th (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. And please read the instructions at the top of this page as well as WP:3RR, the bright-line threshold was not crossed, although there is definitely Edit Warring going on. Work it out on the talk page of the article. Dreadstar ☥ 04:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the template I should have put on the user's talk page now. And thanks for protecting the article. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is entitled the Ivory Tower. The paragraph I added simply makes a short description of the Ivory Tower as it appears in the book, The NeverEnding Story. This is a very famous book. In the article itself the term Ivory Tower is a phrase used to describe imagination. In the book the Ivory Tower is the capital city of Fantasia, the land of human imagination. Other articles allow for sections that describe items as they appear in popular culture, why would this reference not be allowed? --Preator1 (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:50.81.188.239 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Gone with the Wind (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.81.188.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17] (first 4 reverts in 24 hour period)
5. [18] (last 4 reverts in 24 hour period)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:

Further background: I have tried to explain to the IP through edit summaries, contacting the editor at their talk page and initiating discussion on the article talk page. There is never any response from them other than a revert. I think my good faith has stretched as far as it can go now and I am being dragged deeper and deeper into an edit war, so I'm turning it over to ANI. If the editor won't discuss the issue or stop inserting the content there is nothing further I can do anyway.

There are some other concerns. Initially I thought it was just a case of the editor correcting something and not providing a source, but the editor made a further edit that I categorically know is not true. There are a wealth of sources documenting the film's premiere in Atlanta, so I am beginning to suspect the editor is deliberately inserting false information.

It is also worth noting that this IP address has been blocked five times already and has just come off a year long block (see [21]). Betty Logan (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 years, for persistent vandalism after previous year-long block for same expired. Dreadstar ☥ 04:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Enlightened one088 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Enlightened one088 (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:

I have continuously undone edits which users have repeatedly deleted and vandalized. Originally I had received an email from "Doc James" stating to post reliable sources. I took his advice into consideration and re-posted my section with a reliable source from "PubMed.gov". According to "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine), "Pubmed" is a reliable and legitimate source which I used for my edit.~~enlightened_one088~~

Another revert here [29] occurring after this was filled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And another one here [30] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours. A brand new account comes out of nowhere to start edit warring on circumcision and related topics. Could this be the same person as User:Santacide? EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. The other new account just hit its 4 day old mark but hasn't made 10 edits yet so cannot join in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Antoniopadillarocks reported by User:Ahecht (Result: Blocked)

Page

Happy (Pharrell Williams song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Antoniopadillarocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "This was not fake. Not fake, really really not fake. Not fake. Not fake. That one is real. Real real real. Real."
2. 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "This is not unsourced. This was Sourced! So do not remove!"
3. 12:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "This not Unsoucred. Please do not remove that or I will get mad at you!"
4. 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Not fake. Please do not remove and do not block me! Because I hate blocks!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Happy (Pharrell Williams song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* In Popular Culture */ new section"

Comments:

In addition to edit warring, this user has a long history of using antagonistic and uncivil edit summaries, including personal threats. This user has been blocked before for disruptive editing. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:YJAX reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

Page

LG G3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

YJAX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "The lead should reflect the body so there is no problem with highlighting its key features. Again, you cannot remove or modify sourced material as per WP:Verfiability. I have addressed your tone issue and added further sources."
2. 10:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Which is no reason to blank out sourced material as per WP:Verifiability."
3. 17:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "reverting unexplained removal of source material"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */ new section"
2. 15:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */"
3. 17:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */"
4. 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */"
5. 18:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on LG G3. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Insists on specific wording and redundant citations, attacks attempts to revise and copyedit lead by stating that per WP:V, content that is sourced must not be removed from an article (it is in fact, the opposite, as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion) ViperSnake151  Talk  18:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never argued that WP:V guarantees inclusion. You have clearly misinterpreted this policy - You're suppose to not modify the core meaning of the source, which would constitute to violating WP:OR. You have been equally involved in edit warring, if not more, so it's an irony you're reporting me here. First you reverted by giving no explanation whatsoever and then after being challenged, claiming that the lead should not contain material from the body, when in fact the opposite is the case - The lead should reflect on the body. I have made attempts to reach a consensus by addressing your concern with regards to the tone and added further sources, yet other than engaging in a pointless edit war, you do not seem very constructive at all. See User:ViperSnake151's edit warring diffs:

• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]

YJAX (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No no no, I said the lead must summarize from the body, and that unless its contentious or something, you usually do not have to recite things in the lead if they are cited in the body. And I also do not think that edits made to continue one after a revert count as a "revert" per se. And how did I modify the core meaning? Is it OR not to refer to the ahem laser autofocus as laser autofocus? ViperSnake151  Talk  18:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's surprising how contradicting you are. All you did was basically repeat what I said, so you obviously agree that the "lead must summarize from the body" as you claim. Since the qHD screen and laser autofocus are two major features from the body, you basically agree that there is no problem with summarizing them on the lead. In fact, you even state that we don't even need to recite them, when in fact, you started the edit war through claiming that there was no source on the qHD part. You seem to change your stand by the minute. It is OR if you change the core meaning - You removed the "laser" part and instead replaced it with the term "infrared", which is a blatant example of OR. You're not the inventor of this product. YJAX (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:202.159.165.92 reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: McMinnville UFO photographs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 202.159.165.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612537088&oldid=612536851

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612530070&oldid=612525614

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612534315&oldid=612533878

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612535963&oldid=612535083

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612536851&oldid=612536051

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612537133&oldid=612537088

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=611891391&oldid=611740936

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.159.165.92&oldid=612534627

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMcMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612535764&oldid=607721574

Comments:
IP requested assistance at WP:Help Desk and was advised to discuss on article talk page and stop edit-warring. IP is repeatedly inserting non-neutral language into article. Poster has not been editing article. Apparently another editor starting reporting the edit war here and did not finish.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for ten days. Too many IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Mdpoly5 and User:Leevank reported by User:Amortias (Result: )

Page: Michael U. Gisriel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Mdpoly5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Leevank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

• And another 62 reverts at the time of posting this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by other user

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

Comments:

User:Collect reported by User:MastCell (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 04:53, 8 June 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:57, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit, with a spurious claim of SYN/OR)
2. 18:23, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit)
3. 18:48, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit)
4. 20:17, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Collect is an experienced editor, well aware of 3RR, and previously blocked at least once for violating it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Rubio talk page thread

Comments:
Collect is repeatedly reverting changes to this article, reaching 4RR within less than 3 hours. There seems to be little or no support for his contention that this is a BLP issue. Even in a best case, the issue is sufficiently borderline that he should be soliciting feedback rather than edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Note the last edit was simply regarding a WTA where Wikipedia's voice clearly stated that a person is "labelled a climate change denier". , and that I started a proper discussion at BLP/N. In short I HAVE ASKED FOR FEEDBACK. Is that sufficiently clear? And I do regard using "climate change denier" as a descriptive word for a living person to be "contentious" and further I have noted that such edits are subject to the BLP strictures placed on such articles at the Climate Change Arbitration decision, which I cited. Calling a person a "climate change denier" on its face falls under the ArbCom rules. This "report" is clearly not valid at this point, and the fact the OP seems not to regard WP:BLP/N to be proper feedback, nor my use of the article talk page as "proper feedback" seems rather the actual problem. As far as the outre claim that the SYNTH was not SYNTH -- MastCell actually removed that part of the edit -- meaning that he clearly agreed it was improper. BTW, MastCell -- the "warning" is supposed to be given before you let both barrels loose. Collect (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, you're supposed to ask for feedback and then stop edit-warring. This looks like a content dispute where you've failed to convince anyone that there's a BLP issue, but edit-warred nonetheless. Your consistent failure to provide actual diffs to back your constant BLP accusations should be raising red flags by now, in terms of taking your statements at face value. This is edit-warring, plain and simple.

As for "warning" you... I tried that the last time you edit-warred and violated 3RR, just a month or two ago. I gave you a heads-up rather than reporting you. And you responded aggressively and gave me a bunch of shit about it—even though you were the one violating policy, and I was going out of my way to be courteous and give you a chance to self-revert. I'm past the point in my wiki-career where I keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. I gave you a courtesy notice when I posted this report, as per our best practices, and now it's up to someone else to decide how to handle your 4 reverts. MastCell ^Talk 00:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh -- you mean the time I self-reverted? [41]? I had not realized you were so angry that I had SELF-REVERTED then. Meanwhile, would you care to decry this edit there [42]? I would love to see you say that was against BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for interrupting while the two of you are bickering, but it's been a while, MastCell, since I read the The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia on your user page. I thought it was great the first time, and it hasn't lost any of its punch. It lightens my day in a twisted sort of way.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, I'm getting more cynical by the minute. Eight years is probably too long for anyone to spend here. You're messing with my bickering momentum, though. :P MastCell ^Talk 03:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I endorse this report. The "proper discussion" was started by him on BLP/N without even a courtesy note to let other editors know he had taken the issue elsewhere instead of using the article's talk page. The threads on the Marco Rubio talk page regarding recent edits (three) have all been opened by my, none by him. His first comment addressed at me in the TP contained two completely unfounded attacks not only failing WP:AGF, WP:FOC and WP:NPA but even accusing me of an edit I had not done. The term "climate change denier" is used by numerous WP:RS (just check the article). Today Collect removed twice [43][44] the same content, first claiming "OR, SYNTH", then changing the reason to "political purposes" and afterwards re-affirming his removal now claiming a supposed incorrect use of the word "although" when that word was nowhere to be found. Being an experienced editor, some action should be taken. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 05:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• bumped into this, American political topics are very partisan here, I see good work here by Collect, this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=612542743&oldid=612537336 edit removes a "labeling" and was a total correct take down - looking at the story prior to Collect's edits, the content has been improved in respect to Neutrality. The complainant above GABA is still reverting the story https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=612590741&oldid=612554185 he made a revert two mins after posting his desire to have action taken against the COLLECT editor Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, it was ArbCom which ruled that bandying "climate change denier" etc. falls under BLP, and this was in an official ArbCom case. The charges that I am doing anything other than following the requirements of that case are not quite accurate at all, as are the self-serving arguments that changing "labelled" to "called" is in any iota of sense improper, while the complainant continues to revert. [45] is, IMO, a blatant WP:BLP violation on its own. Calling for action against me at that point is simply, again IMO, grossly improper. Now back to bed. Collect (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• The edit which put Collect in violation of 3RR changed "labelled" to "called". A large number of editors work on the Rubio BLP, and it was entirely unnecessary for Collect to edit-war on this particular issue: if it is a BLP problem, then other editors can take care of it -- and if it's only Collect who feels this way then consensus is against him. The inclination to edit-war in circumstances like this needs to be controlled, and since Collect can't seem to control it himself… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been over three years since Collect was last blocked, though it's somewhat striking that all of his six blocks in the 2008 — 2011 period were for reverting too much (3RR or edit warring or breaching 1RR or 0RR restrictions). Collect, keeping your nose clean for three years builds up a kind of reluctance to block, at least in me, similar to the way one doesn't like to sully a completely clean block log. You were edit warring, and I don't find your arguments above especially convincing. But there are arguments, there exist certain possible complications, so I won't block at this time. But please be aware that I was within a whisker of doing it, so if you'd like your 2012 — 2014 (incidentally almost all of 2011, too) block log to continue looking good, don't act like this again. I'm pretty offended by your tone in much of the above, also. For an editor as experienced as you to pick on the lack of a formal 3RR warning "before you let both barrels loose", doesn't do you any favours either. Another admin may make a different call, so I'm leaving the "result" field open. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

Actually three of the blocks more than three years ago were for 1RR - and 2 were quickly reversed by AN discussion (in one case, the block was found to be by a specifically involved admin of all things). Cheers -- but now Nomo has commented, my life is complete <g>. Collect (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I see one block that was overturned; in the remaining cases where a block was lifted, it appears to have been after commitments by you to go forth and sin no more—often under additional editing restrictions which aren't always immediately apparent from the block log. For instance, when King of Hearts lifted his block on you in 2010 ([46]), the (un)block log entry just says "By mutual consent". The discussion on your talk page with the blocking administrator, however, notes that you were placed under a 1-revert-per-week restriction on two articles as a condition of unblocking: [47].

I would say that you definitely exhibited more skill than most at reading the writing on the wall when you were blocked, and were able to formulate or agree to community-acceptable unblock terms with credible alacrity. I further don't think that judgement errors you made years ago should be considered with the same weight they might if they had happened more recently—though they should not be ignored entirely, either. However, you do yourself no favors when you invite readers here to incorrectly infer that many of your previous blocks were not appropriately placed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

2/0 was involved, and clearly told so. KofH was actually per AN reversal and saving face on his part, Tiptoe was for a "clear notification" which was placed after the block which I find amusing. Gwen was for an edit more than two weeks prior to the block. All of which is well documented, and an indication why blindly reading a block log is asinine. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Collect is warned for 3RR violation. An admin may block without further notice if Collect does any more reverts on this article that don't *literally* fall under WP:3RRNO. Some recent edits at Marco Rubio suggest that those who are adding the climate change material prefer to paint Rubio as a nutcase rather than giving the sort of presentation of his position that a neutral expositor might provide. It is hard to disagree with User:McDoobAU93's suggestion at BLP/N that Instead of applying labels based on what Rubio said, why not just include what Rubio said and let the reader draw their own conclusions? If the editing at Marco Rubio doesn't settle down it is reasonable to leave WP:ARBCC notices for anyone reverting material about climate change, on either side. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Michael josh reported by User:Aspects (Result: Blocked)

Page: TNA Bound for Glory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Slammiversary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
TNA Lockdown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
TNA Sacrifice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Michael josh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous TNA Bound for Glory version reverted to: [48] Previous Slammiversary version reverted to: [49] Previous TNA Lockdown version reverted to: [50] Previous TNA Sacrifice version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts: TNA Bound for Glory

1. [52] 20 May 2014
2. [53] 27 May 2014
3. [54] 2 June 2014
4. [55] 8 June 2014
5. [56] 8 June 2014

Slammiversary

1. [57] 15 May 2014
2. [58] 27 May 2014
3. [59] 2 June 2014
4. [60] 8 June 2014
5. [61] 8 June 2014

TNA Lockdown

1. [62] 27 May 2014
2. [63] 2 June 2014
3. [64] 8 June 2014

TNA Sacrifice

1. [65] 27 May 2014
2. [66] 2 June 2014
3. [67] 9 June 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [68] Level 1, 28 May 2014
2. [69] Level 2, 28 May 2014
3. [70] Level 4, 6 June 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Michael josh keeps removing infoboxes from various wrestling articles without any edit summaries, messages on any of the articles' talk pages and does not respond to warnings left on their talk page. Michael josh was also given a level 4 vandalism warning on 8 June 2014, [71]. Aspects (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Edmondhills reported by User:Jyoti.mickey (Result: Protected)

Page: Pune techie murder case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edmondhills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning

Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]

Comments:
For me, I voluntarily commit that I will not edit for 48h starting now. He removed the edit warring notice on his talk page also. Aside: He also nominated two articles I edited recently for afd here: 1, 2. He has made no attempts to discuss or to clearly provide the policy for afd. He had earlier reported me in ani for a content dispute and abused another editor who participated on the discussion, I abandoned the discussion around that point. --Jyoti (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: Article protected five days. Please use the talk page to reach agreement. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:5onofmyfa7her reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: )

Page: Talimeran Ao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5onofmyfa7her (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]
5. [80]
6. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82] [83] [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Comments:
This user is edit warring over his preferred spelling of the article subject's name. The naïve search-and-replace method he uses to change the spelling in the article ends up breaking image links. Unfortunately he is completely unresponsive to any attempts to communicate. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jaqeli reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: Blocked)

Page

User talk:Jaqeli (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jaqeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612619961 by Dougweller (talk)"
2. 11:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "this is my TP"
3. 14:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
4. 14:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "get lost from my TP!"
5. 14:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
6. 15:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "It's in archives; get lost!"
7. 16:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "get the hell out from my TP; it is in archives! get lost!!!!!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "EW warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "EW warning"

Comments:

User:Mdann52 I don't think this is the right noticeboard to report this. WP:BLANKING prohibits the deletion of a notice regarding an active sanction. It is a violation to remove that text once (or let's say twice, supposing that the editor does not know the rule the first time), it is not necessary to count 4 deletions in 24h (3RR). Avpop (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one week. I'll discuss a possible compromise with Jaqeli on his talk page. If the community thinks that the advice about ban notices in WP:UP#CMT is too strict, they should change the advice. Until then we should enforce it. The advice forbids removing "any other notice regarding an active sanction". EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel reported by User:NazariyKaminski (Result: No violation)

Page: Dave Brat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cwobeel (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. 13:47, 12 June 14 diff
2. 14:08, 12 June 14 diff
3. 14:41, 12 June 14 diff
4. 15:30, 12 June 14 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Cwobeel calling people that disagree with him "lazy" on the talk page

Comments:

User:Cwobeel simply reverts edits and makes no attempt to work out differences. He then calls those who disagrees with his reverts "lazy" and "childish", which of course if very mature of him.--NK (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Arrived at that article while patrolling WP:BLP/N. Granted, that article has experienced intensive editing over the last few days, including many edits and reverts by NazariyKaminski, but nothing out of the extraordinary. Now that we have arrived at a compromise on that particular edit, this report seems to seek punishment, which is unwarranted. Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I did not call anyone lazy. I asserted that it is lazy to use full quotes when as editors we are capable of summarizing quotes by paraphrasing. Also, NazariyKaminski never engaged in a discussion on the subject, I started a thread, but he did not engage. Cwobeel (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Dave_Brat. NazariyKaminski has not engaged even once in any of the discussions on that article as other editors and myself have done. Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. The diffs provided don't show four reverts. The last diff seems to be a copy edit. Cwobeel did in fact give up on reinserting the 'holocaust' language to which you objected. I share your concern about the 'holocaust' wording. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:24.47.68.71 reported by User:Black Yoshi (Result: IP blocked for 1 week)

Page: List of Code Lyoko episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.47.68.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91] (which the IP then blanked)

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

Comments:

User is harassing me in the edit summaries. I know I've been warned for edit warring in the past, I just want it to stop. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 20:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Less for the edit warring itself than for the general disruption. Huon (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:J05HYYY reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

Page

Firefox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

J05HYYY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Standards */ discussion concluded, bringing up edit."
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC) to 22:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Standards */ how to turn off safe browsing"
   2. 22:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Standards */ link"
3. 23:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Standards */ please discuss properly in talk before removing."
4. [92]

+ three yesterday

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */ follow-up"
2. 22:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "More disruptive"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Google Cookies */ Reply. I would like to hear the removing editor's opinion though."
2. 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Google Cookies */ Reply"
3. 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Google Cookies */ Reply"
4. 22:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Google Cookies */ Sure"
5. 04:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Safe Browsing API */ That would be finr"
6. 22:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Safe Browsing API */ Reply"
7. 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Safe Browsing API */ Duh"
8. 23:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Safe Browsing API */ Mu"

Comments:

Anon edit made by 86.152.89.167 is clearly the same editor. The editor has decided that "the world needs to know" this conspiracy theory and refuses to take the advice of other editors that the material is not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the edits, you will find that Walter has made the same amount of edits as me, if not more. Eventually a compromise edit was reached, where both Walter and I agreed that the user should be informed about how to turn of safe browsing. J05HYYY (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Horst-schlaemma reported by User:Mostlyoksorta (Result: )

Page

Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Horst-schlaemma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 11:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC) to 11:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Weimar Republic and the Third Reich */ No consensus for the former photo."
   2. 11:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Economy */ ECB picture, better quality image."
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC) to 14:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Weimar Republic and the Third Reich */ We're not changing sensible content like that without consent. Revert again and you're getting reported. See talk page. Thanks."
   2. 14:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ more purposeful map"
3. 19:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Weimar Republic and the Third Reich */ Nothing will be changed here before the discussion didn't come to an end. Stop the EW or I'll report."
4. 23:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Catflap08 (talk) to last revision by Horst-schlaemma. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Germany. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I am uninvolved in this debate, but I see a pattern of disruptive editing, POV pushing, and edit warring by this user here Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)