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:80.12.33.47 and User:80.12.42.116 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Semiprotection)

Page: École supérieure de commerce de La Rochelle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.12.33.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 80.12.42.116 (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] and [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:École supérieure de commerce de La Rochelle

Comments:
In addition to the repeated restoration of disputed and unsourced content to École supérieure de commerce de La Rochelle, the same editor is on the cusp of 3rr at [8] as well, where they repeatedly blanked sourced content. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This user is using various IP adresses in france, and supposedly is @Strot: and maybe also @Vonbergh:. There clearly is a WP:COI, as the sole interest is to advertise the just-out 2017 publications by Steffen Roth with 0 citations on Google Scholar. [9]

Further IPs. 80.12.33.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 80.12.38.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 80.12.37.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) probably also 176.10.107.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

By now, @80.12.33.47: seems to have begun nonsense reverting random cleanups I did: [10]. This destructive and childish "payback" behavior needs to be stopped. Maybe also an attempt to "cover his tracks", and make it less obvious that he is only interested in re-instantiating his uncited 2017 publication. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The point remains that most listed fac members do meet wiki notability criteria (e.g. criterium 6, academic context) and therefore must not be deleted. Moreover, there is no link to the supposedly ad campaigns supposedly performed by one of the fac members in this concrete article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.33.47 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP-hopper is clearly targeting HelpUsStopSpam's edits by mashing the undo button across a wide expanse of articles. Someone else will have to help clean-up their promotional edits, I'm done.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

HelpUsStopSpam is engaging in way too comfortable arm-chair reversions of other peoples' work; which is not a problem if the amendments were explicitly justified ... which, however, is not the case at all. All we see (just do check the contrib history of HelpUsStopSpam yourselves) is an arrogant attitude of constant devaluation of other peoples' input without any justification in, at least, half of the cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.33.47 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected. Semiprotection for one week. El_C 06:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This IP user is still doing vandalism. E.g. reverting my revert of likely-unrelated vandalism on an unrelated article: [11], before again reinstantiating inappropriate citations for Dr. Steffen Roth, by the same IP range 80.12.39.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is a problem that he does this childish "you reverted me, so I will revert something of you, too" game. But Orange France is a pretty large network, 80.12.36.0/22..., and we can't just semi-protect all articles. It would be better if we could snap him out of it. On the major articles like that his vandalism gets reverted quickly, but on the more obscure stuff like Cliodynamics, his self-citations tend to stick much longer. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

User:2a02:c7f:da51:5b00:44e6:d1b6:99e5:e096 reported by User:Gricehead (Result: Semi)

Page: Michael Ihiekwe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a02:c7f:da51:5b00:44e6:d1b6:99e5:e096 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been repeatedly adding/reverting a paragraph sourced only to twitter and containing WP:OR, in the wrong place in this BLP article. Whilst I don't think there's a technical version of 3RR, this has been going on for some time and has been reverted by several users. I picked up on it when I removed the text as part of a copyedit/rewrite.

Another IP user (who may or may not be the same individual) have also inserted the same text, sometimes sourced to twitter, sometimes not. This should be evident from the revision history of the page.

This has been discussed on my talk page since my initial revert. I have not checked whether any discussion occurred on other users talk pages.

1. Current Diff: [12]
2. Diff at time I started creating this report (see note at bottom of this report): [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts (in reverse order)

1. [14] reversion of my removal, 26 May 08:22
2. [15] reversion of my removal, 25 May 22:19
3. [16] readdition of material, after removed by my copyedit/rewrite, 25 May 16:27
4. [17] reversion of removal by user:86.157.71.23, 7 May 16:58
5. [18] reversion of removal by user:2a02:c7f:5e0e:c00:bcfc:e52f:f306:401a , 4 May 11:34

Other IP user reverting to add same material prior to this:

1. [19] user:2a02:c7f:da35:6400:7588:8ca:4b8f:cc53 (stale since 24 April) adding after removal by @Qed237:, 24 April 20:09
2. [20] user:2a02:c7f:da35:6400:7588:8ca:4b8f:cc53 adding after removal by @RockMusicFan2002:, 24 April 14:04
3. [21] original insertion of material by user:2a02:c7f:da35:6400:7588:8ca:4b8f:cc53, 24 April 13:54

Discussion on my talk page

Comments:

Note: Whilst I have been preparing the report, the user has added additional references and repositioned the information in the article, but the twitter source and the WP:OR still remains. I am not taking any further action because I am probably already at 3RR removing the text when it was improperly sourced. If someone can remove the WP:OR and the twitter source, that would clear this up.

Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit to add User has now source the comments to a local paper (The Sheffield Star) thinking it was the national Daily Star. I can't prove it, of course, but knowing that local paper well I suspect they got their material from the user's original research on wikipedia. Disengaging from this now, as at least the edit meets our rules. Gricehead (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Still a reputable newspaper and repytable quote, You also dont deny that and of this occured and for whatever reason seem hell bent on having it removed purely on the basis that the club you support has signed the player , You say you cant prove something then dont dispute it! your whole argument here is about accuracy of source reference then you make presumption based of your own opinon of source quote 'I cant prove it' Anyway you agree now the edit is in line with rules i hope thats the end of the matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DA51:5B00:44E6:D1B6:99E5:E096 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As said, I'm happier with the state of the article now, given the caveats I stated above. This report remains to deal with the behaviour leading up to this point. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping revert warrior. Even if we assume this material is adequately sourced, it still needs consensus to include. If Ihiekwe's remark ("that goal will kill Lincoln") was really so inspiring to the other team, wouldn't it have been mentioned in the press by people covering the other team? EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Contraebutors reported by User:Avaya1 (Result: Warned)

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

The user is repeatedly adding material containing WP:Synth and WP:OR, as well a sentence sourced to youtube and non-notable trivia about Twitter comments. The user has re-inserted the same material 4 times within one 27 hour period (between 20:31, 25 May 2017 and 23:10, 26 May 2017‎ ) with no explanation and the user has deleted my attempt to discuss his/her edits on their talkpage and direct them to the article talkpage, and has reverted edits with an edit summary claiming vandalism. Although the 4 reverts occurred within a 27 hour period, rather than a 24 hour period, it would clearly be helpful to have an administrator intervene in our editwarring and moderate this.

Diffs of the user's reverts (in reverse order)

1. [22] reversion of my removal of WP:OR, SYNTH and trivia
2. [23] reversion of my removal
3. [24] readdition of material
4. [25] readdition claiming vandalism
5. [26] removal of attempt to discuss on user's talkpage
6. [27] readdition of material

A possibly related user reverting very similar material in the same sections of the same articles Gal Gadot and Shlomit Malka, last year was User:Geulaoh or User:Wikipedia-Translator and I wonder if they are the same editor as User:Contraebutors, given the remarkable co-incidence that they would be re-inserting material in those two same articles as the user last year. [28]] Avaya1 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Warned: User was not warned using {{uw-3rr}} and therefore may not know 3RR is a thing. El_C 08:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The User simply deletes your message, and continues edit warring on the page without any explanation or discussion.Avaya1 (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

User:anonymous reported by User:Heavydpj (Result: No violation)

Page: Air Force Cross (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: anonymous (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. [29]
2. [30]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

• No violation. This report lacks crucial detail, like name of the user in question(!)—I presume it's 73.79.85.211—almost all the fields in this report are blank. Anyway, you need four reverts to violate 3RR. If fake content is being added, please work to prove that this is so. El_C 08:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Thejoebloggsblog reported by User:Flickerd (Result: Both warned)

Page: Port Adelaide Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thejoebloggsblog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts (in reverse order)

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

Comments:

The issue first started when Kb.au (talk · contribs) updated the logo to the two separate logos in this edit [35], there has been some back and forth in the edit summaries. I restored Kb.au's version twice with the second one linking to the talk page by trying to move the discussion there (by this point Thejoebloggsblog's had already reverted three times and I warned on their talk page about edit warring and wrote an additional comment about discussing before reverting), the fourth revert within three hours came with the edit summary "Reasoning in Talk page" (reverting without waiting for a response). This has been a long term issue with Thejoebloggsblog where nearly nothing can be changed on the Port Adelaide Football Club page without the user restoring it to their preferred version. I do acknowledge that this user does do some good work on Wikipedia, but this persistent behaviour is difficult as I am concerned there are WP:OWN issues with this page in particular and it becomes nearly impossible to edit the page without the user's approval first. Flickerd (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking Flickerd (talk · contribs) is the only person who has edit conflicts with me. I often publicly thank people for their contributions to the page.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thejoebloggsblog: And you have thanked me on multiple occasions for edits too. There are few editors in WP:AFL and just because I am someone who is actively trying to improve the project (differences in opinions does not always need to lead to edit conflicts) does not mean I am on a one person attack against you, and I acknowledged you do good work on here. I have disagreed with people on multiple occasions in the project and have actually discussed things to reach a consensus, I don't just persistently revert it to the way I want it. Flickerd (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Flickerd:For what it is worth in regards to the edit in question I initially did the proposed edit over a year ago but decided on the current logo as it is what was being used by the club on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter at the time. The two logos were clumsy and as they lacked a black background differed from the format used in all the PAFC's media.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Thejoebloggsblog and User:Flickerd are both warned. Whoever reverts the article next may be blocked, unless they get a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Rupaulsrace reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Blocked)

Page: RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rupaulsrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37] - 19:19, 27 May 2017
2. [38] - 19:33, 27 May 2017‎
3. [39] - 19:48, 27 May 2017
4. [40] - 19:54, 27 May 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

He continued edit-warring despite warning and despite being reverted by two editors independently. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat reported by User:Autorefiller (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Walls (Kings of Leon album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellymoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

21:52, 26 May 2017 Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1. 19:51, 27 May 2017‎ "Undid revision 782531797 by Autorefiller"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:24, 27 May 2017‎ "Discussion: Changed rating to "generally positve critical reception". Why "mixed" before? Positive metascore (and Wikipedia tends to grade accordingly), two Reviews in 2star-range, a lot of three stars and some 4-stars. Then a year-end NME-accolade."
2. 11:37, 27 May 2017 "Reverted good faith edits by Autorefiller: That's what "mixed" means - average, so-so, some good some bad. 62 out 100 is failing in school. 3 out of 5 is neither good nor bad. 4 out of 10 is less than half."
3. 11:48, 27 May 2017‎ "Thank you for a "good faith"-edit. Still, your argument seems subjective. Firstly, 62/100 is not failing in a lot of school Systems. Secondly, one of the sources is the biggest musicaggregator-website featuring positive as a predicate for the album."
4. 12:32, 27 May 2017‎ "Reverted 1 edit by Autorefiller (talk) to last revision by Kellymoat."
5. 12:45, 27 May 2017‎ "Undid revision 782519919 by Kellymoat (talk) Please provide arguments then if you edit. 2,5/5 would be average, 3/5 thus slightly above average. 62/100 on metacritc = further source for positive."
6. 12:49, 27 May 2017‎ "Reverted 1 edit by Autorefiller (talk): Edit summaries are not where you have discussions."
7. 13:09, 27 May 2017‎‎ "Undid revision 782521551 by Kellymoat (talk) Noted. Then I will refrain from backing up the reasoning behind the edits here."
8. 14:08, 27 May 2017‎ "Reverted 1 edit by 2003:80:E44:DC78:501F:32F4:4A14:A088 (talk) to last revision by Kellymoat."
9. 14:26, 27 May 2017‎ "Undid revision 782529493 by Kellymoat (talk) Reverted to former version. FMI, see "talk"-section."
10. 19:51, 27 May 2017‎ "Undid revision 782531797 by Autorefiller"

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

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

Talk:Walls (Kings of Leon album)

Dear Everyone, Recently the subject of the correct application of either the term "mixed" or "positive" concerning this album has surfaced. I will hereby make the case that the album should be classified as "generally positive" as this is founded on more sources than the application of "mixed". So far, having 10 sourced individual review-scores on wikipedia, the album features five reviews giving it 3/5 stars, one giving it 4.5/10, one giving it 2/5 stars, two giving it 4/5 stars and one giving it a B+. The album also features a metascore of 62/100, indicating "generally favorable" reviews in terms of the site´s duct.

1. The first argument against the term "mixed" is that reading 3/5 as "mixed" or "average" is not right in terms of definition. The term is equivalent to median in statistics, and in colloquial language, an average is the sum of a list of numbers divided by the number of numbers in the list, as wikipedia itself states. On a 5-star review-scale thus an average would be 2,5/5, not 3/5. 3/5 can thus be colloquially and statistically be read as "slightly above average" in terms of definition which counters the term "mixed" in a sense of "average".

2. "Mixed" could denote a discrepancy of some sort between the reviews, p.e. a certain number of reviews in 5-star-range and a certain number in 1-star-range. So far, five reviews were in 3-star range, three in 4-star range, two in 2-star-range. A drastic discrepancy can thus not be noted since half of the reviews feature the same score and the other reviews cancel each other out to about a level of the other revviews. Thus, if all reviews were charged against each other, counting B+ as 4-stars and 4,5 as 2-stars, the equasion would be 3x5 + 3x4 + 2x2= 31. 31 divided by the ten review-items would then equal 3.1 which is clearly above the 2,5-average provided before. Again, "mixed" cannot be applied.

3. Thirdly, metacritic, which serves as an aggregator for reviews and (on wikipedia) is listed above all individual reviews to put a generalized idea of critics´ response to an album into focus, calculates a score of 62/100 for the album based on 23 reviews. This means "generally favorable" in the website´s terms and thus a "positive" reception in colloquial terms. This "generally favorable" is sourced and can thus not be excluded from the reception-process of the album, driving home the point that the album is in fact "positively" reviewed, not "mixed".

Thank you for reading.

Autorefiller (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Autorefiller Comments:

Hello to everyone, As you may see from my editing-style, I´m fairly inexperienced with editing complexer topics on Wikipedia. I did not intend to edit complex topics, either. However, today I have stumbled about the review-section in the article for WALLS which struck me as odd with the predicate "mixed reviews" as the metascore and my personal, definitory understanding of the predicate "mixed" indicate otherwise. I have thus edited the article multiple times as it was in turn reverted by the the other user mentioned in this article. I was not aware of edit-warring at this point, but I was reported by another user for it and this fair. Still, I would very much like this issue to be resolved as I laid out my case plain and comprehensible in the talk-section of the article, yet never received an answer by any other user there. The user Kellymoat was kind enough to both inform me that my first edit was noted for "good faith" and that I should use the talk-page for discussing the topic, yet still, even though I laid out every reasoning behind my edits in the edit-summaries and started a topic on the talk-page to make the matter open for discussion, no other reaction than still reverting my edits without argumentation was the result. I would thus ask for a resolution of this matter and I stand behind the points made in the talk-section of the WALLS-article which is why I would kindly ask the community to check into the matter. Thank you for reading, Autorefiller (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Autorefiller

You've used two IPs and an account in the process. And while admitting to not knowing what you are doing, you've ignored valid reasons for being reverted and continued to attempt your edit.

Yet, you knew enough to send me a "warning" and to start an ANI. Kellymoat (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You see, these valid reasons you claim are just not there. I´ve edited once, then you good-faith edited me and backed it up by the higly subjective "school-failing"-reasoning and that 3/5 is deemed absolute average in your understanding. I then edited again, laid out my reasoning in the summary. You then told me in the summary that the summaries are not where this should be discussed, notably you did this WITHOUT any reasoning, you did not bother with even a short insight into your edit. I then edited again, but followed your advice and created a whole talk-topic which you did not even bother to discuss since you in turn just edited again. Furthermore, I´ve read in hindsight that users should be informed when they are in danger of violating the 3RR. You did not inform me, I did not inform you, we both violated that. Since you are a veteran-editor, I do think that an information on your part could have been in the range of possibilities. To clarify: Yes, I´ve used two IPs, unknowingly, only because I was away form the desktop once and forgot to log in. The time-stamps clearly show that there was no ill intention or deceitful intent as I still replied in person and that I still violated 3RR any way, so the whole reasoning behind me using a second IP would be naught. Concerning your last argument, that I "clearly know enough": At this point, I did not know about edit-warring, I only reacted with the "warning" and this post after the events. I don´t know why I should be faulted for informing myself of the procedure once I got notified of my behavior being perceived as edit-warring.

Autorefiller (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked for 48 hours. User:Autorefiller seems to have been using two Bavarian IPs as part of their edit war. User:Kellymoat also broke WP:3RR and was previously blocked eight days ago. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Jagadeesh T reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: 72h block)

Page

Nellai Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jagadeesh T (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782551876 by Balablitz (talk) There is nothing wrong or nothing having to be referenced here !"
2. 06:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782375080 by Balablitz (talk)"
3. 08:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782333350 by Vin09 (talk)"
4. 06:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 781431257 by Balablitz (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC) "ew notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly adding unsourced content. Reverted by multiple users.
Added information for adding sources to Jagadeesh T's talk page here
Also EW on Arumuganeri railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jim1138 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Officialrajuparas reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: )

Page

Ramgarh, Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "Added content"
2. 08:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Attractions */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 08:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC) to 08:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 08:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Attractions */"
4. 07:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Attractions */"
5. 07:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 08:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC) to 11:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 08:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring - repetitively adding promotional links in violation of EXT and 3RR, continuing after two final warnings. — kashmiri ^TALK 13:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)