Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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:DVMt reported by User:Gregbard (Result: No action for now)

Page: Philosophy of Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DVMt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User_talk:DVMt#3rr

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

• Talk:Philosophy_of_Chiropractic
• WT:PHILO

Comments:

This has been an ongoing issue with this User:DVMt. First of all, "Philosophy of Chiropractic" isn't philosophy. Second, the references don't support this usage. Third, the content appears to be a way to avoid criticism by people who do not support chiropratic (which is ironic, since otherwise that would be legitimate philosophy). Fourth, why the capitalization? If this doesn't qualify as a 3RR violation, then could someone step in and help out here, please? Greg Bard (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an actual WP:3RR violation here. You could be wanting to file a complaint about long-term edit warring but that needs more data. Since the editor has already been warned under WP:ARBPS, various restrictions could be imposed if they were justified. It is too soon to tell whether the AfD discussion will allow a separate article on the philosophy of chiropractic. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. See my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Gzyo reported by User:Ratnakar.kulkarni (Result: 24h)

Page: Narendra Modi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gzyo (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: [8] This is the discussion about the same thing that the user was trying to add, I invited him to the talk page [9] [10]

Comments: I have invited the editor to the talk page as there was already a discussion going on about the same topic that this editor wants to add. The editor neither uses his talk page or the article's talk page. We just cannot have a discussion using edit summaries --sarvajna (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Result: 24 hours for long-term warring. Gzyo wants to give prominent coverage to the Other Backward Caste designation for Narendra Modi, which he repeatedly adds to the article lead. He has inserted or reinserted this information five times since 20 March, so I'm treating this as a case of long-term warrring. Since he never participates on talk pages we can't tell whether his campaign has stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Armbrust and User:66.199.245.66 reported by User:Spc 21 (Result: IP blocked, Armbrust warned)

Page: Shaun Murphy (snooker player) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and

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

Comments:
IP for multiple additions of inconstructive edits. Armbrust for breaking the 3RR (11 reverts made including one which says "looks stupid"). Just noticed Armbrust has been blocked on numerous occasions for breaking the 3RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spc 21 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 April 2013‎ (UTC)

• Result: The IP is editing from a /19 web hosting range so it is blocked as an open proxy. Armbrust is warned against further edit warring on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:77.61.48.108 (proxy user) reported by User:Pikolas (Result: Semi)

Page: Talk:Carlos Latuff (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.61.48.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 541939784

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]

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

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

Comments:

The article is controversial and this one particular user who comes back as different IPs always adds the same offensive and uncivil comment. This probably warrants attention. Pikolas (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Talk page semiprotected two weeks due to personal attacks from a fluctuating IP. The most recent offender, 42.61.213.99 (talk · contribs), has now been blocked as a proxy by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Sundostund reported by User:2.239.136.182 (Result: Declined)

Page: Death and funeral of Josip Broz Tito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sundostund (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. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

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

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

Comments:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.239.136.182 (talk • contribs)

• Declined. @2.239.136.182, see your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Bobrayner reported by Evlekis (Result: Warned)

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

Four reverts inside 24hrs violating 3RR.

• First
• Second
• Third, should have been last for while
• Fourth - please note that this blanket revert also cancelled an intermediate contribution from another editor and no explanation was provided (the summary is just a template per previous edits).

Proof that this is edit-warring is confirmed by the fact that even these four revision immediately follow the first blanking session[18], there is no indication that this user is on the brink of stopping for a break. Furthermore, conversation is taking place here and these actions have been disruptive for User:FkpCascais too. This is not the only area within the ARBMAC range in which Bobrayner is abusing his free editing privileges but is the only one I wish to concentrate on for the time being. Hopefully the outcome should induce a more constructive side to his editing from here on. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I freely confess to having walked into the trap set by Evlekis; Evlekis and FKPCascais were tag-teaming to reinsert factual errors into the article. I would self-revert if that were possible, but somebody else has already joined in.. Taking the article to a noticeboard might help; if uninvolved, competent editors have a look at the problem I am confident that they would solve it, as long as Evlekis and FKPCascais can keep their fingers off the revert button.
• I would also point out that Evlekis is on a 1RR restriction due to previous editwarring problems; a few hours after Evlekis did their revert, a mysterious IP in the same country as Evlekis appeared to do another revert on Evlekis' behalf.
• Note how Evlekis made no attempt to solve the problem, instead just hammering the revert button to restore factual errors. Here Evlekis comes to FKPCascais' support by arguing that we don't need no steenkeeng sources anyway. Here Evlekis changes tack and argues that actually we should follow sources, which is unfortunately impossible to reconcile with this revert by Evlekis which did the opposite; here Evlekis seems to be arguing that it's OK to revert factual errors into this article because he disagrees with me on a different article.
• Evlekis recently seems to have got very upset with me about some other articles; although getting me blocked for editwarring might in the short term help keep the factual errors that Evlekis wants in the Republika Srpska article, I'm concerned that this ANEW thread is more motivated by a feud that has spilled over from other articles. bobrayner (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wooo hold your horses, I never said "block", I never even suggested topic ban. Furthermore, I am not using this thread to go into that wider and uglier issue, I am not even going to broach that subject. I raised this not because of the violation but because it was the same approach each time - mass blanking - and the last time even ran over another user's edit when he listed ICTY correctly. Now if you simply tell the world your problem and how best to fix it without deleting it (ie. use that talk page positively instead of justifying the blanking) then I am happy to forget this incident and will even help with the mending of the problem on the article, I am not hell bent of upholding that very revision you have been blanking. If not, then that option is not open to me. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you did talk about abuse of editing privileges. Anyway. Could you answer a couple of questions?

• Are you on a 1RR restriction due to previous editwarring?
• How do you explain the IP address which came along to perform a revert on your behalf, a few hours after your first revert?

bobrayner (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Evlekis, this article that not the only problem. I noticed that user Bobrayner removes very much data from Wikipedia, also with sources (for example: links to edits from last 26 hours: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] - WOW) and in most cases, without consensus. If anyone withdraws its editions, Bobrayner starts an edit war. Clearly, consensus and later changes for him does not exist. Bobrayner, currently the best way of resolving disputes is Wikipedia:CYCLE, namely: edit, revert, discuss cycle; not to push own new version without consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lately I've been cleaning up quite a lot of different articles. This has, alas, led to friction with Subtropical-man who is insistent on keeping very long unsourced lists of skyscrapers, and who has subsequently followed me round to pick fights on unrelated pages (I do not know whether Subtropical-man has stalked the other editors who also wanted to trim his lists). Bravo, Subtropical-man. Alas, if you put as much effort into complying with WP:V as you did into following me round looking for other places to cause trouble, your skyscraper lists would be much better. A look at my recent contribs will show a very different picture to what Subtropical-man presents; make your own mind up. bobrayner (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I removed skyscrapers without sources or separate articles. I left skyscrapers that have a sources or separate articles with sources. You removed skyscrapers with sources because you push own version without consensus and talking about lack of sources. Also, you enter data without articles and sources, for example: Sinpas Bomonti and Park Arkon Residence 1 and you left skyscrapers between 300 and 150 meters without sources which proves that you just pushing own new version. However, an article about skyscrapers is the tip of the iceberg. You removes very much data from Wikipedia, also with sources and in most cases, without consensus. If anyone withdraws its editions, you starts an edit war. This is a big problem. If someone withdraws your new changes, first discuss and wait for consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Answer to Bobrayner's questions. 1) Yes. 2) Pass. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• So, just to clarify: You're on a 1RR restriction due to previous editwarring problems, but you're refusing to explain why an IP in the same area as you turned up to perform a revert on your behalf, a few hours after your revert...? bobrayner (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, to clarify, the answer to your question is I don't know. That is the answer. Don't put words in my mouth. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The behavior of bobrayner is absolutely unacceptable. The section he insists to remove is sourced. He claims some numbers are wrong and uses that pretext to remove the entire section, which is a no-no. I invited him to fix the problems if he sees some, but he refuses to do so and keeps on removing the entire section and the source. He clearly abused the WP:3RR, a rule he is clearly well familiarised with, so no excuse. FkpCascais (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

FkpCascais, I agree with you but the case is probably a foregone conclusion. User Bobrayner continues edit-wars [28] in other articles during the course of affairs in the AN/I in his case. User Bobrayner is incorrigible, I see no chance of improving his behavior. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I know Subtropical-man, I am aware of his conduct and I tend to agree with you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it is sourced now. I have corrected the numbers to match the source being used. But FkP, please, let's not forget why this discussion is happening. It has nothing to do with the editor disputing the information, tagging it, questioning the source, making adjustments per the source in question or looking for other citations, nor any of the other million or so good faith solutions, it is about blanking the section as though it were blatant vandalism. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man. Absolutely shocking. Now there is a vacuum on the article, and yet Bobrayner had the choice of adding a tag label to the top of the section if he felt there were issues (OR, POV, Unsourced, etc.) and yet blanks the section, his trademark. Yet who needs sources on those pages anyway? I see the items have wikilinks to their own articles and each one I have seen belongs to that table which currently does not stand thanks to our friend. He fails to realise how hard people work to build these sections, how much time is taken and moreover how many editors over such long periods are involved in these efforts, one click, gone. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing the figures. Why couldn't you do that in the first place, instead of insisting on putting factual errors back into the article and creating this thread when I removed the factual errors? Personally, I don't care whether or not figures are in the article, as long as they actually agree with what the source says; but if you want to add stuff it's your responsibility to make sure that it's actually true. Pretty simple stuff. bobrayner (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If you knew the figures were wrong, it stands to reason you must have had access to the correct information. The numbers themselves being incorrect didn't mean that the items in the list were erroneously reported so it was equally wrong to blank them. There are labels and tags that deal with that scenario. Nevertheless, as you have now acknowledged an end to the blanking sessions I am happy to leave a note for the closing admin that the problem has been resolved and that I seek no further action. If this is your wish too. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I'm closing this because the content dispute appears to be resolved. However, Bobrayner is warned to be more careful in the future. It's one thing to say that I miscounted or I got carried away and violated 3RR. It's another thing to say that I fell into a "trap", which is hardly an acknowledgment of responsibility. In addition, Evlekis is warned about violating his 1RR restriction. I don't know whether the IP is Evlekis, but I agree it's very suspicious. In addition, Evlekis's response of "pass" is hardly a resounding, "No, that wasn't me." Neither is the subsequent, "I don't know."--Bbb23 (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Peterzor reported by User:Diannaa (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: Previous revision of Nazi Germany

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Diff 1 of Nazi Germany
• Diff 2 of Nazi Germany
• Diff 3 of Nazi Germany
• Diff 4 of Nazi Germany
• Diff 5 of Nazi Germany

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of User talk:Peterzor

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nazi Germany#Lead section

Comments:
There's more reverts going back to March 30. -- Dianna (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

that is not true that claims about nazi germany, i said the germany WAS TOTALITARIAN AFTER Gleichschaltung Peterzor (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked: That's an unambiguous 3RR variation, and general edit warring. I've blocked for 2 days; maybe the user will learn that no edit warring really does mean no edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:86.182.128.243 reported by User:Aaron Booth (Result: Full protection)

Page: Gerard Butler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.182.128.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]
5. [34]
6. [35]

Another one since my report:

1. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37], [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:

-Aaron Booth (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Fully protected by Riana. Minima© (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:125.168.97.231 reported by User:mohsen1248 (Result: Locked)

Page: 2014 FIVB Men's Volleyball World Championship qualification (NORCECA) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 125.168.97.231 (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. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

I asked for protection of this page and they told me, I have to report it here. This is not 3RR yet but this user uses multiple IPs and accounts, I can't talk to him/her since he changed his IP everyday. I gave him clear reference for my edit. but he still removed my references and gave me a speech in edit summary instead of even reading my reference.Mohsen1248 (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Mohsen, stop being your own rule nazi. I believe a lot of people in this community are very angry with you because you have applied tyrant-style editing in Wikipedia. You revert pretty much everything that you don't like, whether is volleyball, soccer, basketball, the Olympics or just the style of editing. Come on, get a life! What are you trying to show us? You are the KING of Wikipedia?

BTW I did check your source, I checked it more than once. It's not the one used by NORCECA. The original author has put up the correct source. Your source only has 28 ranked teams (excluding the Top 6 which received bye in the 1st and 2nd round), which doesn't even match the "correct" number of entries you try so desperately to protect (34 entries).

I take this opportunity to formally report you, as I should have done a long time ago. 101.119.30.50 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to answer personal attacks.

NORCECA says here (Page 9, section 9.6) that they used their NORCECA Senior Men’s Confederation Rankings as of January 15, 2012 for seeding. and this is a link to their ranking of January 15, 2012. only 34 countries are here in this ranking and it means the rest were unranked. they probably sorted the rest by geographical location or other factors they didn't explain. This link is clearly NORCECA Ranking of January 15, 2012. anyhow I am the original author of this article. Mohsen1248 (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Being the creator of that article doesn't mean you are automatically the original author of everything, especially that particular point of argument. You didn't supply the valid reference while someone else did. You still haven't answer my question, if your source is right, why did you tried so hard to protect a list of 34 ranked entries when, according to your source, there were only 28 valid entries? 101.119.30.50 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Still I wrote the whole article, including that particular point of argument. I put that reference too not someone else, and every other things in that article. NORCECA at first didn't say even a single word about ranking, they just published first round draw, they published that PDF file later after the 1st round. I didn't say there were only 28 valid entries, those 4-5 countries apparently didn't participate in any tournaments for that period of time and they were unranked. they still could participate like everybody but they were ranked. and my source is an official ranking from NORCECA official website, it can't be wrong. Mohsen1248 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected by User:Ged UK.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Jedi94 reported by User:98.197.228.122 (Result: )

Page: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
20th Century Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jedi94 (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. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

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

You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here: If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:

User:Evlekis reported by User:Keithstanton (result:)

User:Evlekis is currently on a 1RR restriction for editwarring and he is up to his tricks again. He is mightly close to breaching his 1RR but is nonetheless engaging in heavy nationalist-fuelled edit war over several pages.

1. .First
2. .2nd

Very concerning. I feel after the 1991 page he is stalking me because he has never edited on that page before, or not atleast recently. But after I reverted him on Butcher of the Balkans, he sends this uncivil comment.[45] Time he was brought into place. Keithstanton (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy closure of this latest smear campaign. This user is not acting alone I assure every admin, there is collusion going on here. No violation of 1RR, and I most definitely am not stalking this editor. He leaves his own trail of bad faith edits which I follow. Sadly, it is precisely because of my 1RR that his edits are in tact. As for nationalism on my part, may he prove it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

agree with Evlekis about the basis of this report. It is utterly inappropriate. Keithstanton is on a ARBMAC warning, and continues to behave very poorly now he has resurfaced. I don't often agree with Evlekis, but on this one he has my full support. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks PM67, most appreciated. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Sammy1857 reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: )

Page: Children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sammy1857 (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. [46] Removed: "His son Yoni, a pacifist, was arrested for resisting mandatory conscription"
2. [47] Removed again after another editor put it back: "His son Yoni, a pacifist, was arrested for resisting mandatory conscription"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:This page is 1RR under WP:ARBPIA. It has been heavily abused by Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis as AnonIP and new registered accounts and was protected for a couple weeks This editor edited within 24 hours of protection template taken off. This is a new registered account so I'm giving the editor less slack than would with an obvious newbie.

CarolMooreDC🗽 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Beleg Strongbow reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )

Page: Maafa 21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beleg Strongbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51] 20:57 March 7. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."
2. [52] 21:30 March 7. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway." Blocked for 1RR.
3. [53] 15:05 March 10. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."

   [54] 22:23 March 10. "Self-reverting to demonstrate good faith intentions and to allow fellow editors to demonstrate the position they agree with"

4. [55] 13:51 March 27. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."
5. [56] 14:19 March 28. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway." Edit summary "Spelling"—this is probably an unintended edit conflict.
6. [57] 14:55 March 28. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."
7. [58] 19:56 April 3. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."
8. [59] 19:18 April 4. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Maafa_21#Summary_of_Katz, specifically this diff.

Comments:

The film article Maafa 21 is about abortion, so it is subject to 1RR. Beleg Strongbow indicated on February 24 that he was opposed to quoting certain statements made by Esther Katz, PhD, director of the Margaret Sangers Papers Project at New York University. Speaking to a reporter about the film, Katz said about Sanger, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway." Beleg Strongbow said "We must take care that as we use any quotes from Katz that we make sure she is actually talking about the film..." Subsequent talk page discussion was inconclusive between Beleg Strongbow, Badmintonhist, Roscelese, and myself, with valid arguments made to keep the quote, that it was indeed about the film. Nevertheless, Beleg Strongbow removed the quote twice on March 7 and was blocked for 1RR. Beleg Strongbow appealed the block but the appeal was denied. The 24-hour block expired on its own and Beleg Strongbow returned to the talk page to say, "The Katz quote that I removed is not about the film, which is why I removed it..." Subsequent discussion among the previously named editors now including Little green rosetta expressed no support for Beleg Strongbow's proposed changes to the article. Nevertheless, Beleg Strongbow removed the quote again on March 10, but he self-reverted.
Further talk page discussion ensued, and Beleg Strongbow proposed some text for the article, but the specific quote "wipe out the black race" was not discussed or even named as being targeted for removal. Even so, Beleg Strongbow removed the quote on March 27, on March 28, on April 3 and on April 4 less than 24 hours later. Beleg Strongbow knows about 1RR on this article as he was warned many times and also blocked for its violation, and he is quite aware that his removal of this quote does not have consensus.
I have brought forward here a purposely simplistic viewpoint of a complex sequence of edits, with many other issues involved and discussed on the talk page, but I wanted to choose only one issue to show as clearly as possible that Beleg Strongbow is edit warring to remove a quote he disagrees with. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There has been ongoing discussion on the Talk page. Over the past six-to-seven months, I have consistently sought consensus. The diffs provided above are the result of the following: at each turn, when consensus has been achieved and a subsequent update has been made (by me), one of the dissenting editors has reverted my edit, and the discussion has renewed. I have not been edit warring. I have been editing. There are possibly too many diffs to choose from the Talk page to validate this reality. A good place to start though are the following.

(I'll add the diffs ASAP.) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)