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:AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Calibrador (Result: Moved and warnings)

Page: Draft:Game of Thrones (season 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AlexTheWhovian (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: User being reported is an experienced user well aware of the 3RR policies.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

User has reverted the addition of a color scheme four times, within 24 hours or just outside 24 hours. Also moved the article to draft space when they didn't get their way after reverting three times, in order to avoid 3RR. They just reverted the color scheme for a fourth time. Attempted to discuss what their issue was with this, including linking the season six article, which they edited and added the infobox color to, but was told in an edit summary that they do not wish to discuss anything with me. Calibrador (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a retaliatory report because I refuse to discuss with this editor after they acted uncivil and pulled at straws the entire conversation (e.g "Perhaps their newly acquired file mover rights should be revoked, as that seems to be an abuse of power" after I moved a page from article to draft), and also after I agreed with the opposing editor in a report further up the page by the same user. No violation of 3RR has occurred here, this is per an agreement I'm currently under after the grant of another user right. Also noted that there's no diff of edit warring/3RR warning, nor notification of this report on my user page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You are aware of 3RR. Calibrador (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

None of those are reverts. Amaury (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Per the above editor. I haven't reverted anyone. And no matter how aware you think an editor is, you are always meant to warn them. You have failed in this. What of the section in the header of this page that states You must notify any user you report? As I've said, all this is is a retaliatory report. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The reporting user as now attempted to warn me of 3RR after they submitted this report. It's obvious that they are now just attempting to be a troll. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that you are talking, maybe you can actually respond to my comment that I asked you to respond to previously. Calibrador (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong place for it. It appears that the reporting editor created this report just to get me to discuss with them. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it was to report you for the removal of the same content four times over the span of a little more than 24 hours. Calibrador (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A good deal more than 24, with no reverts. And your post of Now that you are talking, maybe you can actually respond to my comment that I asked you to respond to previously says otherwise. As mentioned, this report is nothing but the actions of a disgruntled editor upset at the effects of their actions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Still edit warring all the same. Calibrador (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

In your opinion. We shall wait to see what an administrator says. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring would be him reverting—keyword: reverting, which isn't happening in the first place—back to his preferred version. From what I can see, that is not happening here. Amaury (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

They removed content to create their preferred version, whether it's blanking or adding notes, both accomplish the same thing. Calibrador (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador: Even if that was the case, which I won't say it was or it wasn't as I wasn't in AlexTheWhovian's shoes, can you prove that was his intention? What if instead of creating his preferred version, he was simply trying to improve the article? Unless he specifically said, "I'm doing this so the article is how I want it to look and will not let other editors change it," I don't think there's any way you can prove his edits were ill-lead. Amaury (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If they were trying to improve the article, they did not discuss this on the talk page after doing it three times initially. They moved the article to draft space instead. Calibrador (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You know why. When I did, you acted with an uncivil tongue. Moving it to the draft namespace is not related to this incident. On that, it's then when you retaliated in a bad faith manner and moved two other pages that I have edited to the draft namespace, only those specific two, without discussion on the talk pages of those articles for editors on those pages. Exactly what you accused me of doing. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Likely because it wasn't ready to be an article. He very well could have tagged the article for speedy deletion and it would have been speedily deleted by an administrator, but he instead made it a draft so it had the chance to be brought up to article standards. And no, in most cases, edits don't need to be discussed. If a new episode of a TV show airs and I update the episode count, I do not need to discuss that. The only time edits need to or should be discussed are when issues are raised with them, and that is not the case here. Just because you're trying to make a big deal out of nothing simply because you're upset over whatever it was that he did—likely nothing—doesn't mean there are issues with his edits. Amaury (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Calibrador and AlexTheWhovian: Grumble. {{Trout}}s all around. Alex, there is enough there to pass csd. Please use traditional discussion methods before drafityfying things. I have moved it back to the mainspace. The both of you, stop snipping at each other and please don't edit war. Continuing to change the color of the infobox by either of you will find yourselves with blocks. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Warned because the blasted bots require one of these Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bluesatellite reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Protected)

Page

Madonna (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Talk:Madonna (entertainer) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

(Madonna (entertainer)

1. 02:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Since when add the REFERENCES to Wikipedia considered "disruptive editing"? You want it to be sourced, I provide it"
2. 01:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical style and songwriting */ add the "pusing boundaries thing""
3. 20:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727567134 by Winkelvi (talk) Dear lord, please check revisions at the article's history (on the talk page). This sentence has passed through WP:GAC and WP:FAC."
4. 20:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727526954 by Winkelvi (talk) This is the original version and has been STABLE this way for so long. You should wait for consensus before changing it."

(Talk:Madonna (entertainer))

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Madonna. (TW)"
2. 02:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Madonna (entertainer). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring over wording */ new section"
2. 20:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring over wording */ edit warring sans discussion should not continue"
3. 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ new section"
4. 01:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ +"
5. 01:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ resp"
6. 01:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ don't change the format again - there's nothing wrong or against policy in the way it is set up - I've done quite a few of these and participated in more"
7. 01:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Poll */ readding discussion header"
8. 02:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* RfC regarding wording in lede */ STOP - do NOT change the RfC structure - last warning"

Comments:

Editor is pushing his viewpoint through disruptive editing and edit warring at the article as well as the RfC on the article talk page. Refuses to take part in the RfC, rather, is choosing to add content while discussion and RfC on said content is still occurring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Continuing to disrupt the RfC by removing headers and insist that the RfC structure is violating policy. It's not. The RfC structure is now a mess and I won't revert it back lest I also be seen as edit warring. I have added the pertinent diffs above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear administrators, all I have done is just stick with Wikipedia policies, WP:V, WP:WIKINOTVOTE, WP:CONS. I don't think insisting on policies is criminal, isn't it? The problem here is that certain user just come making a bold editing, and ignoring the input of that article's WikiProject editors. The article has been that way for a very long time, and then the user wants to change it without considering consensus. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally unclear on why you think what you listed above trumps the rules of an WP:RfC and how it is run. You can't just overrule the RfC and change the format of it willy-nilly in an attempt to invalidate and sabotage it. Further, while an RfC or a discussion is happening on the article talk page, you can't just start adding content to suit and support your point of view. That is - I'm pretty certain - forcing a consensus that fits your preferred version of the article by shaping the article to reflect your !vote. It's basically akin to stuffing the ballot box. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected until the RFC ends Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:175.110.86.117 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page

Third Battle of the Shaer gas field (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diffs of the user's reverts

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

The article in question is under a general 1RR rule in regards to any ISIL-related articles. In other words, Editors of this page may not make more than one revert per twenty-four hours when reverting logged-in users. The IP editor conducted not two, but four reverts of me and editor Mehmedsons. The editor also conducted numerous other questionable edits at other articles (such as removing sourced information and its sources) and has been reverted each time ether by me, Mehmedsons or several other editors, and has been warned in the edit summaries, but still he keeps coming back. EkoGraf (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Laser brain (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Nashu2k reported by User:GodfatherCR (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: List of Romanian Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nashu2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
2. 09:27, 9 June 2016‎ (UTC)
3. 08:20, 10 June 2016‎ (UTC)
4. 08:20, 10 June 2016‎ (UTC)
5. 19:26, 13 June 2016‎ (UTC)
6. 16:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
7. 08:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

• Both of you are edit warring and I see no attempts to discuss the issue on the article talk page. I'd advise both of you to discuss the matter, lest you both find yourselves blocked for disruption. Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've mentioned the reason for changes in my reverts; User:GodfatherCR didn't even bother to take that reason into consideration. Don't know what else exactly is there to discuss. Nashu2k 12:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashu2k (talk • contribs)

User:Locked from inside reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: The Dark Knight Rises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Locked from inside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. (Partial revert only)
5. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20] (subsequently removed with the edit summary "Nope")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The Dark Knight Rises‎#Description of the reception

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Laser brain (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Mv1566 reported by User:Ugog Nizdast (Result: Semi)

Page

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

User being reported

Mv1566 (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 13:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC) to 13:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   2. 13:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   3. 13:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   4. 13:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) to 13:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   2. 13:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   3. 12:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
   4. 12:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links"
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Asaram. (WT)"
2. 13:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Asaram. (WT)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuously adding unsourced content concerning birthdate. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I see the edits were mostly made in good-faith and fixed typos, grammar. But i see he was making too many small edits and for that I have requested page protection(semi) temporarily. I have also warned him to avoid making controversial edits. There is no reason to block him. Instaed the page should be either semi protected or pending changes level 1 protected. Varun ☎ 15:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one week. Technically this user broke 3RR, but they are very new (June 30), and semiprotection will temporarily stop them from editing this article. At some point they will need to start discussing. If this doesn't happen, report again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cutterx2202 reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked)

Page

Ex-gay movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cutterx2202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727762140 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) There is not yet any citation for this claim, that is why there is a citation needed tag."
2. 02:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727761095 by Roscelese (talk) Content was not removed. Per talk, requesting citation instead. Now officially requesting action against Roscelese."
3. 02:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727758331 by MrX (talk) Please stop trolling. I will suggest action taken if you revert again without a valid reason."
4. 02:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727748311 by MrX (talk) No verifiable proof there is a consensus. This also ignores the current state of affairs of news, politics, research, and general discourse on a broad scale. See Talk."
5. 00:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 721114517 by Roscelese (talk) : Roscelese was trolling based on his stated reasoning: "Not hotly debated among anyone serious." Will take further action if it continues."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Your edits against consensus */ new section"
2. 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ex-gay movement. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• talk:Ex-gay movement#Scientific consensus on conversion therapy

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring and personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Xboxmanwar reported by User:IndianBio (Result: 48 hours )

Page

Teeth (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727791141 by IndianBio (talk) Not necessary."
2. 05:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 727776717 by Another Believer (talk)Not necessary."
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC) to 01:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 01:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Teeth (song). (TW)"
2. 07:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Please note there is extensive discussion going on among editors here as well as here. Inspite of that the editor is continuing edit warring over multiple articles. This is just one example. The editor was warned to stop and achieve WP:CONSENSUS but pays no attention. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

And if this does not make it clear, I don't know what will stop him. Already admin Richie333 warned him not to make it WP:NPA and disrupt. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I'll do a manual-written message, a template won't be constructive in this instance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Whatcha2016 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )

Page: Sherlock (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whatcha2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sherlock (TV series)#Nationality

Comments:
Editor is removing the content even after being warned and having a discussion created. Discussion also exists at User talk:AlexTheWhovian#Sherlock, which they created while logged out under the IP of 86.149.19.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Similar edits were formed by 2a02:c7f:7020:2800:34a7:d9e:21fc:f533 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with these edits. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User:TubingUs reported by User:Oshwah (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Bobby Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism section blanking - Articles has been kept neutral without politicizing/bias; there is Video evidence to verify this."
2. 13:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism section blanking - Video evidence verifies edit."
3. 13:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism section blanking"
4. 13:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism section blanking"
5. 08:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid Blanking Vandalism - This edit is not an opinion nor is it trolling as video evidence verifies the edit"
6. 14:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid Blanking Vandalism"
7. 10:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC) "Edit not personal opinions or biased - video footage evidence verifies this"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. diff of talk page warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated addition and restoration BLP violations to article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Reported user has been blocked for edit warring. No further action appears to be required here and this report can be closed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Already blocked 72 hours by Foxj. Katie^talk 18:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Alanhopes reported by User:Jmorrison230582 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Pages: Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alanhopes (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 on Rangers FC:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]
6. [32]
7. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34], [35]

I have came relatively late to this; the user has been reverting a number of different editors, both on the Rangers FC page and at Rob Kiernan.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 18:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Pbierre reported by User:Richwales (Result: )

Page: Birthright citizenship in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pbierre (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]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42] (yes, I know this comment was on Pbierre's talk page, not the article's talk page)

• See also User talk:Richwales#Questions about Birthplace Citizenship summary section (permalink: [43]]).

Comments:

Pbierre's addition of new material has been reverted by three different editors (myself, Jc3s5h, and Wikidemon) — and he has been cautioned regarding several policies (including WP:BURDEN, WP:NPOV, WP:EW, WP:3RR, and WP:DR) by myself and Jc3s5h. Despite having had WP:BURDEN explained to him, he continues to re-add his changes, apparently firm in his conviction that the burden lies on others and not on him — insisting in his edit summaries that "WP rules do not allow suppression of opposing views on a controversial topic" and that others must stop "doing any more summary deletions of disputed content". In a situation like this, I would normally just go ahead and block Pbierre for edit warring myself, but since I was one of the people who reverted him ([44]), I'm bringing the matter here to WP:AN/EW to avoid any tiny possibility of my being seen as violating WP:INVOLVED. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that Pbierre has started a section in the article's talk page (Talk:Birthright citizenship in the United States#Public Opinion running 2:1 Against Current U.S. Birthplace Citizenship Policy is Relevant to Topic). So far, at least, no one else has joined this discussion. Although I'm happy to see that Pbierre may finally be getting the message that there is a controversy here that needs to be hashed out in talk, he followed up his talk page post by almost immediately reinstating his own material — thereby continuing the ongoing edit war which he said he was hoping to head off. I, for one, am not yet convinced that Pbierre understands or accepts the principle (stated in WP:EW) that edit warring is not OK even if you are convinced that you are obviously right and everyone else is obviously wrong. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC) 01:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)