The following edit-warring report [was proven to be erroneous], falsely representing a beneficial addition as a revert.

Your recent editing history at Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andrewgprout ( talk) 05:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

4 reverts in 3 days is not a 3RR violation. Andrewgprout ( talk · contribs) made a mistake choosing the wrong template. He has been warned with the proper Template:Uw-ew at his talk page. — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   15:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

To editor Andrewgprout: It takes two to tango. Thank you for inviting me to the dance, it's always pleasure to follow an "experienced" dancer. — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   05:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• November_2014
• October_2016
• November_2016
• November_2016_2
• Recent_disruptive_editing_on_Rhinelander%E2%80%93Oneida_County_Airport
• Disruptive_edits_Phnom_Penh_International_Airport
• Groundings

• Marc Lacoste, Andrewgprout: multiple repeated reverts that resulted in page protection, then continued on related page.

• Marc Lacoste, Andrewgprout
• Marc Lacoste
• Andrewgprout

• "No, I will not reopen the ANI request, which I admit freely I did not review"... — El_C ( diff)
• I kindly ask you to be impartial, and do a proper review of both parties in these edit wars. It takes two to tango, and they invited me to the dance. Thank you. — Aron M🍂
• Sorry, but I'm not inclined to do so at this time. — El_C ( diff)

Despite all the evidence, OPs' more serious edit-warring, and disruptive actions were ignored. According to WP:EW "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides". This did not happen.
I've quit edit-warring with OPs before making the ANI report – 13 hours before being blocked ( EW block proven to be unjustified), the last revert was made by the reporting OP. According to WP:EW "[blocks] are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it." There was no edit-warring on my part after that, thus the block was not necessitated by policies.

Edit: add digest — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤) 22:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

— Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   05:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Marc Lacoste ( talk) 16:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. You can't keep reverting against multiple editors, even if you don't technically violate 3RR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

To editor El C:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aron Manning ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Marc made mistakes in filing the EW report. Diff 1 was not a revert, but my actual contribution, which Andrew and Marc warred together. The remaining 4 reverts happened in 3 days, that's standard content dispute. It took 2 reverts, before Andrew followed policy, and replied on the talk page. Marc himself made 8 reverts to 2 editors in the last week, 3 of which in one day, and engaged in 3 "edit wars". The ANI report also lists the diff that shows Andrew hounded my edit. They demonstrated hostilities, a threat, disruptive editing. Please review the AN/I report, which lists 11 reverts in 3 edit wars, opposing 4 of my reverts on the AN/EW report. It is clear they initiated the edit wars in all cases. Thank you. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 20:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Bbb23 ( talk) 21:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@ Bbb23: Thank you for replying, I'd like to address your points:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aron Manning ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption: I've stopped participating in the edit war before filing the AN/I report on this edit war, and do not intend to re-engage. The last edit warring revert was made by Marc Lacoste ( diff).
• I understand what I have been blocked for.
• I will not continue to cause damage or disruption. I believe my addition was beneficial, and the edit-war was damaging. I did not intend to cause damage, thus I will drop this addition.
• I will make useful contributions instead. My initial contribution, reverted 4 times by Andrew and Marc was a useful addition of the original, reputable source to confirm a statement from a secondary source. This is justified by Marc himself adding the source to the External Links ( diff). I intend to continue making beneficial contributions.

Thank you for considering this. — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only, block is expired. 331dot ( talk) 19:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry, but if multiple editors revert you, the thing to do isn't to revert them back multiple times. Even if you don't technically violate 3RR — I'm not gonna allow it to be gamed. El_C 20:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ El C: Although I was very far from breaking the rules, this is not about the technicality of 3RR. Andrew started the edit war by reverting my useful contribution 3 minutes after I edited, on a page that he never edited before. For 3 days he did nothing else, but revert my edits. After his first revert I initiated dispute resolution on the talk page, which he did not reply to for 2 reverts. When he replied, he made a threat. This is a clear case of hounding.

Please reopen the AN/I report, and punish the real perpetrators. The "multiple editors" were Marc and Andrew only. Both of them reverted my edits days before, it seems they are holding a grudge. The fact that Marc supported Andrew in this edit war, which he had nothing to do with, just makes the case worse. Marc had engaged in 3 edit wars in the last week, doing 3 reverts just in 24 hours on one occasion. That's more serious violation than my 4 reverts in 3 days. Marc and Andrew both have been blocked before, and have multiple warnings to refrain from edit warring and disruptive edits. It is clear, they disregard WP policies of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:5P4, WP:BITE, WP:HOUND, WP:!HERE.

Thank you. — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   21:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

They are not hounding you. Those two are editors in good standing and clearly experts in the field — those articles are almost certainly on their watchlists. And yes, they object as to the manner in which you edit those articles. They are entitled to do so. No, I will not reopen the ANI request, which I admit freely I did not review as it seriously lacked concision. All these walls of texts are too much. Nobody has time to read all that. Please learn to condense. Anyway, you do not seem to acknowledge what you did wrong, and to me, that's a problem. El_C 21:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ El C: These editors made multiple mistakes in filing the AN/EW report, adding the wrong diff, posting the uw-3rr template when no 3rr violation was in close sight. They avoided dispute resolution for 2 reverts, and made a threat "And be very careful of being disruptive". Their good standing is questionable as shown by the multiple previous edit warring warnings and a block.

The "wall-of-text", as you state is a list of 11 reverts in 3 edit wars. Thank you for reminding me to be more condense, I will focus on that.

"No, I will not reopen the ANI request, which I admit freely I did not review"...

I kindly ask you to be impartial, and do a proper review of both parties in these edit wars. It takes two to tango, and they invited me to the dance. Thank you. — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   21:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but I'm not inclined to do so at this time. But feel free to request another admin to do so in another unblock request and even to have me not having read that ANI request be considered as a factor toward you being unblocked. I, personally, don't think you will be successful with either of these, but you are welcome to try. El_C 21:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure you show that you do understand, though. Because even if, as you say, you will drop this particular addition, if you then go to yet another aviation article and repeat these types of edits (overreliance on primary sources), are we gonna see the same thing happen all over again? That's the question I'm asking. El_C 22:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I do understand very well, what's going on. This won't happen again, the reference itself is actually not that important. Andrew commented "WP:SECONDARY is the reference that matters", and I agree with that. Referencing the primary in addition to the secondary – as I did – does not conflict with that, but rather confirms the stated fact with the original source. This is in line with WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY, and beneficial to checking facts. "overreliance on primary sources" did not happen.

The issue is that OPs removed that source 4 times, and incited an edit war over such a minuscule detail. This was in fact damaging, not what one expects from an experienced editor.

Such disruptive edits seem to be a pattern: Marc's previous edit war on the groundings page caused the protection of that page for 4 days. In both EW (groundings and mcas) Marc made the last warring revert, thus it seems he is not ready to stop. That recent EW on groundings blocked 3 other editors, who actively contributed to the article, while Marc removed himself from the discussions after his edits were challenged. Multiple editors suffered from his moodiness, repeated reverts, and refusal to positively contribute to discussions. Andrew was not contributing at all until now, thus his reverts only negatively affected the MCAS (737) article.

The important thing is to address this disruptive behaviour and remind Marc and Andrew of WP:5P4 (I don't even complain about WP:BITE, WP:PA) and how WP:CON works, as established in the policy, not how Marc applied it.

Thank you for reading my answers. — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   00:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Please review this block and conduct dispute between me and 2 editors. I was part of an edit war: I re-added an insignificant source 4 times in 3 days. 2 editors reverted it with wrong reasons 5 times. I've proven my edits are in line with policies, the editors reverting it had no proper reason to do so (see answers above).
I believe 4 edits in 3 days in opposite of 5 reverts do not warrant a block. Note: the [AN/EW report] erroneously lists my original contribution as a revert.

The reverts:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

The 2 editors were repeatedly reverting my addition on another page before, this led to the protection of the page:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

One of the editors engaged in another EW earlier, making 1 addition and 3 reverts in 24 hours:

• 08:22, 21 May 2019‎
• 07:29, 21 May 2019‎
• 05:53, 21 May 2019‎
• 09:12, 20 May 2019‎

I've filed [an AN/I report] ( current) to end the disruptive reverts listed above. The AN/EW report was filed half a day later, but it was more concise, thus the AN/I report was not read. Please review the [AN/I report], to address the disruption caused by these edit wars. 4 contributing editors could not work on the protected article for 4 days because of these events. One editwarring editor - Marc - made few edits to the page, but Andrew did not contribute to these pages at all.

Both editors were blocked before for edit warring, and their talk pages list many EW warnings, some of them is listed above on this page. Marc Lacoste ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Andrewgprout ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thank you. — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   03:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

How to resolve this situation? I made [an AN/Incidents report] ( current) of 11 disruptive reverts in a week, that was closed without having been read. First it was ignored for half a day, then OP made [an AN/EW report] against me re-adding a reference 4 times in 3 days, very far from 3RR violation. In a few hours I got a 24h block, and the clear evidence of OPs' 11 edit warring edits was dismissed with the response: "No, I will not reopen the ANI request, which I admit freely I did not review".

Thank you for any suggestions. The topic being contentious, the feedback of more editors is expected. — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   <span style="color:#888 talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but as indicated, these are now stale. For future reference, it's better to report edit warring on AN3 —as they happen— rather than bring it to ANI, where lengthy reports are less likely to be reviewed. El_C 02:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ El C: What does it mean to be stale in this context? — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤) 02:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

It means a few days have already passed and that the edit war is no longer ongoing. El_C 02:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ El C: How do you define "a few days"? Could you please cite a policy regarding this? As I was mistakenly😉 blocked for one day, and the prev report was ignored for another, days add up. — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   03:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

There is no such policy to cite. We are expected to use our discretion when closing with {{an3|s}}. El_C 03:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ El C: According to your discretion 5 days would be reasonable? — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   03:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

It really varies from case to case, but you have diffs listed as early as May 20. El_C 03:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ El C: Lets fix that. Marc got away with that one. Can I edit the prev report, or should I file a new one? — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   03:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I think you should let this go, actually. El_C 03:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ El C: Then we will have no chance to fix this mistake, at least not here. You know I still believe in your neutrality. It would be beneficial for the editing atmosphere. The disruptions, and the will of Andrew to generate conflict, is still there. Those edit wars are far from over, you blocked the warrior, who already moved on from the war, but the intent to disrupt is still there in those who remained. Just look at Andrew's recent edits. — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   04:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Please be aware that any further edit warring will be responded to harshly. That's all I have to say on the matter, for now. El_C 04:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ El C: You see, such threats make it necessary to prove I wasn't inciting edit war. But we already know that, so that was enough time wasted. I believe you have good reason to be this partial, so I will let it be. Have a nice day ;-) — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   04:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I take exception to that. That warning applies to all of you. You are welcome to try to prove whatever you see fit. El_C 04:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ El C: That sounds promising. Should I report Andrew's 2 edits over my addition, or that's not enough? Honestly, if he would really care about the quality of the article, I would thank him, not criticize. But it seems his attention was focused only on my addition, and left dangling headers behind. Well... Anyway. 2 partial reverts is enough? — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   04:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Honestly, I think you've done enough reporting for today. El_C 04:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ El C: We agree on that, but that was not the question ;-) — Aron M🍂  (🛄📤)   05:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply