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 oder 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:The359 reported by User:Nordicthrash420 (Result: No violation)

Page: 2018 WeatherTech SportsCar Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The359 (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]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:
Simple 3RR vio, removing sourced content Nordicthrash420 (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed sourced content? There was no content, it was sources added onto either blank (To Be Announced) data entries that did not require any sort of sourcing or an additional reference to content that was already sourced. I also fixed a source added to the article by the same user that contradicted a previous source, and they had left the previous source in place. Explanationa offered for all edits, and ignored. Instead I get a WP:OWN template on my talk page. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nordicthrash420: I'm having trouble seeing the WP:3RR violation. Consecutive edits count as one revert. And the WP:OWN warning was unconstructive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• comment My minor trolling aside, if @The359: doesn't feel like my info was worth adding, then so be it lol. I don't feel like this was necessary. DragonDance (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• No violation Nordicthrash420 cautioned against improper use of warning templates. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Expectant of Light reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Protected)

Page

2017–18 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Expectant of Light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Number of different topics being edit-warred - many against consensus on TP.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 06:22, 9 January 2018 - removal of Bret Stephens
2. Revision as of 06:13, 9 January 2018 - removal of Bret Stephens
3. Revision as of 20:09, 8 January 2018 - government->establishment and counter to Talk page consensus (despite the edit summary) that may be seen "Pro-establishment"
4. Revision as of 17:45, 8 January 2018 + Revision as of 17:46, 8 January 2018 - government->establishment.
5. Revision as of 11:25, 8 January 2018 - portrayal of UNDUE opinions in Iranian media as "Expert analyses".
6. Revision as of 11:11, 8 January 2018 - "expert analysis".
7. Revision as of 10:55, 8 January 2018 + Revision as of 11:03, 8 January 2018 - returning "expert analysis" that was removed as undue + removing Bret Stephens

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I added some of the Talk page discussions above. There are active discussions on each of these issues - and edit warring vs. several different editors.

Comments:

User has been warned by multiple other users - as may be evident on his talk page . User has also been reported here for the same page - [9] (leading to page protection) and mentioned in this report as edit warring I believe.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring is anti-thesis to consensus building something that I have been avidly committed to on this page as evidenced by my constructive participations in the talkpage discussion. I also find it worthy to quote what I just wrote on my talkpage with regards to the recent reverts to user Peter Dunkan. "There is a talk page discussion on this and I was reverting by citing the talk and left a new comment on talk too! Whereas you have not participated in the discussion and reverted without any explanation! So you appear to be the one edit-warring but yes people can coldly stick to the 3rr technicality but violate the soul of Wikipedia guidelines!" --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the Bret Stephens 2013 report (which has been mentioned in the current context - but not enough as of yet) is the sole item here inline with editor+talk-page consensus. The two other issues - "expert analysis" (re-adding, section title, location) and government->establishment are counter to editor+talk page consensus - and even ignoring Bret Stephens (which is still edit warring) - this is over 3RR.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no consensus on Bret Stepehens. Three users have objected to this already on the talk. As for expert analysis I have not even violated 3rr neither I reverted the recent compromised edit by Elektricity but said in the talk that I wait for more opinions. As for "Pro-establs rallies" edit, it was standing there for some time and with no consensus to change it back to pro-government. Yet, it was changed to "pro-government" and I have so far left it intact. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually - in a double-take on this - users objected to including the 2013 report without current reporting on it. There has been no discussion on whether Bret Stephens is UNDUE - and I believe he is much more due, being published in the New York Times, then several of the current opinions there. So no - you have not been acting to enforce a clear consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Both Bret Stephens and the 2013 was recently covered in NYPost[10]--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have left a comment specifically about Bret Stepehns on the talk and as per WP:ONUS those who support inclusion of disputed content have to reach consensus before adding it. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You suddenly summarily removed many long-standing well-sourced content, anything you thought was against Iran regime, and started editwarring with many editors, violating 3rr some 3 times in the past 24 hours.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There was never a consensus for this not too-long-standing content from the beginning. And you reverted in violation of WP:ONUS and without leaving any comment on the talkpage to this date. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have been quite active on the talkpage in question, for many days. Unlike you who editwars without caring to get consensus first--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting WP:ONUS claim given this diff in which Expectant of Light readded a host of opinions sources to biased non-RS and with opposition from other editors (who tagged the section for NPOV).Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is much older and as my edit description makes it clear: there was and is a consensus to include this material. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see talk-page consensus for this (Tavakkoli was discussed with no consensus, others not at all). I do see edit-warring to keep it in.Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I have been trying to find middle ground for both parties in the article, and I find that a lot of editors are creating a bit of a problem. If we are going to ban one, we should block them all for disruption. However the best way forward is to protect the article for a week at least, and let tensions simmer down. We also need an admin to close the ongoing RFC's on the TP where consensus one way or the other is overwhelming. I know that this comment may not go down well with Icewhiz but I think that we should not exclude Expectant from TP discussions, we should just lock the article Elektricity (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's ironic that you even entertain the idea of blocking me whereas other editors have been making changes to this page before consensus. All I say is that let's build consensus before making changes and do wait for some time until all active editors participate. Consensus on this page can't be build between two editors since there have been several editors involved in almost every discussion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Page protected – Four days by User:Dlohcierekim. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TedEdwards reported by User:Radiphus (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Baelor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all the other episodes articles of Game of Thrones (season 1)

Game of Thrones (season 1) episode articles

Episode 1: Winter Is Coming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Episode 2: The Kingsroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Episode 3: Lord Snow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Episode 4: Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Episode 5: The Wolf and the Lion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Episode 6: A Golden Crown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Episode 7: You Win or You Die (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Episode 8: The Pointy End (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Episode 9: Baelor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Episode 10: Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts in Baelor:

1. Special:Diff/819486995
2. Special:Diff/819487912
3. Special:Diff/819493848

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A discussion took place in my talk page: User talk:Radiphus#Images

Comments:
Besides those three reverts linked above, there are two or three reverts on average in each of the remaining nine episode articles of the first season of Game of Thrones. The user did not provide a valid reason for reverting my edits that i believe have improved the quality of the articles, in accordance with MOS:TVIMAGE. -- Radiphus 18:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Could I say that I've not broken 3RR, and nor do I have any intention of reverting anymore. The edit war has ended. TedEdwards 18:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that Radiphus changed the images of 10 articles in a row with the generic edit summary "new promotional image". As these changes were reverted for lack of explanation, he reverted with an edit summary that each new image "captures an important moment in the episode". He explained nowhere why he felt the new image more appropriately represented the episode, which he is obligated to do when being challenged. I don't know how many times each of them reverted each other in each instance, but in this kind of situation falls on Radiphus to accept a revert to the status quo. and justify his changes.— TAnthony^Talk 20:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards never challenged that the new images do not appropriately represent the episode. All he/she said is that changing the image has not been discussed. Also, the complete edit summary i provided is this is a promotional image available in better quality, as compared to the low quality screenshot, and captures an important moment in the episode. -- Radiphus 20:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Warned What I see is both Radiphus and TedEdwards edit warring. Radiphus, as TAnthony said elsewhere, you can't change images on ten popular articles and not expect some pushback. Discussion has started - hopefully that will cut out the edit warring. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Gvspillman reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Devin Funchess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gvspillman (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. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

Ytoyoda asked for help at WT:NFL after his attempt to discuss the matter with Gvspillman failed. The reported user does not assume good faith and ignores everyone as can be seen from the page's history or its talk page. In addition, similar behavior can be seen at User talk:Lizard the Wizard#My Edits where he makes it perfectly clear that he will ignore everyone. Personal insults can also be seen at the links in this section. It looks like that this user is clearly not here. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Reported user deleted the report. This suggests a block is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The insults they slung at the reporter are also suggestive. On the other hand, they've stopped edit warring since the report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours (for the disruption more than the 3RR since he's stopped it seems). only (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:1c0:cf00:53fe:e55d:2142:a935:4a1e reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Protected)

Page: Hurricane Harvey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:1c0:cf00:53fe:e55d:2142:a935:4a1e (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. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Burden is on them, per WP:BRD, to start the discussion.

Comments:
Multiple editors, including Boomer Vial (talk · contribs), Master of Time (talk · contribs), MarioProtIV (talk · contribs), and Acroterion (talk · contribs) have been reverting this IP-hopping edit warrior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Protected for 10 days, IP-hopper adds unsourced opinions.Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:DerDFB and User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Iggy the Swan (Result: )

Page: Ron-Robert Zieler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: DerDFB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: revision 819443369

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4
5. diff5
6. diff6

That's three listed reverts each from both users - and I don't understand who is correct and who isn't. Overall, I have noticed ten edits to that page today. The only way to solve this is to look at WP:KARLSRUHER. Iggy (Swan) 23:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:
Iggy the Swan Don't forget you have to notify everyone you report here. I've done so for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Kommentar - Let's start off by saying that 3RR has not been breached here; however, I understand the severity with which Wikipedia treats edit warring, which is why I had no intention of continuing to edit that page without further discussion from the other party. On that point, however, I had tried to engage User:DerDFB in conversation over this (I was the first to open a discussion on a talk page rather than simply via edit summaries), but he simply quoted the WP:KARLSRUHER essay and treated the matter as closed (c.f. the lack of further talk page discussion). I had hoped that a further edit might stimulate the conversation further, but instead I was met with another revert and another curt message via edit summary. I must emphasise that WP:KARLSRUHER is only an essay, and while it does contain some useful information, none of it has ever been officially adopted by WP:FOOTY or Wikipedia as a whole; furthermore, I can provide evidence of where it specifically falls down: the essay states that German football clubs are always referred to by another name as well as the city (e.g. Eintracht Frankfurt and VfB Stuttgart) to avoid confusion with other clubs with similar names, but this is patently not always the case, as Borussia Dortmund are very regularly referred to simply as "Dortmund" – the "Borussia" bit is taken as a given, since they are the biggest and best-known club from that city. Furthermore, even if we were to take WP:KARLSRUHER as gospel, it doesn't make sense to refer to clubs by their long names every time; once you've established the identity of the club in prose, the short name should suffice (see the lead section here, where the club is referred to as "VfB Stuttgart" to start with and then simply "Stuttgart" thereafter). This is just good writing practice. WP:KARLSRUHER exists as a sub-page of the German football task force, sure, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and start treating it as infallible; it was written by one editor more than seven years ago, and while I respect that editor's contributions, this essay has been treated as far more concrete than it deserves to be in its current state and needs to be taken in context with the rest of Wikipedia's manual of style and good writing practice. – PeeJay 08:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have read the WP:KARLSRUHER page which says 'VfB' should be left in to avoid confusion as you've mentioned. As to the editing, it has become stale so I think both users have understood the policy of the team names relating to German football. As far as I know, the page looks fine as it is. Iggy (Swan) 09:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, did you read my entire comment? I know it was long, but there was some useful stuff further down. Yes, VfB should be left in in certain circumstances to avoid confusion, but it doesn't need to be left in every time. But that's a discussion for another location. – PeeJay 10:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@DerDFB, PeeJay2K3, and Iggy the Swan: So is the matter being discussed somewhere? And will the reverts stop until the matter is resolved? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Tdebouches reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No violation but warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff first addition back in

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 23:14, 3 October 2017
2. diff 13:20, 6 October 2017
3. diff 12:41, 7 October 2017
4. diff 20:53, 7 January 2018
5. diff 16:49, 8 January 2018
6. diff 11:46, 9 January 2018
7. diff 22:46, 9 January 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: They are not using talk pages. They did write this....and they did do this elsewhere.

Comments:

Editor is clearly adding content advocating a pet theory and WP:SELFCITEing, per discussion (to which they have not responded) at their Talk page at User_talk:Tdebouches#Possible_COI_and_use_of_non-RS_sources -- Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Tdebouches, while edit warring, hasn't technically violated WP:3RR and has posted to various talk pages. They are warned they may be blocked without further warning if they make similar types of edits on this article unless they get consensus on the talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN they made the same edit at a different article, diff at 00:46, 10 January 2018, then left similar messages at the talk pages of Doc James (diff) and you (diff) continuing the same thing they have been saying. They are uninterested in engaging with the policies and guidelines here. We cannot teach someone who refuses to ask questions and learn. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I've expanded the warning. They haven't touched any article after the initial one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the effort to give them plenty of rope.Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Thunderbelch reported by User:Orycteropus Hyacintho (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: The Moody Blues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thunderbelch (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]
5. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] (Encompasses several warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28] (Discussion on user's talk page, not article talk)

Comments:
I am relatively uninvolved in this; I stumbled upon the edit war in progress while performing routine RecentChanges patrol. I observe that this particular editor has acted in a very disruptive manner in this war and felt this was probably the most appropriate place to address the issue. Orycteropus Hyacintho (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• I will point out that not all of these diffs above are strict reverts. The user's complaint is that there appears to be a conflict in sentence conjugation - that the sentence The Moody Blues are an English rock band is using the plural case for a singular subject. Some of the users edits have been rather POINTy and nonsensical (changing the subject to plural), such as [29] and [30] (edit which was made after notification of this discussion being started). Orycteropus Hyacintho (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to engage Thunderbelch in discussion on his Talk page but he has refused to respond. He seems to be trying to impose US English grammar rules on the subject of a British band, where the norm is that UK English grammar rules apply. I think his disruptive reverting and editing has earned an editing ban. RGCorris (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must concur. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thunderbelch's history shows any number of attempts to "correct" plural usages, as in older examples Rolling Stones ([31], [32], [33]) and Steppenwolf ([34]). In some cases, such as the latter, they were arguably making the "right" change. But the pattern of repeated reversals and apparent unwillingness to engage outside of some screedy edit summaries may require admin action. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Edit warring and flat out disruptive edits after they were informed of this report. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Anmccaff reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Further reverting will result in blocks)

Page

Jefferson Davis Park, Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by SarekOfVulcan (talk): Yes, typo. Check edit history, The edit conflict is addressed in a new section, "Sub rosa removal.". (TW)"
2. 17:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Vancouver, Washington marker stone */ tpyo"
3. 17:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Vancouver, Washington marker stone */ Cites (note plural) clearly suggest this was sub rosa."
4. 15:53, 18 December 2017‎ (EST)
5. 15:33, 18 December 2017‎ (EST)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Jefferson Davis Park, Washington#Vancouver marker - from around December 18, 2017

Comments:

This is a long-term edit war, continued over protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• When a page is full protected for 2 weeks due to edit warring, and the first thing someone does after protection expires is revert to their prefered version with no consensus for the change on the talk page, my first inclination is to issue an edit warring block. I see User:Anmccaff has two prior edit warring blocks, so this one would be for a week. Any uninvolved admins have any objections? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I see it isn't one-sided, however. Since the sentence in question is currently in the state it was in before the reverting started, let's go with this: if either User:Anmccaff or User:C. W. Gilmore revert this same material in the next month, no matter who they are reverting, they will be blocked for edit warring. Both have several previous edit warring blocks already, and their previous edit warring locked the article for everyone else for 2 weeks, so any future edit warring block will be for 2 weeks. They are both, of course, welcome to continue discussing on the talk page. If there is consensus to change, another editor can do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Please -Protect the page again so consensus can first be reached on TP, then changes made. If it's not 'this' sentence, it will be something else. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TTownTurkey reported by User:UW Dawgs (Result: )

Page: 2017 Alabama Crimson Tide football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TTownTurkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:10, 9 January 2018
2. 21:36, 9 January 2018
3. 00:49, 10 January 2018
4. 02:26, 10 January 2018
5. 04:13, 10 January 2018
6. 14:53, 10 January 2018

Comments:

Suggest holding off for talk page/wikiproject discussion. Being right isn't an excuse for edit warring, but... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:MopTop (Result: No violation)

Page:  
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

March 14, 1891, lynchings I'm probably doing this wrong, but in my defense, this is the most godawful interface I've ever seen. --MopTop (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

@MopTop: Uh, who's edit warring? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

User 198.84.171.88 has made a series of edits to that article and I don't have rollback privileges. Look at the talk page. He apparently has some problem with a statement made by Richard Gambino (backed by the NAACP and reiterated on the Library of Congress website) and wants to redefine the word "lynching" to suit his political purposes. --MopTop (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• No violation @MopTop: The IP made one series of edits interrupted by a bot. And rollback is just a quick way of reverting edits. You can't be using that anyways in a content dispute. Just revert, undo, edit, or bring up a prior version and save if you disagree with the changes. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I brought up a previous version and saved it. Somehow in the years I've been editing, I didn't even realize you could do that. If he comes back and redoes all his edits, then what do I do? --MopTop (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@MopTop: This is a content dispute. If you and the other editor cannot come to a consensus on the talk page then see WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:1800:E970:4403:344C:AE96:3770 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: )

Page

Talk:Murder of Seth Rich (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:8800:1800:E970:4403:344C:AE96:3770 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819730822 by EvergreenFir (talk)There is nothing disruptive about this content, it was locked while pointing out issues with sources. This content has every reason to be here"
2. 23:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819729088 by MrX (talk) Nothing disruptive about following protocol. Clearly states things to be archived after 15 days of inactivity."
3. 23:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819728445 by MrX (talk) Clearly states content to be archived after 15 days, don't archive content that isn't suppose to be archived."
4. 23:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 818324164 by SPECIFICO (talk) Hasn't been 15 days."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Disruptive user edit warring on a talk page EvergreenFir (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Also reported to AIV.- MrX 00:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

note that the ip from the same subnet as the original poster of the comment that was first closed and then archived on that talk page EvergreenFir (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:MizukaS reported by User:AnimeDisneyLover95 (Result: Declined)

Page

Cristina Vee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "Various_voices"_is_too_vague_for_inclusion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a. MizukaS remains unreasonable over resolving an issue that's been going on since this incident: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_69#Inclusion_of_additional_voices_in_anime_voice_actor_articles. While he's new to the discussions he refuses to accept having the background voices on her page regardless If I put in the sources.

Comments:
MizukaS remains unreasonable over resolving an issue that's been going on since this incident: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_69#Inclusion_of_additional_voices_in_anime_voice_actor_articles. While he's new to the discussions he refuses to accept having the background voices on her page regardless If I put in the sources.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango. Requesting page protection. Try asking for a third party opinion. House1090 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• The discussion I've started in the talk page is an attempt to avoid edit warring. You can have an opinion; that's fine. But I don't appreciate how you're dismissing other people's opinions. Not one bit. MizukaS (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Declined Now at WP:ANI NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Claíomh Solais reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: )

Page

RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Claíomh Solais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "WP:BRD and stop disruptive Wikilaywering. See BBC Radio One and all other major radio station articles."
2. 04:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819765403 by Davey2010 (talk) undoing removal of referenced material because WP:IDONTLIKEIT"
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC) to 04:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
   1. 04:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "general programming and presenters mentioned on BBC Radio One page so they can be mentioned here thanks"
   2. 04:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Controllers */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta. (TW)"
2. 04:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "/* January 2018 */ +note"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is edit warring over the content - Despite pointing them to WP:NOTGUIDE etc they seem insistent on sticking with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and are edit warring over it, They've also removed the warnings with the summary "-trolling", They have no interest in discussing this and so here we are, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 04:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor (Davey2010) has initiated edit warring with unconstructive Wikilaywering and content blanking. Previously on the article (before he or I edited it), a presentation of the general programming and presenters was on, as is standard on other radio station articles (see BBC Radio 1 as a major example on Wikipedia). He decided to remove this (but not on British radio station articles).

Recently, I have been expanding the content on the article in general and added back in the content Davey removed, from before either of us had edited it (he hasn't actually contributed to the article as such yet, just blanked content). And this morning, he decided again to remove it, as well as the controllers (requesting citation on the latter). I re-added the information, including a citation for the controllers directing him towards the BBC Radio One example. But for some reason he has decided to continue reverting and then adding smarmy and patronising "warnings" to my talkpage. For some reason, he is only targeting this Irish station, but not British stations which are laid out in the exact same way.

I don't see how Davey2010's editing (despite staying up all up through the night on Wikipedia) has actually benefited the content at all here. All I have seen is Wikilawyering and even when a citation has been provided for him as he requested, he still reverts, apparently just for the hell of it (ie WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Claíomh Solais (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Where have I wikilaywered or blanked content ? .... that's just over-exaggerating it all! - You were pointed to a few policies nothing more nothing less ... well until now anyway,

Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to edit war - However I will note for the record that A) Controllers isn't on Radio 2 and the list over there also fails NOTGUIDE however I do at some point plan on raising that issue up on that talkpage,

My edits here aren't solely on adding content - I do also remove however if you check my userpage you would see I've sourced and rescued quite a lot of articles so I'm not all for deleting everything far from it,

The warnings are given in an attempt to guide you and in all fairness I did add a personalised message after!,

Again wrong - I've deleted this sort of information from every station in the world so yes that includes British, Irish, Japanese, German etc etc etc,

Again no wikilaywering's taken place, I've simply removed per the consensus and policies that we have in place here. –Davey2010^Talk 05:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Also it's nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT - It's all about our readers and what they want to know and learn and gain knowledge from ..... Would they gain knowledge by seeing a list of "Controllers" in a table and with names they've never heard of ? No, Would they gain any knowledge from essentially a schedule no .. No, It's all about what our readers want to read and unfortunately those 2 items I've removed aren't it. –Davey2010^Talk 05:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Warned and reverted to Davey's version until someone else takes a look. :) House1090 (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:86.3.174.49 reported by User:Suriel1981 (Result: )

Page

Lio Rush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819760367 by Nikki311 (talk) removed the moves section."
2. 03:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819754404 by Drmies (talk) no, the majority of content you're removing is properly sourced and sources can easily be found for the rest. included sources for the "in wrestling" section."
3. 02:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819753849 by Drmies (talk) no, your removal of sourced content here is tantamount to vandalism, if you have an issue with the nature of wrestling articles then take it up with WP:PW"
4. 02:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "rv to last clean version"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I am an uninvolved editor. The user has violated 3RR despite being informed by an administrator that to do so was reintroducing unsourced information in violation of BLP. The user has been warned by the other editor involved in the edit war. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The initial 'edit war' was a result of an admin removing large amounts of sourced content without explanation, with my contributions being to restore the content including adding additional reliable sources for dubiously sourced information, all of which was explained in edit summaries. This was also discussed here, and my final edit which resulted in this report was a result of that discussion. 3RR was not violated as discussion was ongoing and changes were being made with each revision, despite this my revisions have been repeatedly reverted by other editors who seemingly ignored the situation and nature of the edits in question as soon as they saw a content dispute between an admin and an IP user. Once again, the edits that I made to that article were restoring the unexplained removal of relevant sourced content, adhered to all policies, were properly discussed at relevant talk pages and after the initial reverts (of which I was not the only user to revert the changes made by the admin) do not constitute an edit war in any way. To be honest I'd probably suggest a review of this entire situation and the way it has been handled by several experienced users. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)