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

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)

• Comment - 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)

@DerDFB, PeeJay2K3, and NeilN: - the reverting has already stopped by the time the latest post was made here. I think the result here would be decline and both the users will continue to edit as normal. Iggy (Swan) 09:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Warned @PeeJay2K3 and DerDFB: Stop reverting before you are reported here, please. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 11 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: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:198.84.171.88 reported by User:MopTop (Result: No violation)

Page: March 14, 1891, lynchings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.84.171.88 (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]

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: Withdrawn)

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)

• Behavior has ceased. I'll withdraw my filing. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 12 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: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

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:Unknown artist reported by User:JoeyRuss (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unknown artist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

He has been constantly reverting edits for a “rule” that hasn’t been in place for a while. I tried telling him to stop, but he said he’ll keep reverting edits until his way is correct. JoeyRuss (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw that he reverted the report. I think a block is appropriate here. JoeyRuss (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 4 days. Second block for the same thing. The user has promised to continue reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 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!,

Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to edit war - Controllers isn't on Radio 1 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 removing content - I do also add content and 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 were 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)(Updated 22:39, 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, 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: Warned)

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. ŞůṜīΣしぐまĻ¹98¹^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)

• 86.3.174.49 reverted me as well, it would be best if an admin could look it over. House1090 (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I considered taking this to ANI as it involves inappropriate edits by four experienced users. I don't really want to do that, but here's a quick chronological summary of what happened in case it isn't obvious:

• Admin Drmies made bold, sweeping changes to the Lio Rush article, including removing a large amount of long-standing, relevant and properly-sourced biographical content which he dismissed as "rassling trivia". Not sure what his motivation was for doing this. He also removed a small amount of poorly-sourced but uncontroversial content from a different section of the article.

• Apollonation72 reverted the edits by Drmies, Drmies promptly re-reverted and sent a warning to Apollonation72, again not sure what his motivation was here.

• I reverted the article to the revision prior to the edits by Drmies, he then re-reverted. I reverted again and questioned his removal of sourced content, he then re-reverted once again (breaking 3RR) with the dubious claim that he was removing unsourced content which was a BLP issue. In fact only a small amount of the content he removed was unsourced, and it was innocuous and uncontroversial content contained within a single section of the article.

• I quickly found reliable sources for some of the unsourced content, removed a small amount of content for which sources were not immediately available and restored the rest of the sourced content. This prompted Drmies to start this discussion about the nature of the content and sources required in that particular section of pro wrestling articles, which IMO is a valid discussion.

• After seeing the discussion started by Drmies, Nikki311 reverted my changes, incorrectly claiming that I had added unsourced content (in fact all the content I restored was reliably sourced). I queried her removal of sourced content in the above discussion and she responded by stating within the context of that discussion that she was unsatisfied with one of the new sources I had added. As such I removed the small amount of content which was supported by that particular source pending further discussion, and restored the rest of the content for which there were no stated issues and which was removed without explanation.

• An hour later and after interacting with him in the above discussion, user Suriel1981 inexplicably filed this report for edit warring, which prompted House1090 to again revert my changes, seemingly without actually looking at the content he was editing.

Again, I have no desire for this incident to go any further but I would encourage the users involved to be less reactive in future particularly when dealing with anon editors. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I did not "incorrectly claim that you added unsourced content". As seen in this diff, I said you added back "improperly sourced content", which is true. As you admit in this diff, you "lazily" added in sources to quickly restore the content. However, your sources did not cover the material they were citing, which is what we were discussing in that full conversation. The article cannot stay that way, because it goes against policy of verifiability. Nikki♥311 19:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a little disingenuous, you had an issue with one specific source in one specific section of the article covering a very small amount of the content that Drmies removed. But yeah, I understand your point regarding that specific source (although I disagree somewhat) and as such I removed the content supported by that source, it's worthy of further discussion IMO as it's something that would affect the content and policing of all wrestling articles going forward. Since we had no further discussion regarding the rest of the content that was restored I had thought the issue on that particular article was resolved until Suriel1981 filed this bizarre edit warring report. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Not sure what his motivation was for doing this"--my motivation for removing poorly sourced trivia was article improvement, and my motivation for removing completely unsourced trivia in a BLP was upholding the BLP. There's nothing bizarre here, except for the claim that removing poorly sourced or unsourced content is somehow counterproductive. Thank you Surial1981. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oh--didn't realize the IP reverted no fewer than five times. Somebody please tell me that the edit warrior does not get to have their way. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you removed a large amount of relevant, reliably sourced biographical content which you wrongly dismissed as "rassling trivia", and a small amount of poorly-sourced uncontroversial content. I restored the sourced content that you removed, remedied some of the poorly-sourced content and removed the rest. FWIW you also started a discussion on WP:PW about "rassling blogs" being used as sources, and the discussion then progressed without you contributing further or attempting to explain your content removal. There's no further issue and nothing further to discuss here, I'm certainly not an "edit warrior" and I'm not the only one who reverted your edits. Everyone makes mistakes but I don't expect to see an admin throw a hissy fit when they make one. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Result: The IP editor is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. It isn't up to this board to decide what standards should be applied to professional wrestling articles, but WP:3RR is still a rule. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Nybygger reported by User:AmedeeVanGasse (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:
OpenPDF is one of the many forks of iText. The notability of the iText page is already disputed, the mention of forks may even be more disputed. Also, why highlight this one particular fork and none of the others? Additionally, User:Nybygger is assumed to be a core contributor of OpenPDF, so there is a WP:COI. Disclosure: I am an employee of iText Software, so I also have a WP:COI. I want an independent third party to take a look at this. My preferred solution would be that Nybygger contacts iText Software directly, contact details are on our website, and that we work with them to come to a solution where they can have their fork, without of any of their current IP infringements. I already tried to contact them last year but that didn't lead to a productive conversation: https://github.com/LibrePDF/OpenPDF/issues/18. We don't object against friendly forks, but hijacking Wikipedia pages to promote your own project is not friendly behavior. I don't want Wikipedia to be a battlefield between two open source projects.

78.92.119.59 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: )

Page: Alexandra Borbély (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.92.119.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23] (note the capitalization in the reply)

Talk:Alexandra Borbély, the whole talk page is about this

POV pushing, the IP do not know the policies, do not care about the policies. Need a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

So did the edit warrior get their way? Is it so difficult?--Ymblanter (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

User:2602:306:8389:4120:1ec:a21a:be6c:cd4b reported (1) by User:Epipelagic (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Cenk Uygur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2602:306:8389:4120:1ec:a21a:be6c:cd4b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:
The IP is also edit waring on another page, which is reported immediately below Epipelagic (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Widr NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2602:306:8389:4120:1ec:a21a:be6c:cd4b reported (2) by User:Epipelagic (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page (2): Template:Denial of mass killings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2602:306:8389:4120:1ec:a21a:be6c:cd4b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:
The IP is also edit waring on another page, which is reported immediately above Epipelagic (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Widr NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:90.200.171.185 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: )

Page

Bill Belichick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "The article states 250 wins which is equal to Tom Landry as third most all time"
2. 20:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "Please read the entire article before reverting this change"
3. 19:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "The section "Head coaching record" quite clearly shows this modification to be correct"
4. 19:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 20:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Bill Belichick. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also User_talk:Eggishorn#Bill_Belichick Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Aaroncmusic reported by User:Home Lander (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Cover versions */"
2. 21:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Cover versions */"
3. 00:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Cover versions */"
4. 01:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Cover versions */"
5. 23:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Cover versions */"
6. 19:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Cover versions */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Toxic (song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Apparently WP:SPA created only to promote this non-notable performance. Home Lander (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Karl.i.biased reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

Karl.i.biased (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819913563 by Chris troutman (talk) Again, the data is from the world bank's website linked in the infobox. You may not like it, but that's a fact. You can't just revert i"
2. 00:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819912946 by Chris troutman (talk) Argh.... Check the freaking refernce (wb website) or even the article list of countries by gini. Jesus christ, these people...."
3. 00:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819912366 by Chris troutman (talk) Ahem, just go to the World Bank's website and check the rating if you disagree, or is it because of the sex tourism?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "/* January 2018 */ reply"
2. 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ukraine. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "/* GINI rank */ new section"

Comments:

I've tried to discuss the matter but Karl insists on having their way. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:User 261115 (Result: )

Page

Disney International HD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819931877 by User 261115 (talk) compromise"
2. 03:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819931392 by User 261115 (talk) restoring sourced article, misuse of TW"
3. 02:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819929733 by User 261115 (talk)"
4. 02:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819928802 by User 261115 (talk) not true as you admit on talk & I ck"
5. 18:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "rmv.ing unsourced information or CRYSTAL; again rmv. src. in hdr. per MOS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Disney International HD. (TW)"
2. 03:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Disney International HD. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Content discussion */"
2. 03:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Content discussion */"
3. 03:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Content discussion */"

Comments:

Continuously reverting despite content dispute not solved. User 261115 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)