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:Grayout reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Blackout (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760746714 by Kellymoat (talk)"
2. 20:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760732694 by Kellymoat (talk) read the AllMusic review it says robo-R&B beforehand you get trigger happy"
3. 19:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760677044 by Kellymoat (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been adding an unsourced music genre --- please note, he is then linking that genre to a page he created that redirects to another genre. Kellymoat (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Explain how you aren't also edit warring? Even if you believe you are correct, you should be discussing, not repeatedly reverting the other editor. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct on that. All I can say is - I sent him a warning. I sent a 3rr warning. I tried the edit summary. And now I am here taking it to a higher power. I may be just as guilty when it comes to 3rr, but I have at least given him ample opportunity. Kellymoat (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Already blocked Laser brain (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Max Rays reported by User:Akld guy (Result: Warned)

Page: Sam Sheppard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Max Rays (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. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
User:Max Rays added a new section that pointed to a suspect named in a 2002 book. His/her edit was originally reverted by User:EEng on 16 January here. In the past few hours, Max Rays has persistently re-inserted the same content, despite being reverted and told on the article's Talk page that references are needed for statements that are presented as facts. In an attempt to accommodate the editor, I rewrote the section here, stating in the edit summary that this version got around the need to provide references by attributing the statements to the author of the book. Even this edit was reverted by User:Max Rays, so he/she is clearly edit-warring in order to force his/her version into the article. I ask here for some kind of censure of Max Rays, who is an SPA account with fewer than 20 edits, virtually all of them to the Sam Sheppard article. Akld guy (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not blocked User was not warned prior to violating 3RR, and may not be familiar with our policies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Posting to keep this open, because he's back at it, though let's see what happens next. If I don't come back here we're OK. EEng 13:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mojo3232 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Meredith Kessler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mojo3232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (2014) or (2016-17)

A single purpose account is edit-warring to remove mention of a hit-and-run offence from a biographical article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:55, 16 November 2014
2. 20:52, 29 December 2016
3. 18:55, 6 January 2017
4. 00:03, 11 January 2017
5. 21:59, 17 January 2017
6. 05:06, 22 January 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:31, 18 January 2017

Diff of response when User:Barkeep attempted to seek help on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: 08:13, 7 January 2017

Diff of attempt to persuade Mojo3232 to discuss his/her objections on the article talk page: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Meredith Kessler#Hit and run case and Talk:Meredith Kessler#Hit and run - Part 2

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked – 31 hours. Long term edit warring to exclude well-sourced material. Mojo3232 only edits this one article, but has never posted to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Duqsene reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: No violation)

Page

Medri Bahri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]
5. [10]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [11]
2. [12]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I just found this active discussion on ANI about this editor: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_Editor_on_Ethiopia_related_pages Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:982:8200:4790:FD34:96C1:7D4E:BC38 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:982:8200:4790:FD34:96C1:7D4E:BC38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 19:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761395266 by Tymon.r (talk)Hitler's Table Talk"
3. 19:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 19:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761394536 by Tymon.r (talk) In the body of the article, most historians mentions that."
5. 19:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. (TW)"
2. 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "add"
3. 19:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

This edit on the talkpage [13] doesn't indicate that there is any genuine interest in discussing sources or content, but I did add a note on their talk page [14] to which there is no response.Acroterion (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear 3RR, was warned. Kuru (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:97.106.151.168 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page: Bob's Burgers (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bob's Burgers (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bob's Burgers (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bob's Burgers (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 97.106.151.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Season 2, Season 3, Season 4, Season 5

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Season 2

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]

Season 3

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]

Season 4

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]
5. [30]

Season 5

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37] - Briefly discussed on user talk page

Comments:

User has a number of warnings on their talk page (some of which were deleted by the user). Since January 10, they've been edit warring over the image on the season pages for Bob's Burgers. The other involved user is Grapesoda22. User insists the MOD cover art is not acceptable for the infoboxes (for some unknown reason). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. The IP has never posted to any of the talk pages relevant to Bob's Burgers. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that this may be the logged-out IP of active user S hannon434 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I posted these warnings about editing while logged out on December 14 ([38][39]), and again on December 15 ([40][41]). I came to know this when they posted on my talk page under the IP ([42]), and then changed the signature three minutes later to that of the registered account ([43]). I would also note that this is further supported by the fact that the media releases that the IP editor is edit-warring to add to the fact were, in fact, also uploaded by the registered user in question. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I have asked User:S hannon434 to reply to the suggestion they are using multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:94.5.104.222 reported by User:Class455 (Result: Semi)

Page

London Underground (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted. You are getting into an edit war not me. I gave proof. A link and a mat that Watford is served by the Overground and partially the Underground."
2. 22:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted: proof on Talk Page."
4. 16:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Bakerloo line extension to Watford Junction */ Removed section as this is completed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on London Underground. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussion on talk page

Comments:

Violating the three revert rule by reverting edits without consensus formed on the talk page. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. Wait for agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:‎Hertha=Strong and User:Secret Agent Julio (alt) reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: Both warned)

Page: Hertha BSC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Secret Agent Julio (alt) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hertha=Strong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: this (at least for the two editors reported)

Diffs of Julio's reverts:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5

Diffs to Hertha=Strong's reverts

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5
6. diff 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link for Hertha=Strong link for Julio

Comments:
For the past two days, these two have been reverting each other regarding the "correct" name for this club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I originally assumed the user was an unconstructive editor trying to remove content from the article, including alternate names. I was unable to verify that "Hertha, Berliner Sport-Club e.V." was the official name, so I restored the article. Once a source was provided, I cleaned up the reference and then decided to provided citations for all the different name variations of the club. Apparently "Hertha=Strong" does not agree that the club is sometimes referred to as "Hertha Berlin" or "Hertha BSC Berlin", even after I provided this reference from the European football governing body, and this reference from the official English language website of the Bundesliga. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What is this here ? I´m irritated. Let me explain: I tried to correct the article several times. The old version had a false club name on many fields in the article. I gave official sources to make my argument. Here [44] and here [45]. But somebody keeps introducing false names. The German Wikipedia article also says in its introduction that sometimes, wrongly, terms like "Hertha BSC Berlin" are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hertha=Strong (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly an edit war, and it looks to me that both parties are risking a block. I suggest they each promise to make no more reverts until agreement is reached on the talk page. (Hint: Neither of you has made any effort to use the talk page). EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I now opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss the issue and hopefully reach an agreement. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:82.148.70.9 reported by User:D Eaketts (Result: )

Page

X-Men: Days of Future Past (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761521401 by D Eaketts (talk)"
2. 11:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761512460 by Hotwiki (talk) So they have the same misconception as you, big deal.. lol"
3. 09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761419219 by D Eaketts (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on X-Men: Days of Future Past. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ Added answer to Edit warring question."

Comments:

This IP keeps editing Warring on the X-Men: Days of Future Past article, Several editors reverted it back including me. D Eaketts (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked)

Page

One World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Look at that damn link: http://skyscrapercenter.com/new-york-city/one-world-trade-center/98/ it says 541.3 m, not 541 m."
2. 00:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Look at that damn link: http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/chrysler-building/422 it says 541.3 m, not 541 m."
3. 20:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC) "Correction based on the source."
4. 19:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resuming edit war of height/format corrections to Burj Khalifa, One World Trade Center and World Trade Center (1973–2001), within 24 hours of a previous block for apparently the same kind of edit war on Chrysler Building. McGeddon (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please also see the comments on this user's Talk page. This "editor" seems obsessed with trivial detail, does not use Talk page to explain and is again edit warring - in spite of previous block(s). Further admin action is needed. David J Johnson (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The user continues to insist on trivial details of building heights. For example, while this report was open he has changed the height of a certain building from 426 meters to 425.5 meters. This is after I warned him that a longer block was possible if he didn't stop. I assume that his last block, by User:Acroterion, was for making this change at One World Trade Center. (He wants the height shown as 541.3 meters not 541 meters). Since he appears to ignore all feedback and he's already been blocked twice, I suggest one month. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 month Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Robsinden reported by User:TonyTheTiger (Result: Page protected)

Page: Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robsinden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: my initial change or a a more recent one with a grammatical correction

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]

On January 19 and 20, at User_talk:Robsinden/Archive_11#Interwikis_links, I attempted to hold discussions on whether there was ever a consensus for this 2015 change by Moxy, When it became clear that there had been no consensus for the change, I reverted it and opened an RFC. When after 14 discussants considered the matter in the first 3 days of the RFC and User:Robsinden noticed that consensus for the change was not developing the way he had hoped at an RFC, instead of awaiting consensus, he decided to restore the change although it was clearly controversial with an even split of support and oppose. There were 7 supports and 7 opposes at the time he finally Opposed the RFC. Nonetheless, he subsequently restored the change to the guideline. I reverted his restorations twice. He responded with reverting me twice. Once he became aware that I was going to take an edit warring action, he archived his talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• This policy change should have never been made without some consensus. I opened a discussion to see if there was such a consensus. There does not appear to be consensus for it. Nonetheless, he is insisting on restoring the change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• More time should be given tO see what more people hAve tO say. Would like to point out the addition way back in 2015 was simply for clarification....as the page already said these templates should not have external links. Not sure why an addition from years ago that simply clarifies what the guideline already said is now a problem? Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates. Sources may be included in the template documentation (a section that is visible only after viewing the template itself, but not upon its transclusion). Was someone adding external links all over....or was someone removing them? Is the point of the removal of the addition from 2015 because some belive we should have external links or that an exception should be made for other WikiProject pages. Not sure how removal makes anything more clear consideing what we say about external links. Thoses wishing to add external links to these templates should be asking for just that...an exception to the rule. Basically we have a debate about the wrong thing...one word...not a concept.--Moxy (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Basically, you are insisting that the change you made makes sense although the current tally is 9 against your change and 8 for it. If it were so clear the RFC would not be so active and would probably have a count in your favor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The current RFC is the discussion that should have been held 2 years ago before you made the change in the opinion of the many who oppose your change.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. As metioned before I dont care eitherway on what is done with that old edit. But I am not sure you understand the problem. Removing 2 words added years ago with zero problem till now will not change the external links guideline there on that page. It's a 2 plus year old edit for clarification being distupted now ...thus the bold edit is yours. As I said I don't care if the words are removed or if we have external links. What should have happened is a proposal for an exception to the external link guide over editwaring over 2 words that were added years ago. --Moxy (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected You are both edit warring. Blocking is not going to help the discussion in any way. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This is all very well, but shouldn't the page be protected at the status quo (the stable version which has been in place for two years) rather than Tony's preferred version? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I resent the bad faith accusations by Tony - note that I don't generally edit at weekends - he started the RFC on Friday night UK time, and edited the guideline at this point, I reverted his edit and contributed to the discussion on Monday morning UK time... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:89.160.219.247 reported by User:D Eaketts (Result: )

Page

X-Men: Days of Future Past (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761565382 by D Eaketts (talk)"
2. 22:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761365988 by Hotwiki (talk)"
3. 02:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761272676 by Hotwiki (talk)"
4. 15:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761131943 by Bong009 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on X-Men: Days of Future Past. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ Added answer to Edit warring question."

Comments:

This IP address keeps on Edit Warring on X-Men:Days of Future Past article as 4 people have reverted his editing quite alot could be using IP address: 82.148.70.9 also. D Eaketts (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist reported by User:128.40.9.164 (Result: )

Page: Abundance of elements in Earth's crust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Materialscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not possible as the user has protected their talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

I made a couple of edits to an article, to remove a whole lot of verbiage which boiled down to the word "estimated", and to remove blue links from bolded text as suggested by the manual of style. My edits were undone without explanation. I can see that the undoing user's edits consist almost entirely of undoing other people's edits, and that they seldom leave a reason. Of their last 50 edits as I type this, 28 are unexplained reverts. Quite why they are undoing my edits to this article, I do not know. They have not left an informative edit summary, and their contribution to the talk page indicated that they were ignorant of certain guidelines. Due to a mediawiki bug I cannot edit the talk page - it reports an internal error whenever I try - so I left links to the relevant guidelines in an edit summary. The user promptly undid that edit to bring their total to four reverts in a little over 12 hours. I am thus reporting it here. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Staszek Lem reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: )

Page: Neopalpa donaldtrumpi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Staszek Lem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: First edit in edit war, but other content has been included besides this dispute since then.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:23, January 23, 2017
2. 13:46, January 23, 2017
3. 13:22, January 24, 2017
4. 13:31, January 24, 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

This is an article about an insect named after Donald Trump's hair, so it's bound to attract some controversy outside normal insect editors. This could potentially be under the the American politics discretionary sanctions with that in mind. Staszek Lem has four reverts in a 24-hour period (or 25-hour, but this is considering gaming according to WP:3RR) against multiple editors (not counting sequential edits). There's a mix of behavior associated with the edit warring above, so while I don't think we need page protection at this minute as the current version is the rough talk page consensus (and everyone else has been contributing content in a WP:CONSENSUS fashion excluding Staszek Lem), Staszek is exhibiting behavior that needs to be addressed before it gets worse and disrupts the page further in the future if this current incident is any bearing.

In short, there has been ongoing talk page discussion linked above about the content in question, and Staszek Lem in addition to violating 3RR, has been extremely combative with comments like "Tired of this preaching to the deaf, despite being a non-expert in biology. . ."[57] while addressing editors knowledgeable in entomology, not focusing on content while misrepresenting editors, and interjecting comments about Donald Trump and "small hands".[58][59] Meanwhile, the rest of us were trying to flesh out the main components of species description as described in the discussed source. Issues with ignoring the source include multiple editors mentioning the source's species key that both wing and genital structure size as important characteristics, followed by Staszek edit warring back in their version ignoring that key while turning around asking editors for a reference for the very information they were already told was in the key,[60] which is extremely WP:TENDENTIOUS at best.

For those not familiar, genital differences in insect species are one of the first things described for species differences (see talk page for various comments on this). Staszek has been extremely combative with the comments that they are not an expert in biology, while still claiming that genital size is not an important characteristic even though that violates WP:OR according to the source while bringing in side comments about Donald Trump. Mix in the 4 reverts and the combative behavior while they ignore multiple editors on the talk page telling Staszek that they're not understanding key entomological details here, and we've got a bull in a china shop effect going on. I'd appreciate if admins could help address this tangle of behaviors even though this goes beyond just 4RR. There's a lot of behavior issues that mired what should have been a simple content discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Without commenting on other aspects of this complaint, I feel that trying to invoke Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 on an article about a moth is perhaps the most startling example of Wiki-lawyering I have ever seen. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from carrying over similar battleground disputes as the GMO topics where you are topic banned (but with me being one of the editors you don't have an additional interaction ban with from that case). As I stated above, Donald Trump has been specifically mentioned by Staszek Lem in this species article multiple times, which makes the claim of wikilawyering frivolous. Had that mention not happened, I would have considered the DS borderline at best in this case, but the Trump comments being used to exclude scientific content crossed that fine line awhile ago if admins choose to act on DS instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Normal progressive improvement. Especially the last diff, which is a disingenious cut of the full edit, which is a clear improvement over the previous content, which incorporated the best of the previous versions. Also the edits were thoroughly discussed in talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)