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:EricEnfermero reported by User:Tallsoutherngal36 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WeGoLook&oldid=771992119
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WeGoLook&oldid=771992173
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WeGoLook&oldid=771992334
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WeGoLook&oldid=771993810

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

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

Comments:

• No violation. I'm not seeing any reverts (or diffs, for that matter) in this heavily misformatted report. Please consider using the preview button to proofread your additions. El_C 21:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think I'm the subject of this report. I made several (mostly consecutive) edits to the WeGoLook page one afternoon about three weeks ago. It seems that the article has long been edited by at least one person with a COI, and I think the company views the WP entry as something directly under their control. I simply removed some non-independent content (sourced to a web reference written by the company's CEO), removed some non-neutral statements, took out somewhat random mentions of the company's logo and website, and did some formatting work. That seems to have provoked a strong, if delayed, response on my user talk page, and that talk page message included mention of an attorney. I'm not planning on engaging in any edit warring, and I don't think we need to go crazy with blocking someone based on WP:NLT, but I wanted to let someone know in case it escalates. (If I wasn't supposed to comment here after this was closed, my apologies. I just couldn't see opening a separate ANI thread just for the legal thing.) EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Definitly WP:COI per their message on my TP. Time for WP:COIN. Kleuske (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• After El_C's closure I edited this report so you can read the header items. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:104.169.28.48 reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: Warned)

Page: Khan Shaykhun chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 104.169.28.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 22:24, 12 April 2017 Removed material.
2. Revision as of 22:34, 12 April 2017 Re-added disputed material.
3. Revision as of 22:43, 12 April 2017 Re-added disputed material.

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5] [6]

Comments:
The ip-user tried to force in an addition, at a time when no consensus existed on the addition. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Added another revert by the same ip-user + clarification. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is under SCW/ISIL 1RR sanctions, which the IP user has indicated in edit summaries that they are aware of. (I opened a duplicate report which is almost identical, so I'm merging mine in.) ansh666 23:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Recuse. El_C 23:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, this is Erlbaeko who violated 1RR rule on this page today twice:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]

Note that he clearly marked his edits in edit summaries as reverts. Hence the violation was intentional. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Wishes. While both violated 1RR, Erlbaeko did it first and did it twice. It wasn't for a good cause either, because Erlbaeko was edit warring to keep a self-published source (Postol, notable for his dissent on Ghouta attribution), one that was needlessly repeated in the article twice, and sourced to Russia Today in one instance. The content violated WP:SPS, WP:RS, and was duplicated in two separate sections. So if both get a block, it should be proportional to the flagrancy of the violation (considerably greater in Erlbaeko's case than the IP's) Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The 1RR does not apply to reverting IPs, and single reverts are fine (it's not 0RR). That doesn't mean that there wasn't edit warring, but Erlbaeko didn't cross the sanctions red line. ansh666 00:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... Indeed, as written here, one can revert IP at will and then report them for edit warring here. I did not realize that. I guess the IP did not realize it too. Given that, I do not think that blocking the IP would be fair. My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, we don't make the rules, we just point out how absurd they are while enforcing them. Neither side is blameless. Reverting for a second straight time while pointing out that something is under 1RR is a bit silly too, if you ask me. ansh666 03:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the comments and certain edits by the IP are questionable. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the IPs comments and edits are both questionable and sanctionable. I did revert him/her, but I did not violated the 1RR-rule. The rule says the "one revert per twenty-four hours restriction" applies when reverting "logged-in users". Note that the reverts listed by "My very best wishes" are clearly marked as IP-reverts in the edit summaries. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Result: The IP is warned for 1RR violation. Under the terms of {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}} IPs and registered accounts are under different rules. Registered users can revert IPs without that being counted against the 1RR limit. When considering if any admin action is needed, it is hardly worth it to block the IP 48 hours after the last revert, when the article is changing so rapidly. Semiprotection might be considered if there is more IP reverting in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:TexasHistory2017 reported by User:Karanacs (Result:indeffed)

Page: Texas Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TexasHistory2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: original [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

This user is likely related to IPs who were previously obsessed with this source and were blocked as socks: [16] Karanacs (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note User was not specifically warned about edit warring or 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Fuck all of you, I quit. Wikipedia seems like it's just a bunch of (Personal attack removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasHistory2017 (talk • contribs)

• Blocked indefinitely User indefblocked by Maile66 per WP:NOTTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User: Saturnalia0 reported by User:Elinruby (Result: No violation)

Page: Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saturnalia0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Before Saturnalia0: [17]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19] revert 1, no attempt to discuss, zero, nada

• Since the discussion happened in edit summaries, here is diff of me reverting him: [20]

1. [21] he reverts back, my answer on same diff an hour or so later

• [22] post to his user page (he's unknown on article talk page). I ask him to stop edit warring, then add link to prior NPOV discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_64#impeachment_of_Dilma_Rousseff)

• This very new account fluently cites a lot of policies I am supposedly breaking and says "no you."
• I explain that the article is in violation of the BLP policy and needs to be deleted if it can't be amended

1. [23] reverts again scolding me for "edit warring"

• I flag the page as a dab-attack, which it is. RickinBaltimore says use the talk page (!) which tells me he probably didn't read it but fine. I am taking a deep breath...

however this plays into the tactics of obstruction; Saturnalia0 does not seem interested in proposing his own edits, and the article really did start at libelous and is now only slightly less so. Rousseff is involved to the extent that some of her associates are involved, but even her detractors don't think she was involved in laundering money that she stole from the treasury, when you push them up to shove ;) and that's the implication here. Let's assume good faith and say that Saturnalia0 is indeed a brand new editor who thinks DUE does not involve anything but the Brazilian press, he still engaged in disruptive editing without reading the page history or the talk page and is impeding progress on a very bad very prominent page. I came to it incidentally because someone listed it at WP:PNT and not because I have any allegiances here.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on <article talk page:

• [25] admittedly heated but it contains information
• [26]

-no response

Comments:

• note that I announced plans to edit the article for balance three days ago and there were no objections ([27]) Elinruby (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• PS -I forgot to mention that when I notified him of the attack tag, he reverted this notification too ;) Granted the template is kinda generic and he's not the author of the page (has never done anything to it as far as I have seen, definitely not in the last four months anyway) but most people would have just blanked the section or used their words, no? Elinruby (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• WP:NOCON is very clear. Elinruby added content to a long standing version of the lead, it was contested by me, here. He added it back here with no attempt to discuss his changes in the talk page, citing a consensus regarding NPOV issues in the article (the consensus is with NPOV issues as far as I understand, there is no consensus for the specific change being discussed here). I reverted him here giving the same reasoning but expanding on why I thought it was undue, asking him to explain his addition on the talk page. This is WP:NOCON by the book. He restored it again here with no attempt to explain his addition in the talk page, but warning me of edit warring, when in fact he is the one doing so (again, I refer to WP:NOCON). I then respond to the message in my talk page and revert, at the same time thoroughly explaining my reasoning in the talk page - which again, he should be the one doing per WP:NOCON, as I have pointed out to him. We proceed with the discussion on the talk page. He added a template to my talk page which said a page I created was an attack page, but I did not create the Impeachment page, and he had already templated me with the same accusation (aforelinked), which I explained in the edit summary when I reverted it. If anyone should be the target of an arbcom for edit warring is Elinruby, who clearly violated WP:NOCON and insisted on adding to a longstanding version of the lead without discussing his changes on the talk page. Not to mention personal attacks on the talk page such as empty accusations of political agenda. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• PS: And replies to a PA template with personal attacks. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • there you have it, folks. Incidentally, I just listed the article at the BLP board asking for help because really, the article does need help regardless of this... whatever :) I am peace out for a bit and will check back later to see if there are questions or whatever. PS I don't know what a PA template is -- perhaps this four month old account can instruct me. Elinruby (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(correcting myself) actually the account was started in January 2016 not January 2017. The gist of my incredulity still pertains; not that it would matter however, if he would deign to formulate a constructive suggestion. I've worked with editors who were likely whatever they call the KGB these days -- I frankly don't care who he is if he were willing to call a packet a packet. 07:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• • You do realize only a few hours had past since you decided to bring the case here and accuse me of being unwilling to discuss (a discussion *I* had to start by the way, because you refused to, ignoring WP:NOCON)? I mean I work all day and I imagine this is the case for other editors, it's unreasonable to expect a discussion to be completed in a few hours. I indicated more than once that I am perfectly willing to propose compromises if we cannot reach a consensus on what should be added, as I have done in other cases ([28] [29] to cite the recent ones I could find). Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: I'll probably be proxy blocked in the next three days as it always happens[30][31] when I move to a place where NET (telecommunications) is the ISP. Please ping me for my attention and I might have to answer on my talk page. Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: do you realize that me and two other editors have been working on the article for months? Do you realize that most people would have just deleted the article? Give me credit for trying to salvage all that work. Reverting and telling me to use the talk page (which I had already done, twice that night and once a few days before, announcing plans for a major edit) is beyond unhelpful especially when blatant POV pushing has taken place. If you are not involved with that then fine, propose a change or oppose a change. DO something besides reverting and flinging poo. But the article does need a major structural edit and the change to the lede did not represent the article because the article too was going to change, that very night. Conceivably it would have been better to start at the bottom and work up but my time is quite limited right now and I usually do big edits in several passes top to bottom. I had set aside that night to work on it and nobody questioned my post saying I planned to do so. That said, I am about to go out of town myself and will have sketchy internet access so no worries about the proxy block, at least as far as I am concerned. It also seems as though there is no rush to judgment on this board, so... If you want to work at the article @PauloMSimoes: has made a proposal, go help him with that maybe? I agree that with half of what I did to the lede undone, what he suggests may be better and plan, if he has the time, to let him do what he thinks then take a look. I just want the article fixed and would actually prefer that someone else fix it, as long as they actually do. There are plenty of of other translation problems I could spend my wikitime on. While I am gone I'll check on this and on the article at least daily if I can. Elinruby (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• First of all thank you for the ping and the update regarding the talk page discussion, I will take a look at it. Now as to your comment regarding this board's procedure: I was watching the article, I saw your numerous edits, looked at the diffs, found them constructive and didn't revert any. I reverted one, explained why I thought it to be nonconstructive. Though welcome, a warning in the talk page about editing the article is not the point. You were asked to discuss a specific change, the one I reverted, where you modified a longstanding version of the lead and was contested. This was explained to you numerous times already. This is what policy demands and process is important. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: Feel free to read the talk page in future. Or object to something I do there. Or continue this discussion there if you want. Since we have a ruling I don't want to re-litigate here (Although I wasn't trying to allege 3R, just disruptive editing as yes, there were three reverts and you stopped after the warning. Perhaps I picked the wrong board.) Bottom line, if you had read the talk page you'd have seen I was using it ;) and if *you* had used it we coulda discussed without sucking up bandwidth like this. Anyway, don't worry, be happy. I'll check on the article tomorrow per discussion on talk. Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Only three reverts are listed. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. Suggest you continue discussing the content dispute on the talk page. Try to better qualify and evaluate the potential BLP and due weight concerns, perhaps in an RfC. Otherwise, please refer to your dispute resolution options. El_C 02:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Българ reported by User:172.58.233.89 (Result: Both blocked 24h)

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

I am on cell phone, but it is apparent at Massagetae that there is edit warrior who does not believe in discussing his new contributions and just reverts away Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted}}

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours for five reverts, page protected for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User:207.88.236.133 reported by User:FuriouslySerene (Result: 24 hours)

Page

DISC assessment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775425519 by FuriouslySerene (talk)"
2. 14:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "This is an arbitrary application of this rule. If you insist on applying it, apply it to the entire article. The current passage is the result of a previously moderated dispute."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC) to 19:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
   1. 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775206403 by Graham87 (talk)"
   2. 19:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
2. 00:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on DISC assessment. (TW)"
3. 20:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on DISC assessment. (TW)"
4. 20:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on DISC assessment. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced content and peacock term, despite multiple warnings. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 02:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch reported by User:Akib.H (Result: No violation)

Page

Pahela Baishakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775456361 by Akib.H that is what the source states, nothing to be clarified here; feel free to report: WP:ANI"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC) to 00:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775454426 by Akib.H, we need a reliable published source, please no WP:OR"
   2. 00:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "remove tag that is unexplained and disruptive"
3. 20:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775426444 by Akib.H, no unsourced OR"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pahela Baishakh. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Ownership of article */ new section"
2. 23:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Ownership of article */"
3. 23:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Vague sources, misleading information: This article is becoming a mess */ new section"
4. 23:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Ownership of article */"
5. 23:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Vague sources, misleading information: This article is becoming a mess */"
6. 23:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Ownership of article */"
7. 00:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Ownership of article */"
8. 00:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Vague sources, misleading information: This article is becoming a mess */"
9. 00:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Ownership of article */"

Comments:

User is clearly imposing ownership over the article. Reverting every edits, repeatedly removing tags and templates from the article. There have been enough initiative to resolve the dispute over the article talk page. But all in vain. Akib.H (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reply: The edits were based on building (apparent) consensus on the talk page, and invite to edit (see the article's talk page). It is the OP who is edit warring again, disrupting, after being recently cautioned by admins Bishonen and duly noted by NeilN about the same article. Even after filing this complaint, @Akib.H continues to revert, remove sources / sourced content, and disrupt the article. The standards of editing behavior Akib.H expects from other editors, apparently doesn't apply to Akib.H. Since I am at the 3RR limit for 24 hours, and I don't want to cross to 3+, I am not editing that article anymore. Someone needs to look at Akib.H's disruption and continued reverts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to pint out that the admin warned both me and Ms Welch since we both were edit warring that day. However, I've today refrained from a single revert (except for readding the tags) but Ms Welch has kept on reverting despite attempts to discuss the issue on the taalk page. I've clearly mentioned in the talk page that I've been made handicapped over the article. When I began to add templates to the article, Ms Welch tried to remove them as well. This is clearly disruptive and I think, for some reasons, the user considers herself a bit privileged over others to demonstrate a sort of power in her editing. This is the first time I've come across such annoying behavior in my edit history in wikipedia which is very frustrating for me. Akib.H (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. Both users reverted three times. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. Suggest you continue using the talk page, and tag with moderation. El_C 02:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2607:FCC8:BCA2:EEF0:989:1203:19C5:C96D reported by User:Mooeena (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Ted Thompson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2607:FCC8:BCA2:EEF0:989:1203:19C5:C96D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Thompson&diff=next&oldid=774062185
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Thompson&diff=next&oldid=775469868
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Thompson&diff=next&oldid=775470175
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Thompson&diff=next&oldid=775471039

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2607%3AFCC8%3ABCA2%3AEEF0%3A989%3A1203%3A19C5%3AC96D&type=revision&diff=775471895&oldid=775470136

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The person is an IP editor who has only ever done vandalism. I think it's fair to assume that they're not interested in a talk page discussion.

Comments:
The revisions are clearly vandalism. Mooeena (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 03:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SlackerDelphi reported by User:Activist (Result: )

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

@SlackerDelphi:, @Therequiembellishere:, @Jim1138:, @Muboshgu: I've been editing on Wikipedia for 11 years, and I've never made an ANI complaint before, so I hope this format will work.

Beginning on April 11, I made a number of well supported edits to the article for Republican Ron Estes, elected this week to congress. His Democratic opponent was James Thompson, a newcomer to electoral politics. My first edit, 774881397 was to change the section subtitle, “Primary results,” to the correct title, “Caucus results.” I changed that one minute later to the more precise, “Republican caucus results” 774881397 A number of other Wikipedia editors made changes in the next day, mostly correcting format and updating to reflect the win by Estes. Then I made edit 775023894

The National Republican Congressional Committee vastly outspent the Democrat, James Thompson, who received little national party support. The NRCC contributed $92,000, in part for last minute ads supporting Estes, which without any factual basis, characterized Thompson as an advocate of taxpayer funded, late term abortions, and those based on gender selection. Estes won the special election on April 11, 2017.

Slacker Delphi responded shortly afterward by deleting the words: “who received little national party support.” 775071901

(→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: Removed the false statement that Thompson received little national support. That is not true. Not supported by Reliable Source.)

My edit was accurate and reliably sourced. By removing the word “party,” SlackerDelphi mischaracterized what I'd written and accused me of a falsehood. This is hardly the first time SlackerDelphi has done this to my work, and frequently seems to do it to other editors.

Next SlackerDelphi removed the word “vastly,” claiming it had no support, though there was a prima facie case for its accuracy, in reported expenditures quoted in the text (but substantially more in unreported Superpac interventions). 775076303 Revision as of 14:20, 12 April 2017

One minute later, SlackerDelphi removed my text, allegedly because it was not factual, though it was reliably sourced to, and also via a link within that source, by the moderator of the actual debate at which the mendacious contentions claimed in the ad were said to have been made: The moderator was very upset by slanderous mischaracterization. 775076620 SlackerDelphi's edit summary was: (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: There is absolutely no support for the false stmt that the ads were not factually based.), once again essentially calling me a liar.

Three minutes later, SlackerDelphi added this text: “by 52.5% to 45.7%” to reflect the Estes' edge in the results, but redundantly inserting figures that appeared just a few lines further on in a table. 775076779

Other editors then made mostly format corrections and USER:Muboshgu  made a factual correction.

I returned to restore SlackerDelphi's inappropriate deletion of my text, “without any factual basis,” Revision as of 21:46, 12 April 2017 775115550 I should note that the mischaracterization in the TV ad attracted national attention to an obscure election.

Nine minutes later I again deleted SlackerDelphi's redundant text. 775134236

Fourteen minutes later, I added more text supported by an existing Wichita Eagle cite, and added more still and supplied and quoted the NY Times cite that supported the characterization of the ad as “venomous.” The NRCC contributed $92,000, in part for last minute "venomous" ads supporting Estes, which without any basis, characterized Thompson as an advocate of taxpayer funded, late term abortions, and those based on gender selection. National Republicans (spent) about $150,000 on the race and a Paul Ryan affiliated SuperPac generated live calls to likely voters from a phone bank. 775135227 Ten minutes later I added 775136828, which chronicled local Democrats upset caused by the lack of national party support.

I then added this text: 22:35, 12 April 2017 775138030 Before the weekend preceding the election, it was reported that Estes had raised $459,000 to Thompson’s $292,000, the Kansas Democratic party finally contributed $3,000 to the Thompson campaign and new Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez said his organization would not be transferring any funds to the election.

After numerous editors contributed, SlackerDelphi once again savaged the article, deleting including the NY Times characterization, "venomous" (ads supporting Estes ), which without any basis,... 16:12, 13 April 2017  775228375

The next day an appparent WP:SPA IP editor made all of first ever, four quick deletions, in 13 minutes of the substantial text that covered much of the section containing the disputed material, with a subject line that seems intended to mislead: Revision as of 07:29, 14 April 2017 (edit) (undo) 70.173.220.224 (talk) (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017) (Tag: references removed)

USER:Jim1138  restored the first large deletion, only to have the restoration immediately deleted.

SlackerDelphi, after housekeeping and correctional edits by prolific Wikipedia editors Muboshgu and Therequiembellishere returns at 21:23, 14 April 2017  to once again remove my text: 775411541, with the comment, (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: removed the word "finally" which is Wiki editor opinion and not supported by Reliable source.)

Then SlackerDelphi removed a good deal of the same text the IP editor tried to delete, characterizing the edits in the subject line as: 21:27, 14 April 2017 (edit) (undo) (thank) SlackerDelphi (talk | contribs) (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: cleaned up run on sentences and poor grammar.) 775435086 instead of what it actually was: Content removal, also confusing and conflating two stories on the same day by the same WaPo editor, effectively removing one of the cites, and adding a redundant cite.

Two minutes later, SlackerDelphi again adds the margin of victory I'd deleted two days earlier, me noting in my subject line at the time that it was “redundant.” 775435602 (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: restored margin of victory that was deleted without discussion or rationale.) , a disingenuous characterization.

A minute later, SlackerDelphi makes another redundant edit with no subject line. 775437539 and informs Wikipedia readers who can't read a few lines further on, or able to add or subtract, that the election was won by Estes by “approximately a seven percent margin.”

At this point I tried to sort out SlackerDelphi's inability to understand that there were two different stories with different URLs and different titles by the same author in the same newspaper on the same day and to restore the well sourced and characterized text “reluctantly and finally,” that SlackerDelphi felt needed to be forever disappeared, for whatever mysterious reason. 775437757 (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: Restored deleted citation regarding party reluctance to support Thompson)

Wikipedia editors are warned not to quote from sources in a manner which would cause copyright violations. The sense of the sources, in this cases as in others SlackerDelphi has disputed and removed, clearly supports the use of those words such as "finally" and "reluctantly" as a reading of the source document will substantiate.

In my next restoration of SlackerDelphi's unwarranted deletions, I added back 775443442, 23:50, 14 April 2017 (edit) (undo) (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: Undid inappropriate deletions of reliably sourced text) “vastly outspent the Democrat, James Thompson, who received little national party support. The NRCC contributed $92,000, in part for advertisements supporting Estes, which characterized Thompson as an advocate of taxpayer-funded, late-term abortions, and abortion for those based on gender selection. As of shortly before the election, Estes had raised $459,000 to Thompson’s $292,000, and new Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez said his organization would not be transferring any funds to the election. That seems to be pertinent information of which the national and international print and broadcast media took substantial note.

Once again, three minutes later, SlackerDelphi leaps into the breach to remove the offending word, 23:53, 14 April 2017 (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: Removed the word "vastly" which is opinion and there is not RS to support false stmt. Please provide RS to support. Take it talk. Don't edit war.)775453601

This is doubly ironic: I posted in the article's TALK page on the 12th, but SlackerDelphi, whom I've noted often in the past, has recommended such action to others without apparently bothering to even look at the TALK pages on which other editors labor to achieve consensus.

Five minutes later, SlackerDelphi threatens me:

Your recent editing history at Ron Estes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

The word "vastly" is opinion. It must have a Reliable source to support.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)>

I responded: Actually, it's you that's involved in an edit war. You've been deleting my edits without cause. Please contain yourself until I'm finished with my edits. Activist (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Two minutes later, SlackerDelphi edits the article page once more, castigating me, but finally recognizing that two separate citations exist, possibly understanding that my second cite was indeed different, but complaining that the format of my cite, which SlackerDelphi had been trying to extinguish, was faulty 00:00, 15 April 2017 (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: fixed the horrible, messed up citation for the Wash post article) SlackerDelphi didn't fix anything that needed fixing, of course. But three minutes later, there's this correction, which seems to be a product of SlackerDelphi's day's-long confusion about the separate sources.00:03, 15 April 2017 SlackerDelphi (talk | contribs) (→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: removed redundant citation that wiki editor reinserted inappropriately.)

I've only just returned for a moment to Wikipedia, and noticed that SlackerDelphi had once again reverted and deleted the content of my edits, in the absence of any agreement whatsoever. This seems contemptuous of the process.

775461386&oldid=775455843 01:08, 15 April 2017

SlackerDelphi (talk | contribs)

(→‎U.S. House campaign, 2017: Quoted the Reliable Source directly and removed the non-NPOV wording of "finally and reluctantly" which is the mere opinion of another wiki editor. Better to go with RS wording directly, conforming to the source.)

I have to run, again. I'll hopefully be back later today. Activist (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I love editing Wikipedia. I have a wide variety of interests and make many corrections as I read recreationally. Occasionally I author articles. I'm extremely busy, but these encounters with SlackerDelphi and a few similarly difficult editors over the last decade, have been immensely frustrating. One of those was eventually banned after I complained for years about transparent, M-F/9-5, COI paid editing, but only when that editor was caught building fake consensus via extensive sockpuppetry. I have no idea what motivates the other three. I wonder how many other Wikipedia editors are ground down by such endless insupportable reverts, eventually abandoning the activity? Activist (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ron_Estes diff: 775413729

Comments:
I'd been waiting fruitlessly for three days for SlackerDelphi to respond to four of my posts to the TALK page. I just went back to the TALK page to get the diffs and found that SlackerDelphi had finally responded after I'd written all of this above. Activist (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure quite what's happening or how I'm substantively involved other than editing the page in the midst of this surrounding dispute. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  Responded to @Therequiembellishere: that my ping was just a courtesy to an editor currently involved in making multiple edits to the article. Activist (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

References

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

Page: List of The Leftovers episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38] (subsequently removed by User: AlexTheWhovian, apparently)

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

Comments:

None of those involved have taken this matter to the talk page. I am simply a disappointed observer who wishes to prevent edit warring regarding a minor point relating to a guideline (not a rule) which seems pointless given that, to the best of my understanding, there will no longer be an issue shortly. This sort of pedantic nonsense only succeeds in providing ammunition to the project's detractors. Mcaibo M (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if this editor is the same person at the obvious IP-hopper on the article, since they've appeared from the depths of not logging in just to file this report (if not, it seems that they do not understand what the issue is here, and have incorrectly filed a wrong report), but they have been warned about the guideline by multiple editors and still continue to force their edits. I reverted the IP(s) (plural?) after I requested page protection (the request is stills standing at this point), awaiting the result from that so that the disruption would come to a end. They do not seem to understand that the rules apply to them as well as every other editor, which every member of WP:TV has to use, so as do they. No edit-warring was intended. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 16:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Page has since been protected against further anonymous disruptive editing. -- Alex^TW 18:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Alex, please note that stylistic changes are not exempt from 3RR, per WP:3RRNO. You have demonstrated a penchant to keep reverting when you're right, or when you think you are right, that is not congruent with Wikipedia's edit warring guidelines. I think you reading and internalizing the 3RR exceptions is far preferable to a block, but this not the first time this has been brought to your attention. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ziv2000 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Ziv2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775561946 by ClueBot NG (talk) - There are Putin's bots on this page"
2. 18:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775561411 by General Ization (talk) Stop spreading propaganda and attribute the annexed peninsula to Russia"
3. 18:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775561069 - This is internationally recognized fact - Thanks"
4. 18:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Demographics */"
5. 17:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775548217: There is international consensus that Crimea was illegally annexed by Russia."
6. 15:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775537710 by TaivoLinguist (talk) - the peninsula was illegally annexed by Russia, this is the correct 'Russian' staus. 'Stolen' should be called STOLEN"
7. 14:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Crimea. (TW)"
2. 18:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Crimea. (TW)"
3. 18:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC) "/* April 2017 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Disruptively editing Crimea, refuses to engage at Talk page though advised to do so by multiple editors. General Ization ^Talk 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Widr (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Timothy Hamilton reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Wilhelm Reich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Timothy Hamilton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours For disruptive editing. No edit summaries, no explanation for removing content. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Miki Filigranski reported by User:Fraenir (Result: )

Page: Jōmon period (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miki Filigranski (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C5%8Dmon_period&diff=775553543&oldid=775456746
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C5%8Dmon_period&diff=775617498&oldid=775603798
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C5%8Dmon_period&diff=775617498&oldid=775603798
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
OPTIONAL: User doesn't understand genetics or DNA, yet insists on claiming that I'm biased and that the other version is sourced (sourced statements can be misleading or wrong, but the user in question doesn't understand or care). Fraenir (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

FALSE: Fraenir failed to link that I started the discussion to resolve the dispute, that noticed him two times ([40], [41]) to respect WP:BRD and do not revert until dispute is resolved. However, until now in the discussion did not properly substantiate (based on sources and editing policy) his explanation for the removal of reliably sourced information, and he tried to push another, seemingly older revision, thus his reverts between 15-16 April were more WP:DISRUPTIVE rather than constructive or improvement for the article. I reject the notion that I do not care, starting a discussion is clear evidence that at least partially I do, and according to previous statements obviously user Fraenir is the one who does not "care" about the content and policy when impatiently push for unsubstantiated removal/reversion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think Miki Filigranski should really behave better. He violated 1RR restriction on several pages related to Syria war, for example

1. [42],
2. [43].

and here:

1. [44],
2. [45]

Note that in edit summaries of diffs above he mark his edits as reverts. I tried to talk with him [46], but ... My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Your reply has no connection to report by Fraenir. I did not violate the 1RR restriction, the unblock request was accept within two hours by admin NeilN. User My very best wishes once again is obsessively following me, trying to block me with false arguments, and what he consider by "talking" is actually spamming other editor's talk page (to the point it needed blanking), which was also ignored by the same admin.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you telling that you did not violate 1RR restriction in two examples above? Why? Because your edits were not reverts, even though you marked them as reverts? I commented here because based on your responses [47] you are not going to respect editing restrictions on pages. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)