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

Query

Moved to WP:ANI

User:78.0.220.160 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Croatia national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.0.220.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Initial re-adding of file. Technically could be considered the first revert, but was willing to assume good faith
2. File re-added despite edit sum explaining why it was removed
3. File re-added again despite edit sum and user talk page posts
4. File re-added once again despite edit warring left on user talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user talk page and edit sum

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Croatia national football team#Non-free use of File:Croatia national football team crest.svg (article talk page discussion about the same recurring issue)

Comments:

• New IP edit warring over a non-free image. The non-free use of the relevant file was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png and the consensus was that the file's use in individual team articles was not WP:NFCCP compliant. IP was advised of this in edit sums and user talk page posts, but elected to continue to try and force the image into the article. Continued removal of the file would likely be allowed per item 5 of WP:3RRNO, but that would probably only lead to more edit warring by the IP. No predjudice against the WP:NFCR being further discussed in accordance with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Also, some form of WP:PP may be an option if blocking is deemed to be more punative than preventive in this particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, with some reluctance, because I think they didn't mean any harm, and perhaps didn't know they have a talkpage, or that there's stuff in the history. I've left a note for them and for any reviewing admin. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Ppteles reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of largest empires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ppteles (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. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

Hi, few days ago this user was blocked for edit warring at the same page, but his block was lifted after an agreement was found : [8]. According to this agreement, this user had to wait a consensus before any edit : [9] which the user accepted : [10]. Therefore, his block was lifted. However, he began again an edit war while no consensus has been found on the talk page of the article. Would appreciate if an admin could (again) deal with this. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not not break the 3RR rule. I also remind this editor to be civil, and nice. Shouting to other editors is disruptive behaviour.Ppteles (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of comment will help your case. Please note that baseless accusations are considered to be personal attacks. I quote from this : "What is considered to be a personal attack" : "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.". Therefore, i would suggest you to provide evidences for your above accusations. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You did shout to me in your revert of the page. See here, I would like to know if there is a notice board to report this kind of behaviour. Thanks Ppteles (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Not shouting, capitalizing in order to make it clear. If i'm guilty of anything, then i would welcome admins decision about myself.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours If this behavior recurs after this block, the next block will be substantially longer or indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Panam2014

Panam2014 Has been rapidly reverting my edits to various iPhone articles, as shown here, here, and here. I was working on cleaning up the succession links in the articles, since by release date, they were out of order. This user keeps flying in and claiming that my edits are "unsourced", even though the succession links have never been sourced in the past. They claim that link succession should be sorted based on when the phones were announced, not by when they were first released. Note that this user has a history of edit warring. This user also has issues with WP:CIR, they spin their argument on me, claiming that we are having issues with the article because of my edits. Thoughts on this? Cards84664 (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggest that if you want action on the 3RR issue here you should re-submit with the appropriate template. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: please read my request in the botton. Cards84664 led edit warring against various editors and he have made unsourced mass edit since days. So, we are in case of WP:DISRUPTIVE. My past is not an excuse for his behaviour. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: This group of "various editors" currently consists of one other user (HaarisK) that recently got blocked for adding unsourced content. Cards84664 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cards84664: again, the past behavior of the others users is not an excuse to made mass edit. And your claim that the version which have been imposed by yourself was in place before did not have citations is false. Because, you have edited 10 articles last night. Please read WP:POINT. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and won't be adjudicating this discussion, just watch this page and was providing helpful advice. That's done, I'm out. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There were no citations directly next to said links. You have yet to show me a wikipedia policy proving that I'm wrong. Saying "false false false" over and over doesn't make you any more correct. Cards84664 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I have proved that you have made mass editing and to justify your edits and to justify your behaviour, you have a claimed false things. All of your edits since last night should be reversed. And like the other editor, you could be blocked for edit warring, mass editing and adding unsourced information. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, can you explain how it is false? Where on Wikipedia does it explicitly say to arrange the links like that? Cards84664 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You have added false information without source. And all the sources said that the Iphone 7 is the successor of iPhone 6s. You have not the right to do mass edits. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of that, and I was trying to clean up the links by date, since it's easier to navigate through them linearly. You have yet to explain why we can't do that. They are all iPhones, and it's easier to list them in chronological order. Cards84664 (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

But understand something. No one for years has ever dared to make the changes you made, or they have lasted so long that it's hard to find them in the history. I am ready to assume your good faith, but we have been four to cancel you since that night. Apple releases several products in parallel and the successor line, we do not put the product out later but the product that has succeeded the other. However, Apple had several sub branches in parallel, such as iPads and iPods. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that iPods had subdividers (Nano, Touch, Mini). However, the iPhones were not explicitly given sub-series in marketing, just variations in naming. Cards84664 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No. You should read sources. iPhone 5C have been replaced by iPhone SE as low cost version. And we know that for mainstream version iPhone 5S have been replaced by 6, 6s, 7, 8. Now we need sources to know wheter of iPhone XS or XR is the successor or iPhone 8. And if the precedecessor of iPhone XR is SE, X or 8. But the successor of 8 is not X. The both have been released on the same day. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours There's edit warring and disruption over a large range of articles, so you're both blocked until we can work out what to do with them. Hopefully somebody else will come in and get a consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Cards84664 reported by User:Panam2014 (Result: Both blocked)

Page: IPhone X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
IPhone 8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
IPhone SE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Cards84664 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Hi Cards84664 have made various unsourced changes since 12 September 2018 in various articles :

• iPhone X
• iPhone SE
• iPhone 8
• iPhone XR
• iPhone 7
• iPhone 5C
• iPhone 6S

Nothing of his mass edits are sourced. After that, he led edit warring against various users. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• iPhone 6S :

1. [11]
2. [12]

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

• iPhone X :

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

• iPhone 8 :

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]

• iPhone SE :

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

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

Comments:

• Result: User:Cards84664 and User:Panam2014 are both blocked 24 hours per a previous complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Sbharris reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

Page: Familial amyloid polyneuropathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff 23:37, 12 September 2018. Sbharris added content that is WP:Biomedical information based on a recent primary source.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 05:02, 13 September 2018, restored, no edit note
2. diff 05:54, 13 September 2018 restored edit note Perfectly good NEJM info restored. Just because other editors don't do what you like, Jdog, does not mean it's edit warring. You're the one under multiple topic sanctions and with many blocks for edit warring, not I. This is 2R.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• diff given by me, at 05:19, 13 September 2018.
• copy/pasted to my page by Sbharris at 05:48, 13 September 2018, with additional note I was here on WP years before you got here. And the person recently and repeatedly sanctioned for edit-warring and topic-pushing, would be YOU. Do not warn me about your own editing problems. I'm fine. It's you who historically rub people the wrong way on WP. and with edit note Do you see a list of people angry at me, and admins blocking me? No you do not.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Time to play the fake secondary source game opened at WT:MEDRS by Sbharris at 01:32, 13 September 2018. Please do read that.
• I placed a link to that discussion at Talk:Familial_amyloid_polyneuropathy#Sort_of_a_discussion and have asked for more eyes on the page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Familial_amyloid_polyneuropathy

Comments:

I am a frequent participant at this board. The spirit with which Sbharris has edited and responded, is probably the most pure expression of edit warring that I have encountered. Their edit notes and talk posts are a) personalized; b) full of disdain for P&G and other editors; and c) convinced of their own righteousness. There is no discussion possible. There is also no acknowledgement that MEDRS has deep and broad consensus. Please block this person to help them see that this behavior is not OK here - not in spirit nor in letter. (Please note that they are counting reverts - the gaming of the letter of the policy is very clear). Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• By default, I'm inclined to err on the side of leniency regarding highly established users with a clean block log. However, Sbh is reverting after being warned, and while discussion is ongoing, plus engaging in unambiguous personal attacks, which puts me on the fence. I looked him up in the archives and there doesn't appear to be any significant history of complaints against them. I'd be leaning more towards a warning and page protection than a block. However, I will leave this open to see if anyone feels differently about the block request. Swarm ♠ 21:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Answer from S B Harris: Apologia pro scripta sua

I’m actually new here in any major way to WP:AN3. In my 13 years on WP since 2005 I’ve never brought anybody to the 3RR board nor had anybody bring me before. Golly, it’s strange in the docket, I’m not an edit-warrior, as user:Swarm has already so perspicaciously (but somewhat precipitately) pointed out.

However, when user:Jytdog says he is a frequent participant on this board, he is being overmodest. He has been here 85 times, some 60 of them (plus or minus—I had to hand count) complaining about somebody else, and some of the rest of the time with others complaining about him. So, when he says that I’m the “most pure expression of edit warring that I have encountered,” I fear for the state of his memory. He himself has been in some ugly situations right here:

For example: here is the great GMO edit war that eventually got various people interaction or topic banned. The problem is that the “bright line” 3RR rule was simply disregarded in the case of Jytdog, even symbolically. User: DrChrissy, who complained about Jytdog’s subject bias, was told to move on, and the page fully-protected. There’s a lazy-man’s way of resolving a WP:AN3 dispute! The problem is there was no justice in that case, as frequently happens on WP.

Here is a very similar case involving an undoubted edit war between Jytdog and user:Prokaryotes, so tangled and nasty that rather than untangle it, the oversighters on 3RR again just full-protected the page rather than untangle it (they admit this—read it). But did nothing to either Jytdog or Prokaryotes. Not even a warning. Okay, again laziness. Doing nothing THERE, is why we are HERE. With me being hounded by Jytdog, who has no case, in any way.

But never mind. It takes a bold man to bring somebody to AN3 when you have exactly the same number of reverts as they do (in this case, two). I remind you that in similar situations when Jytdog has been brought here by somebody else, he is quite capable of arguing the “letter” (not the spirit) of “the law”. Want to see?

In this case, here Jytdog who had been accused of 3RR violation said in his own defense: “First of all, nobody has broken 3RR so this is a non-actionable filing.” Wow, a “non actionable filing.” Jytdog, you legal beagle, you! And in that case, as well as another brought against Jytdog [24] here, the action here by admins was simple: “No violation, so no action.” (again, if you don’t believe me, read the cases). Nobody bothered to speculate about whether or not Jytdog might be harboring evil thoughts or intent. Or was not pure of heart. Or might actually be COUNTING (and why not? Clearly he was counting at some point before writing). Or might be trying to “game the system” (gasp.)

Apparently the WP:AN3 action of throwing up hands and locking articles, applies when Jytdog is guilty of violating the letter of the 3R law. Then we judge him on spirit. But when he’s NOT guilty of letter violation, he’s be glad to tell us, and he will be listened to, and THAT given as accepted defense. You can have it both ways.

Jytdog is capable of being overly concerned with the future, and disagreeing with 3R rules he doesn’t like: [25] a good case (humorous, too, except I’m angry now): Jytdog was so zealous that he went into somebody’s user space and kept reverting them because he said they were PLANNING on launching the article later in main space. User:Canoe1967, the 3RR defendant hauled here by Jytdog, complains it’s in his own user space (for god sake) and is exempted from 3RR and gives the cite where it is exempted. Quote from Jytdog (over an hour later): “More of the same ABF accusations. I disagree with the user-space exemption, as Canoe is specifically developing this article to be relaunched as an unmerge, as discussed above.Jytdog (talk) 10:51 am, 4 September 2013, Wednesday (5 years, 10 days ago) (UTC−7)”

He is then reminded pointedly that a problem arises THEN, not now. To be sure, Jytdog later apologizes and thanks all for “education” -- but it’s not “education” when somebody points out 3RR policy in their defense, and the editor bringing the case against them simply responds by saying they personally disagree with WP 3R policy. That’s obstinance, not ignorance. It took an admin’s input to change Jytdog’s mind. Don’t take my word for it—read it above.

As for whether or not my edit and TALK posts are “personalized” , I don’t know Jytdog personally. The only “personality” he leaves on WP is his past history here, some of which is above. I’m not impressed with it, and that’s the “personalized” part. How can one not get that? You all can form your own opinions and I’ll provide FURTHER evidence of Jytdog’s battling on WP if you want or must have more (do you really?). His note bringing me here is certainly personalized— apparently I’m the worst edit warrior who ever graced WP and he wants you to block me on general principles even if I haven’t been here ever, or technically broken the rules. That’s personal.

Now, look at it from MY perspective as an editor of 13 years and many edits. I don’t want to be here, dealing with this! I woke up this AM only to find that part of one of my own comments on a TALK page had been actually been redacted today by Jytdog, on grounds that you can’t add anything to your own comments on a TALK page after they’ve been answered, and that I’d violated WP:REDACT and this was WP 101 stuff [26] Then (alas), he realized my comment edit was to Doc James and was FOUR MINUTES after my earlier one, and Doc James hadn’t answered (still hasn’t) and that it was fine per WP:REDACT. Rather, what Jytdog had done was a bad violation of the first line of WP:TALKO. So he had to undo it all, but couldn’t fix the edit summary. Gee, what is WP 101? I can’t say, but I can suggest somebody who has had WAY too much coffee. At best.

So my defense? I made a good solid bold edit on the Familial amyloid polyneuropathy article. It’s info on an excellent clinical trial that comes right out of the New England Journal sitting on my desk along with my white coat and stethoscope. I agree with much of WP:MEDRS, but not all of it, but I’ve won my spurs and the right to use them. Jytdog has a problem that I don’t kowtow to it, but why should I? I do medical epistemology for a living. The only thing that was possibly wrong with my edit, actually, per WP:MEDRS is that a still-unapproved drug could have reasonably been split out into a separate “experimental treatment” section. But no matter, since all of this has since been reverted and totally removed by a Jytdog acolyte [27] so you’ll all have to live with that. The FDA will soon approve the drug (for serious and rare diseases, their standards actually don’t come up to WP:MEDRS) and you’ll have to add something like it back. I’m not going to. I’m done with this matter. I might come back to the subject to heckle you just a little, for the good of WP. Jytdog thinks I'm too righteous. No. Let us see if I am RIGHT. That's better. Place your bets, people. I edit under my own real name, so take personal responsibility for my predictions and actions. (How many of YOU do?)

So: my defense isn’t that I’m a subject matter expert (SME) although I do have 35 years of medical practice, FDA experience, drug patents in my name, and certainly am a SME (though one without COI; I have nothing to do with THIS drug). That doesn’t count on Wikipedia. My defense is that I broke no rules and was certainly doing nothing but altruistically improving WP. Something which the people here removing good information (in a very entrenched way) are not. Doc James has been silent. **Crickets**.

I suggest, in turn, that you block Jytdog for another good long stretch for having a general WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and history, per the (perhaps overlong) argument above. I want you to block him for not only having broken both spirit and letter of the law in the past, but also for generally being tendentious. Again he’s been here on AN3 now 85 times and will be here again, soon. I haven't. It’s up to you. SBHarris 04:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Cypresscross reported by User:Smalljim (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: (various)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ligand_Pharmaceuticals#NPOV_tag

Comments:

Editor has a clear COI regarding Emmanuel Lemelson who is involved in the breaking news (here) regarding Ligand Pharmaceuticals. As GreenC has suggested on the talk page, this set of reverts appears to be a panicky attempt to mitigate the problems facing Lemelson.  —SMALLJIM  19:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a totally baseless attack to justify blanking a tremendous amount of high quality work. The other editor involved in this disagreement has already conceded on the Talk page that the new content needs to be added. In the process, that editor made just as many reverts. At no time was 3RR violated, as each revert involved different sections and content. See talk page discussion here. Cypresscross (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cypresscross: 3RR is for three reverts cumulative in a 24-hour period on one article; I reviewed the page history and agree with the assertion that you have reverted the article five times in the last 24 hours. Further, this appears to be a content dispute, so there are no exemptions to 3RR that you can claim. Would you care to self-revert—undo your own most recent set of changes—and then discuss the matter on the talk page to avoid a block? —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred Thanks for clarifying, I thought 3RR referred only to the same edit, otherwise I wouldn't have done it. However, this is not a content dispute, as myself and the other editor involved (meatsgains) both agree on the content. The only dispute here is that smalljim is making a COI accusation and has also not raised any issues with the content. Can you chime in on this issue first - thanks. If I violated a policy, I will self revert with your guidance. Thanks. Cypresscross (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Note that editor was given a templated 3RR notice here (April 2017) and indicated an understanding of it. (Section since deleted).  —SMALLJIM  20:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cypresscross: If the issue were just COI, he would've just asked you directly about your connection. The fact that he reverted the text indicates that he objects to the text and that the objection is at least in part due to conflict-of-interest concerns. (I don't want to put words in his mouth, but my read is that he fears the article is being whitewashed, and he reverted to a version that is written from neutral point of view.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

And the self-revert would be to roll the article back to this version from before your last revert and edits. If you'd like technical assistance in doing that, I can assist. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

JesseRafe reported by User:Bunchesofoats (Result: )

Page: Julia Salazar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JesseRafe (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. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] [[34]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:
This contributor is attempting to suppress relevant, well-sourced details about an event that reflects negatively on the article's subject, presumably because the contributor is sympathetic to the subject's politics. This user has also been unproductive on the talk page, repeatedly accusing dissenting editors of bias and returning to the article page to revert their edits. Bunchesofoats (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This is egregious gaslighting. Note, that the above user only ever came to either the article talk page or my own after filing this report, yet still posted the diffs as if it were part of an ongoing attempt to reach out to me, whereas they were the one ignoring BRD protocol. I have been very forthcoming and even-handed on the talk page and in the article itself, providing dozens of sources (where other editors continued to insist none exist), but to say I've added only positive information (as they did on the talk page) is false on its face, as is the claim that I openly accuse all others of bias. If any administrative action should come of this, there should be a CU on this "new" SPA editor who came out of nowhere very well versed on WP policies to make dozens of edits on a controversial topic. I haven't opened an SPI because I don't know who it could be, but I have a few guesses. The suggestions I am a "partisan" editor with an endgoal are hilariously flat on their face, as many of my thousands of edits are on political topics, I've started articles on numerous politicians and state and local offices, all of which are neutral. Due to the success of Ocasio-Cortez it would seem another superficially similar candidate has caught a maelstrom of right-of-center discontent, and Wikipedia is no exception. In fact, out of every editor involved on the JS page, I'm the only one whose name I recognize on the New York State Senate edit history page. I think I've edited or updated the page of at least half the sitting Senators and Assembly people, and more so for the NYC Council, I bring this up as example that I am the furthest thing from a partisan editor on this topic, but of all those involved with the track record for stewardship of just this kind of article, rather than political zeal. My edits were all neutral and per the source, and respective of BLP and all its attendant policies, as well as due weight and balance. JesseRafe (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, rich that this user's "only" other editing impact is to be involved in another edit war at a politican's page, per Lee Zeldin edit history, seems like the behavior of an alt account deliberately trying to goad others into making mistakes such as tripping 3RR, which it looks like I did, out of WP:SOURGRAPES over not getting their way in the direction of the article as their main account. JesseRafe (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The type of problematic personal attacks demonstrated above are exactly what led me to report. This user has repeatedly made them on the talk page and in edit summaries while disregarding the 3RR, and it has made reaching consensus next to impossible. Bunchesofoats (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• @JesseRafe: do you think a 1RR restriction would make things better or worse on the article? Swarm ♠ 05:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Please note this edit by a new account named Bunchesofoats1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in which the comments by JesseRafe above were removed from this discussion with the summary "Meaning less explanation". I restored the comments. Unknown if this account and the OP are related. General Ization ^Talk 07:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)