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:FrankensteinsDad reported by User:Sariel Xilo (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Greg Rucka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC) "Stop vandalising the site. I have supplied more than ten references. You are the one engaging in an editing war."
2. 17:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC) "added sources as requested"
3. 18:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC) "The New York Post is the country's longest running newspaper. You can't disparage it just because you personally disagree with its policies. If you doubt the accuracy of the story, just ask Mr. Rucka and he will confirm it.Undid revision 1097809057 by Sariel Xilo (talk)"
4. 23:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC) "ok I removed the Sun as a reference at your request. But there are still ten other references that are reliable. Hopefully this will resolve the issue"
5. 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC) "adding more reference sources as requested including sites showing photographic evidence of the arrests"
6. 22:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC) "Please stop deleting accurate sourced information or I will report you for vandalism. Obviously you have a personal connection to Greg Rucka. Stop censoring proven facts!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC) "/* July 2022 */ Please do not WP:EDITWAR; your source is the WP:NYPOST and not the NYT"
2. 22:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Greg Rucka."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC) on User talk:FrankensteinsDad "/* July 2022 */ Please do not WP:EDITWAR; your source is the WP:NYPOST and not the NYT"
2. 20:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Son's arrest */ new section"

Comments:

The user has been adding content to both Greg Rucka & Jen Van Meter about their son. The user reverted an IP account which removed the content on July 12 which I reverted. The user then reverted me on July 16 & has continued to revert my removals of the content within the last 24 hours. The original source was the New York Post & the user has refused to accept multiple explanations of why that is an unreliable source. The latest attempt at restoring this information now cites deprecated sources such as Daily Mail and The Sun along with some blogs. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I've supplied a total of 11 different references to support the statement I added to the article. Sariel is now telling me that any of the references I supply are invalid. How is that possible!? Some sources actually show photographs of the individual's mug shot at the time of his arrest. I just listed a simple statement of fact to the article which pertains to the man's personal life and should be a part of the article. The man was arrested for rioting....period! I deleted the NY Post and the Sun as sources as she requested, and replaced them with at least 9 other source references. Why is this person erasing all of my contributions? I'm the one supplying multiple reference sources, she is just deleting stuff randomly. I suspect this person has an intimate personal connection to the subject of the article. Please investigate the connection? Thank you for your aid in this matter. FrankensteinsDad (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no connection to Rucka or Van Meter; their son isn't a notable person so I've removed this content due to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE & WP:BLPREMOVE. Two other editors removed the content after me and the user has reverted that. I've updated the above list. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Added a link above to a discussion another editor started on the content; I've replied there as well. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User is continuing to revert other editors on the page. Added link above. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

This Sariel person is obviously involved personally with the subjecrt of this article. She sees that I am exposing her relationship to this person so she is asking other editors to get involved to obfuscate her own connection to Greg Rucka. These other people are just getting involved now to do her a favor, to help prevent her from getting in trouble for vandalism. What she is doing is pure censorship, acting as a protector for Greg Rucka's page. I'm providing multiple references for every sentence I submit, while she is just randomly erasing my submissions REGARDLESS of the fact that I've provided at least 8 reference sources! Please investigate her connection to Greg Rucka and you will see that she is protecting his page from unwanted information, true or not. That's called censorship! FrankensteinsDad (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that his son travelled 3,000 miles to riot and vandalise stores in NYC to the point where the police had to arrest him is a very interesting fact pertaining to Greg Rucka's life story, in that it shows what kind of children he has raised! The whole point of the Rucka article is to tell Greg Rucka's story.....his work, his early life, the article even mentions his wife and kids. But curiously nothing at all is mentioned about this BIZARRE criminal act on the part of his son, even though the incident was surely a life-changing event for the entire Rucka family. Why is that? I thought a wiki article is supposed to feature the ENTIRE STORY about a subject, and not be censored and cleansed of any and all derogatory facts and events. This woman is trying to sanitize the article for Greg Rucka, who is undoubtedly a close friend or relative of hers. Otherwise she wouldn't get so involved. FrankensteinsDad (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours FD has been editing against consensus and policy (see WP:NYPOST) and failed to assume good faith by accusing Sariel of having a connection to the article subject simply because of their reverts. This all adds up to tendentious editing that rates the timeout. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

User:BMA-Nation2020 reported by User:Indagate (Result: Blocked 48h)

Page: List of Illumination productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BMA-Nation2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Illumination_productions&oldid=1098678988

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1099021536]
2. [1099052468]
3. [1099054992]
4. [1099056466]
5. [1099063843]
6. [1099064838]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABMA-Nation2020&type=revision&diff=1099057278&oldid=1098703408

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_Illumination_productions#Table

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User_talk:BMA-Nation2020#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Comments:

Involved editor here; I request anyone reviewing this to also look at BMA-Nation2020's edit summaries - pretty aggressive and demonstrating clear OWNership of the article, most notably the recent i'm not gonna leave it like that! I want it like this.. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I thought that by some of what they said in talk page discussion, "it stays like it is", "it is final", and "no. we're keeping it like that and that's final. no more changes to it". Thanks, Indagate (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

i give up. you people won't listen and i put it back the way it was. you guys wouldn't live it alone and i was only trying to make it different than the others. i don't wanna be blocked or anything. Just want things to leave it as it be. not to make things worry for myself. :( BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion, we're all trying to make it best it can be, encyclopedic articles shouldn't be different to each other just because. Self-revert at end is good but you made a further five reverts after I made this report. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Ad Orientem Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Note to blocking admin Ad Orientem, one of BMA-Nation2020's first edits after block was restoring their edit to List of Illumination productions, not the previous status quo or version from discussion but version they preferred, they didn't rejoin discussion either. [1]. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Warned user. If this continues drop me a line and I will indef them. This is getting old. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Indagate (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Gweilo60 reported by User:NoGhost (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Jiujiang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gweilo60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:
Apologies if this is not the correct forum for reporting. User @Gweilo60: has been continually reverting edits on the article Jiujiang for the last few weeks to include a photo that they have taken that is not representative of the article's subject. I have tried discussing with the user first in the edit summaries [8], then on the user's talk page [9], before it subsequently moved to my talk page [10]. I have tried suggesting upwards of five alternative and more representative photos [11] from the Commons category for Jiujiang [12] but the user has suggested numerous times that all other photos (that he hasn't taken) are fake ([13]), not genuine, or should be removed ([14]). It seems very trivial, but I'm not sure what other options are present to prevent Gweilo60 from continually reverting to their own photo. Thank you for any assistance or suggestions. -NoGhost (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Amaury reported by User:Xselant (Result: No violation; Xselant blocked one week)

Page: Maya Hawke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Amaury (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=Maya_Hawke&oldid=1099227936
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Hawke&oldid=1096738724
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Hawke&oldid=1096738490
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Hawke&oldid=1096738237

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amaury&action=history

Comments:The user has been undoing any productive, well-sourced edits on Maya Hawke without good reason while accusing anyone that disagrees with them as "edit-warring". They have been doing this for 2 weeks now on the same page.

• No violation EvergreenFir (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This report is clearly in retaliation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive455#User:Xselant reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked 24 hours) and should not have much attention paid to it. However, they were literally blocked for this the other day and still decided to reinsert the exact same content that got them blocked. I am leaving the page alone, but this is clearly a problematic user who has no intention of changing their problematic behavior. Also, I have this page on my watchlist, so it doesn't really matter for me personally, but where was my required notice that this report was filed? Amaury • 17:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Xselant for one week for renewing the same edit war for which they were recently blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 merci! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

User:‎2a04:4a43:4d8f:d668:8869:67b9:f292:f84b reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: /64 blocked for a week)

Page: Khamzat Chimaev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a04:4a43:4d8f:d668:8869:67b9:f292:f84b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16] Restores MOS:CONTEXTBIO breaching edit after being reverted.
2. [17] Restores low quality source adding personal details about the individuals religion, violating WP:BLP.
3. [18] Once again restored the same low quality BLP material, at this point I had reached three reverts so did not revert.
4. [19] Breaks the three revert rule.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21] Asking to use talk page included in notice.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

Comments:

User edit warring on a BLP article to include ″Chechen-born″ breaching the manual of style cited in my reverts, and also edit warring to include personal details regarding religion citing a questionable source not fit for a BLP. I stopped reverting because it was clear the user is just going to continue brute forcing their edits, which they did after being reverted by another editor, violating the 3RR. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of a week The entire /64 range. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

User:GregKaye reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked, along with Gtoffoletto, for 24 hours)

Page: Depp v. Heard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Depp's reaction */ replacing selective vandalising removal of content by User:Gtoffoletto removing Depp's Instagram post but not Heard's"
2. 21:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099266921 by Gtoffoletto (talk) There is consensus based on resolved discussion and WP:5P WP:BALANCE Soapbox? It's not that there's Self-promotion or advertising. There's just a guy whose service has been criticised who is presenting his personal understandings of his situation."
3. 21:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099261399 by Gtoffoletto (talk) Consensus was reached. NPOV is pillar policy and WP:BALANCE IS in favour of inclusion. Juror involvements were criticised and the juror HAS a right to reply. Primary sources are relevant in making direct representation of the sources. Mandy does not apply as the statements are viewed context of other article content."
4. 20:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099257049 by Gtoffoletto (talk) The consensus based on policy has already been made. again, please see WP:BRD. You're pushing change on established text and, even on "votes", you're behind."
5. 20:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099251362 by Gtoffoletto (talk) No, consensus on inclusion was clear as per: [[23]]. people have a right to reply and notable and noted replies are valid. The judge utterly supported the juror. Mandy does not apply. All issues are presented and readers can interpret free of mos:instruct"
6. 19:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Potential effect on the jury */ User:Gtoffoletto please see WP:BRD. No, it's a sub-section to #Reactions relating to a juror who reacted in relation to a range of issues."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [24]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Depp v. Heard "/* Social Media */ new section"

Comments: The "opposing party" is citing BLP as the reason for removal, for example [25]. I haven't validated if the BLP concerns are sufficient for them to avoid a reciprocal block. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Reply Thank you for considering the current situation. There had been clear policy based consensus for inclusion of material on the juror comments as agreed at Talk:Depp v. Heard/Archive 3#Juror's statement. The juror's themselves are WP:BLP. The article presents several criticisms of jurors which Gtoffoletto presented in a section 3 Reactions, 3.1 Social media coverage 3.1.2 Effect on the jury and, despite consensus based on, WP:BALANCE, Gtoffoletto is leave criticisms of jury integrity without inclusion of comment directly from a jury member. Other articles on trials include sections on jury comment and there's no reason why Depp v. Heard should be different. Against consensus removing of content Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GregKaye 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. "Enforcing consensus" isn't an exemption from WP:3RR, but the link you provided shows nothing like consensus. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

On the Depp v. Heard talk page editors have been highlighting infringements of WP:BRD which I personally followed. I was then faced with the current situation where, despite reverts, there was no return to discussion and I carried on.

As another evidence of editor support, after reviving the Juror content, another editor added to it.[26] GregKaye 20:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Following BRD" (an essay and optional method of editing) is not an exemption from 3RR, either. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Which leaves a situation where an editor can just persist in pushing for a change (even from a situation that others have supported) and get their way. GregKaye 20:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Several acceptable recourses are available to you as listed at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Edit warring is not one of them. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That's helpful. I'd suggest that those resources might also be adopted by editors making changes away from variously supported content. GregKaye 20:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, but Gtoffoletto is clearly in the wrong in this instance. Despite Gtoffoletto admitting in one of their edit summaries that they knew talk page consensus was not in their favor, Gtoffoletto continued to edit war: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. If anything, GregKaye was the user editing to maintain the WP:STATUSQUO. Just 2 hours before this report was created, Gtoffoletto said here that "challenging" the consensus at the talk page would be "very very easy", a clear indication that they were aware there was an active talk page discussion for them to contribute. Instead, Gtoffoletto edit warred. If an editor wants to add contentious nonsense to an article about jurors breaking the law, it is the responsibility of the editor seeking to add said content to find consensus before addition, especially when it comes to WP:BLPs. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, along with Gtoffoletto. There was no reason for this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Aleenf1 reported by User:Fma12 (Result: )

Page: Women's FIH Hockey World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Men's FIH Hockey World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32], [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments: I tried to persuade user Aleenf1 to stop his disruptive edits, with no success. His only explanations to revert my editions were "MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE and MOS:NOICONS (on the articles summary)," which are incorrect, so in the case of MOS:flags, there is no problem to show flags on lists/tables and they are discouraged on infoboxes (this is not the case). About MOS:icons, they are not allowed in prose format (this isn't the case, either). He also refused to solve this dispute on the talk page. Fma12 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Fma12 is breaking the MOS:FLAGS, where "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality", it doesn't look like he/she get it. Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. He/she clearly breaking the manual of style without any consensus. --Aleenf1 00:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all: I'm "he". Second, according to MOS, flags are suggested to be allowed on infoboxes (and this is about a table). With his reversions, the user not only supressed flags but other paramethers and data added to tables (p.e.: sortable option, number of editions of the tournaments, further notes on template:refn). Furthermore, similar sports articles featuring list of winning teams (p.e. UEFA European Championship, or Copa América) show the respective host countries/cities with their flagicons. Fma12 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking other example doesn't reflect that it follow the Manual of Style, and also doesn't reflect that consensus are done by it. --Aleenf1 00:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind you taking other example from football, field hockey host is awarded to to a city and not represent a country. Therefore is clearly a MOS breaking. --Aleenf1 01:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hockey is not an isolated item, this format can be also found on rugby union competitions (such as Rugby World Cups), where flags are used. Or can be omitted if a consensus is reached, I don't have a problem with that. But when you reverted the edits you also erased other significative changes, not only the flags. And that's because you were reported. Instead of trying to be reasonable and search a consensus, you preferred to revert all the changes, giving vague summaries such as "mos" without being specific. Just like you're being now. Fma12 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Your contradiction and lack of valid reasons are proved on this last reversion, where you put "MOS:NOICONS" as the edit summary , a totally wrong statement as long as it refers to "Do not use icons in general article prose" (and a table does not have any 'prose' clearly). Fma12 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Is your own opinion, WORDPRECEDENCE still making priority. --Aleenf1 01:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Until now, all the MOS you cited as in an attempt to justify your disruptive reversions (flags, noicons, and wordprecedence) do not apply to the changes I made, for the reasons explained above. On the contrary, if you disagree with the use of flags, you could have erased them from the table instead of reverting all the changes made, which were more than a simple flag addition. And I'm not giving an opinion, I'm talking about facts. – Fma12 (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the facts of breaking MOS, stop your claim of disruptive. You come with your "facts" to rescue your editing. I stop of putting any further comments here. --Aleenf1 15:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not break any MOS and gave enough evidence of that, while you only came here with falacious statements. In fact, I reported you because of your repetitive reversions with no desire of consensus. Once this dispute is solved, I will restore the paramethers you arbitrarily erased. Fma12 (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:84.250.14.116 reported by User:Yae4 (Result: )

Page: GrapheneOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 84.250.14.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "/* History */ Add origo source back, because its absence caused confusion"
2. 22:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "Remove Template:POV and Template:Multiple issues: Nobody has brought it up to WP:NPOVN and it's not apparent (to me) what is being disputed as non-neutral"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC) to 21:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
   1. 21:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "Restore revision 1099239087: Remove original research / undue weight"
   2. 21:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "+formerly Android Hardening project (origo.hu, pro-linux.de, golem.de sources)"

Tool results are above. My notes follow:

1. Removal of footnotes[39]
2. Re-including mention of "Android Hardening" PLUS adding it to the lead[40]
3. Removed article issue template[41]. Note: NPOV and cherry-picking discussions abound on Talk:GrapheneOS and there is little sign of consensus.
4. Expanded usage of origo.hu source.[42]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Warning/Awareness of 3RR[43]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "/* GitHub (or Gitlab) as sources at Wikipedia */ Comment on search, and Footnotes have been added"

Comments:

Origo.hu source was previously removed as poor unreliable source.[44]

Warning/Awareness of 3RR[45]

Note: Tagging or templating established wording in the Infobox[46]

Note: Lack of responsive discussion of merits of the Origo.hu source, and focus on editor behavior here.[47]

Aside note: Removed footnotes were re-added as a new section[48] with ridiculous "original research" tags and then a template[49], and then another.[50] Yae4 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment. I am glad to see 84.x now using "reliability" of sources as a criterion. "Notability" of sources had been their primary criterion in previous discussions. Another important policy guideline is: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." (from WP:CONS). I have done my best to follow WP:TALKDONTREVERT, etc., although it was easy to fall into 3RR when "collaborating" with a series of SPA's and meat and sock puppets who don't seem to know or care about wikipedia guidelines. I'm no expert, but I do attempt to present my positions, and consider others', in terms of consistency with guidelines. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I will refrain from further edits, but note ongoing edit warring by SPA EndariV and promotional edits by sleeper Seb3thehacker. This follows a pattern, if you get what I mean. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment. See 84.x refusal to discuss merits: "I'm done with you." Special:Diff/1099617760

You'll have to talk this with someone else, my patience ran short a long ago. I had reverted it the same minute because it was not meant to cause distress. I said a long ago I'm disengaging debates with you. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Improper ANEW, no evidence of a 3RR violation. I've enforced editor consensus from the talk page and acted in good faith in general. I was about to slap you with {{Uw-disruptive3}} for your initiation to add disputed/contentious statements about "open-source" to the article for the fifth time, despite several (3-4) other editors disagreeing with you, but did assume good faith.

Restore revision 1099239087: Remove original research / undue weight: Your edit was incorporated assuming good faith with Special:Diff/1099460465 before you opened this ANEW, on the basis that consensus exists about "open-source"ness, but the consensus may have been unclear before being reverted; the consensus should not be unclear to me anymore, because @EndariV: reverted Yae4's edits again: Special:Diff/1099481390. Nothing to do here.

The diffs you have shown are 1 edit / revert. I have not been a participant to the "attempt to resolve" on talk, nor shown awareness to it.

ANEW is not a place for resolving content disputes (or to attempt to get deprecate editors who disagree with you); see WP:DR. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There is also no warning/awareness of 3RR demonstrated. The 3RR "awareness" linked here is to a different topic, where User:Yae4 was the violator of 3RR. I had reverted Yae4 once in that former scenario, Yae4 reverted back (violated 3RR) and got partial blocked for a week. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

15 December 2019: GrapheneOS AfC cleanup date. The source model is described as "free and open source", "free" and "open source". On 24 December 2021, 47.198.1.28 (single-purpose account) changed the status to "mostly free and open-source". No references were added, modified or removed, nor was the statement clarified (unsourced). On 16 January 2022, User:TiltedLeft2 (single-purpose account) reverts 47.198.1.28 and restores the status to "free and open-source" with no mention of "proprietary components", requesting a source. On 17 January 2022, User:Yae4 reverts User:TiltedLeft2 (now "mostly free and open-source" and "open source with proprietary components"), explaining with an edit summary "Similar has been added to most Android OS articles". On 18 June 2022, 125.235.133.212 (single-purpose account) makes a claim in edit summary GrapheneOS is no longer open source, referring in edit summary to OSI definition and AOSP Alliance issue. They removed definitions of "free software" and "open source" from the article, replacing it with "source available". On 19 June 2022, User:Yae4 reverted 125.235.133.212 for original research. On 21 June 2022, User:Yae4 claims "partly free and open-source" and adds three GitHub sources. On 22 June 2022, User:Resonantia (anonymous proxy user according to WP:SPI) reverts User:Yae4's claims of "partly free and open-source" for original research, removes Yae4's GitHub sources. Edit warring follows. On 22 June 2022, I (84.250.14.116) start contributing to the GrapheneOS article at a coincidental time, disagree the statement's match to sources, and revert User:Yae4's "partly open-source" claims and GitHub sources. On 22 June 2022, User:Yae4 changes the status from "partly free and open-source" to "partly open-source". On 24 June 2022, User:Resonantia (anonymous proxy user according to WP:SPI) tags the GitHub sources from User:Yae4 as user-generated and disputed. On 3 July 2022, User:EndariV (single-purpose account) joins to edit the GrapheneOS article. They remove Yae4's GitHub sources as "highly editorialized interpretation/analysis based on a primary, not notable source". On 3 July 2022, User:Yae4 reintroduces the GitHub sources under a section named "Licensing history". On 3 July 2022, User:Jann ruhe (single-purpose account) removed User:Yae4's GitHub sources yet again, edit summary GrapheneOS lead developer making a claim in a GitHub issue and citing it here does not count as "Licensing history." On 4 July 2022, 142. IP tells on article talk page what's wrong with User:Yae4's edits in repeated detail. On 6 July 2022, User:Yae4 adds "Disputed" tagging to reliably sourced statements about "open-source". On 6 July 2022, I (84.250.14.116) revert User:Yae4 for disruptive editing (I'm removing the "disputed" tags). On 19 July 2022, User:Yae4 reintroduces GitHub sources as footnotes. On 20 July 2022, I (84.250.14.116) revert User:Yae4's GitHub sources as original unresearch and giving undue weight to opinions of one party of a dispute. On 20 July 2022, I (84.250.14.116) self-revert and allow User:Yae4's edits to go into a section for a few days, pending more consensus. On 21 July 2022, User:EndariV reverts the section I added, effectively reverting User:Yae4's edits today again. On 21 July 2022, User:Yae4 adds GitHub sources back as 84.250.14.116 did (reverts User:EndariV). On 21 July 2022, User:EndariV reverts User:Yae4 again with reason: There is still no clear consensus on the relevance of this with the main article. This does not mean it gets to stay just because there's a lack of consensus.. Other signs of bad faith behavior to account for AN/I: On 22 June 2022, User:Yae4 suspects me of sock puppetry. On 22 June 2022, User:Yae4 requests semi-protection of GrapheneOS article, in response to my good faith edits and revert of User:Yae4. On 23 June 2022, User:Yae4 is partially blocked for violation WP:3RR at the GrapheneOS article, no page protection applied. On 29 June 2022, User:Yae4 makes an SPI case about four accounts editing the article, including me. Three accounts are found unrelated, one account is banned as a twin puppet, three remain unbanned. On 4 July 2022, User:Yae4 opens AN/I cases against disagreeing editors 142. and 84.250.14.116. No administrative action was taken. I (84.250.14.116) warned User:Yae4 for continuing to add GitHub sources, after seeing new editors disagreed for various reasons. On 4 July 2022, User:Yae4 makes claims me (84.250.14.116) to be wikihounding User:Yae4. No administrative action was taken against me. On 14 July 2022 (17:26), User:RoySmith tells User:Yae4 that they don't see personal attacks at Talk:GrapheneOS. On 14 July 2022 (21:28), User:Yae4 hides 142. and my messages from Talk:GrapheneOS anyway, calling 142's messages as "editor attacks". On 20 July 2022, User:Yae4 opens this ANEW case against me for "edit warring" in this subject. I hope that the admins can see with this better which editors may be edit warring or actively engaging in disruptive editing, if any. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC); amended 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC) By the way, just a note, 142. is suspected to have undisclosed connections. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC) References

User:Bbb23 has removed a timeline of edit warring from here. Special:Diff/1099569822 84.250.14.116 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I've re-added it but within a collapse box. I don't believe it was right to remove that. — Czello 20:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: No violation)

Page: Lion Capital of Ashoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Systematic reverting to own preferred version, this version evolving with time

Diffs of the user's reverts:
in less than 24 hours:

1. 21 July, 13:30 [51] Edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by पाटलिपुत्र (talk): I am working; I did not interfere when you made your edits, not for two years when you were adding undue edits; please show some respect"
2. 21 July, 10:07 [52] Edit summary: "Restored revision 1099429737 by Fowler&fowler (talk): Forget it. it is not going to happen. serial abuse of WP:UNDUE is not what this page is about; take it to the talk page"
3. 20 July, 17:57 [53] Edit summary: "Restored revision 1099420959 by Fowler&fowler (talk): Take it to the talk page. It i sentirely UNDUE., unmentioned by the majority of modern descriptions"
4. 20 July,17:51 [54] Edit summary: "the number of spokes is undue, unmentioned by the majority of modern descriptions" (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)
5. 20 July,17:44 [55] Edit summary: "undue" (Reverting the contributions of anonymous user 120.57.187.243)
6. 20 July, 17:43 [56] Edit summary: "this is not a place to dicker with your obsessions Most scholars do not mention 32 at all." (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)
7. 20 July, 17:42 [57] Edit summary: "this is not a disquisition about dharmachakras having spokes that are in multiples of 8" (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)
8. 20 July, 17:40 [58] Edit summary: "as usual dicker about undue things. that is not asher's point" (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: edit summary: "please respect the 3RR rule". Fowler&fowler refuses to receive messages from me on his Talk Page: [59] ("Buzz off. Don't ever ever post on this talk page again. Complain elsewhere. I hope this is clearly understood. Never again.")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Fowler&fowler refuses to receive messages from me [61]: ("Buzz off. Don't ever ever post on this talk page again. Complain elsewhere. I hope this is clearly understood. Never again."), so I would prefer not to notice him, but I am posting the notice as I think this is reglementary [62].

Comments:
Systematic reverts and unrelenting battleground mentality, major WP:OWN. Outrageous and abusive edit summaries. Irrational, mistaken arguments and major abusive language on the Talk Page of the article [63]. Fowler&fowler apparently thinks he is above Wikipedia rules and civility standards. Something has to be done. Fowler&fowler was already warned previously for similar behaviour [64], to no avail. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. It's a little difficult to take stock of the diffs provided - it would have been more convenient if they'd had dates as well as clock times, since three different days are involved - but AFAICS, there's no 3RR violation here. For example, User:पाटलिपुत्र, the diffs you have listed as no. 3 - 8 above were consecutive (as were various others), and consequently count as one edit for edit warring purposes. Please see the pink banner at WP:3RR. Bishonen | tålk 16:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I don't know how to make it clearer: from 1 to 8 above, you have 4 reverts + 1 set of consecutive reverts which counts as 1, so that counts as 5 reverts in 24 hours... The accounting is clear, but what is even more important is the systematic revert pattern and the verbal abuse. I added dates for your convenience. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ? No, from 1 to 8 above, you have 2 reverts (nos. 1 and 2) plus 1 set of 6 consecutive reverts which count as 1 (nos. 3 - 8). 2 + 6 = 8. So that counts as 3 reverts. Bishonen | tålk 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: 1, 2 and 3 are not consecutive (3 is certainly not consecutive, as it follows a contribution of mine), so that's already 3 reverts. I agree 4-8 may be consecutive, although they are reverting two different users. Even in this case, that's 4 reverts in all. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in, but I also see it as four reverts, if I just take one from each consecutive series, these four: [65], [66], [67], and [68]. That said, I don't think it was a particularly willful violation. Had to avoid work for a few minutes. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Rootone reported by User:Evackost (Result: Malformed)

Page: [[Sarah Edmondson,Allison Mack,Keith Raniere]] 
User being reported: User:Rootone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]
5. [74]
6. [75]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [77]

Comments: Rootone has repeatedly reverted edits that were marked as intended to fix WP:NPOV and WP:Assert issues on pages releated to NXIVM. Rootone demands all these pages simply assert NXIVM is a cult without any further explanation or attribution (even though there's simply no objectivity whatsoever to it). I've repeatedly tried to highlight the problems of this by showing that this approach isn't even allowed on much more well known "cults." The edits just get reverted back to Rootone's preference without discussion or attempts to come to consensus.

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Anonymous130112 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked)

Page: Saadi Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Anonymous130112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099582082 by M.Bitton (talk)"
2. 14:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099446255 by R Prazeres (talk)"
3. 20:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099445262 by R Prazeres (talk)"
4. 20:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "/* July 2022 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was previously blocked for the exact same kind of behaviour on the same article in March 2022. Their only response so far has been this, which suggests they have no intention of engaging in productive discussion. R Prazeres (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 4 days. This is a repeat of the March edit war, per the above note. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)