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:Mahato King reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Partial block, 48 hours)

Page: Kurmali language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
   3. 15:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade language */"
   4. 15:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
   5. 15:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   6. 15:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   7. 15:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Language variation */"
   8. 15:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
   3. 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   4. 15:69, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   5. 15:69, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Kurmali language."
2. 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kurmali language."
3. 15:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Kurmali language

Comments:

New user keeps removing sourced content without reaching a WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD despite multiple warning, comments and requests at talk page. Makes a comment that "Some people's who edit Wikipedia from outside India manipulate Kurmali writing with false information." here Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Broke 3RR [1], also removing hatnotes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Also note accusation here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

To demonstrate that the user is being disruptive, the sentence And bilingually spoken by Bhumij, Ho, Kharia, Lohara/Lohar, Mahli, Munda, Oraon, Santal, Savar and Bathudi communities which was removed by the user here is cited from a Indian Govt source [2] (page 410). And the hatnote "and Karmali language, a dialect of Santali language" abides by WP:HATNOTE since the spelling is similar. I've explained this in the article talk page as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

More accusations against me [3] [4] [5] even after I asked them to maintain WP:CIVIL here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring continues [6]. I wonder whether it is a case of WP:CIR, since the user still keeps on reverting sourced content instead of seeking a WP:CONSENSUS. Pinging Peaceray. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the 6th revert. Also note uncivil comments [7] "You support a crime Mr peaceray". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have just told the user very clearly that they must discuss at the talk page rather than revert.[8] I'm watching closely to see what their next action is. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours from the Kurmali language page only. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  @C.Fred, another account has started removing the same content from the same page (1, 2).... Kpddg ^(talk) 04:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  • This new user came up immediately. They are removing the same content [9] [10] [11]. Possible sock. Requesting page protection as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    I have requested protection. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    Page is now semi-protected. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    Both users blocked. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Watercheetah99 reported by User:Amaekuma (Result: No action)

Page: Peter Obi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Watercheetah99 (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. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Watercheetah99#Hello

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:

As I noted on my talk page and in edit summaries, the other user has been removing sourced content and adding falsehoods in an attempt to promote a politician. These edits fall well within grounds to maintain neutrality and avoid bias. I noted three falsehoods on my talk page:

• "However this was proven to be wrong as Obi on an interview with Arise TV, stated that he resigned from all his companies before taking the office of Governor of Anambra State." - This has no proof, it's a denial.
• "The investigation by the EFCC didn't yield any incriminating evidence and all charges were dropped." - This is just a lie, the EFCC have never released a statement clearing him nor did they file charges in the first place.
• "Although no law was technically broken by Obi regarding the Pandora papers leaks" - This is also false. First, Obi remained as a company director for over a year while being governor (against the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act); second, Obi did not declare his offshore companies when he became governor (against the Constitution); and lastly, he maintained foreign accounts while being governor (that is against both the Constitution and Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act). All of these were directly addressed in the source.

Let me make some things abundantly clear. Give me a minute of your time and read please

* First I need you to understand that the subject here isn't a government official presently, he is in the opposition. If you know anything about politics in Africa and other developing countries, you will know that the incumbent government go to any length to silence the opposition. With that said, I hope you get the context with which I'm writing this below

* Premium Times newspaper (the media house who brought out the article) isn't a court nor is it official anti-corruption body of Nigeria. So their investigation is neither conclusive nor damning. The official anti-corruption body of Nigeria, the EFCC called the subject in for questioning, investigated him and dismissed the case. If there was something on him, he'll be in jail today but was never been charged to court on the matter. So neither the article above nor the wikipedia editor above can't be police, judge and executioner.

* Wikipedia is built unbias and balance. There is always two sides to a story. Yes, His name was listed in Pandora papers. Yes, a damning article came out about the matter. But there rebuttals from the subject. There were also rebuttals from other reputable media houses condemning the approach of Premium Times who brought out the first article. Is that article a court sentence? Why can't I append the articles of the subject defending his innocence? Why can't I append the articles where the approach of Premium Times was condemned? Why must premium times be allowed as citation and the others can't?

* In conclusion, I dare say if the subject was guilty in any way, they present government would have thrown him in jail by now. This is Africa, opposition gets squashed, blackmailed or neutralized and The subject is the main opposition running for the President of Nigeria. With all that said, tell that Wikipedian to stop interrupting and reverting my well sourced edits. Wikipedia is a community and everybody has a right to edit any article within his technical purview as long as it is backed with good citations. Amaekuma (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's address these:

• "the EFCC called the subject in for questioning, investigated him and dismissed the case." - Again, this is a lie. The EFCC have never released a statement dismissing the case.
• "Why can't I append the articles of the subject defending his innocence?" - The article already notes his denials, what you are trying to do is pretend like his denials are proof of innocence.
• "if the subject was guilty in any way, they present government would have thrown him in jail by now" - This is just laughable. Decades of politicians (in the ruling, main opposition, and/or minor parties) getting away with massive corruption with no issue and you claim that some tax evasion would have sent him to jail? Tinubu has hijacked the Lagos State funds for 20 years (mainly in opposition) and is free, Atiku was accused of corruption as a major opposition figure in the 2000s and never went to jail, Obiano was immediately arrested for corruption but is perfectly free, Ali Modu Sheriff literally started Boko Haram while in opposition and nothing happened to him; the law does not apply to these people for major offenses so why would it apply to Obi for a relatively minor one? Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What is laughable is that you think Wikipedia is the place to pass your judgement. You have no right to do this, and that isn't what Wikipedia is.

I say again, the anti corruption body has never charged him to court regarding the matter. I am not saying he was charged to court and judgement hasn't been passed. What I'm saying is that there isn't any case in court. Nothing. That is even the most crucial thing.

An article that has been rebuffed, picked apart and labelled a witch-hunt is what is being used on Wikipedia to tarnish a man's image. There is an availability of an opposing view online and the Wikipedian above won't let me post these links and citations. I took my time to read what Wikipedia is, and his behaviour goes against all the principles, pillars and ethics of Wikipedia. He is rude, seriously trying to push a narrative and unwilling to work with others. And more importantly, he violated the 3R rule in the process. Amaekuma (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• What judgement? What is written is the contents of the article nothing more or less. That is exactly what this site is for: information on subjects.
• "What I'm saying is that there isn't any case in court." - You cannot continue to lie about easily verifiable things, you continuously said Obi was "cleared" which isn't true. I've added that no case has been filed, you did not.
• Every piece on corruption is "labelled a witch-hunt" by the politician, we can't remove the section for that. As I've said, the article already notes Obi's denials, what you are trying to do is pretend like his denials are proof of innocence which they are not. You have let your support for Obi cloud logic.
• The sad part about this mess is that if you wanted to find a way to add info about Obi, there is a very easy and positive way to do that: write neutrally about his time as Governor. By almost all accounts, he seems to have done very well in education and healthcare (I noted that in the page's intro) so just find good sources and write about that. Every Nigerian politician has corruption allegations, not every politician has a genuinely good public record so stop trying to whitewash the scandal and write about his governance. I was gonna start on that next week but I'm sure you can find some articles on educational rankings and the amount of money in state coffers by 2014. Watercheetah99 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked Any edit warring that happened stopped happening two days ago. I wish you guys could have had the above discussion on the article talk page, but then it's also pretty obvious that neither of you is backing down. So, you need to bring in other people to get some consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Dentren reported by User:Bedivere (Result: Dentren blocked 48h; Bedivere warned)

Page: Izkia Siches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093751406 by Bedivere (talk)-discuss in talk before such massive removals"
2. 16:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093750576 by Bedivere (talk)-discuss in talk before such massive changes"
3. 16:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093623195 by Bedivere (talk)-refrain from making POV-pushs"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Izkia Siches."
2. 16:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Izkia Siches."
3. 16:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on El Líbero."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Disputed material */ Reply"

Comments:

User has been making POV-pushing edits in several Chile-related articles, including Gabriel Boric, inflation in Chile, and lately Izkia Siches and El Líbero. He started RFCs in the first two ones' talk pages, only to be told his actions were incorrect (POV-pushing). Since they are not listening first to advice, second to warnings, I suggest sanctioning them. This is not the first time they engage in such behaviour. Bedivere (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Bedivere is Diego Grez-Cañete, a user who is permanently banned from Wikipedia [18]. 2) Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete refuses to engage in constructive discussions on talk pages (see Gabriel Boric, inflation in Chile). Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete is strongly into left wing-politics by his own account (former member of Socialist Party of Chile and current supporter of Social Convergence), and is an open supporter of Gabriel Boric [19]. This is not the first time Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete engages in conflict of interest (see Diego Grez-Cañete old saga of warnings and bans). It would be of further interest to have Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete disclose all his current and past link to Chilean politics and political activism. Dentren | ^Talk 01:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You have absolutely no proof about that supposed sockpuppetry, for which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever. Now there's another problem here: this user is not assuming good faith, making totally groundless accusations and ultimately disregards politics, disrupting the project in order to prove a point. They should be definitely stopped. I am not reverting once again their edits, but an admin should call them out at last. Bedivere (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Both User:Dentren and User:Bedivere are edit-warring at Izkia Siches. I think page protection may be the best option, to encourage everyone to discuss on the talk page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Mx. Granger, agree this is what Bedivire-Diego Grez-Cañete should have done from the biggining instead of warriyng. Dentren | ^Talk 11:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop calling me like that. You have no proof at all and I consider that a personal attack. You should apologize. Bedivere (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Mx. Granger. Not to mention it should be restored to its stable version Bedivere (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Dentren for 48h for edit-warring and for the personal attacks here. Another reason for the block is that Dentren reverted yet again today, well after this report was filed. Bedivere, you too were edit-warring and are warned that any future reverts at the article will probably result in a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:86.30.52.72 reported by User:Wolfdog (Result: Blocks)

Page: Essex dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.30.52.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

Comments:
A user named Judeobasquelanguage was warned about edit warring on the relevant page. Scope creep, Czello, and I have been trying to maintain the page status quo ante. Then the anonymous user listed above appeared on the scene and continued the process of reverting. Possibly a case of block evasion? Canterbury Tail may concur / know more. The anonymous user has been the only one to take to the talk page, but when I responded, they responded in turn with off-the-rails ad hominem-style gibberish. Wolfdog (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)}}

This is Judeobaquelanguage's IP address, they've confirmed it in the past including on the IP talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

IP id blocked and Judeobasquelanguage has been indeffed for complete inability to operate in a collaborative environment without calling people racist just because they disagree with them. Canterbury Tail talk 21:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: No action)

Page: 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "rv editor whose account was created the same day"
2. 14:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "rv anon...sockpuppet?"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) to 13:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "have both viewpoints represented"
   2. 13:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "ABC source"
4. 02:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "RV as that editor's account was just created today"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User FobTown continues edit warring with other users in the page and also making accusations of being sockpuppets of mine towards other users without opening any sockpuppet investigations on these accounts. Even the reason for reverting is claiming they are sockpuppets In addition there are also threats like Your account was just created today so you will be under scrutiny. Read the following before you give your cookie-cutter arguments that are similar to those made by User:UtoD Considering that sockpuppet accusations in talk page and edit summaries pretty much drags me back into the dispute and using these accusations as reasons for revert/attacks rather than reporting them is WP:ASPERSIONS. I am putting this in the edit warring reports but also want to report the casting of aspersions. UtoD 18:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It is true that User:Simpleshooter99 created an account and went right to editing 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. Plus User:Simpleshooter99's first edit was similar to User:UtoD [25], and both use similar rhetoric on their edit summaries and article Talk page.[26] In addition, I was about to call out User contributions for 49.186.67.124 for being a potential sockpuppet, however User:Simpleshooter99 later admitted to forgetting to log back in.[27] Ending up User:Simpleshooter99 and I did have a discussion on the Talk page, with User:Thriley and User:Qiushufang being involved, and so far we seem to have come to a compromise. [28] FobTown (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked I see that there has been discussion on the article talk page, although it does not seem like it will end any time soon. If FobTown seriously believes that socks have been created, they should report them to SPI; otherwise, to simply refuse discussion on that basis is bad faith. Most edit warring has currently stopped and, frankly, the alleged socking seems like the bigger issue. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Xpenz reported by User:StellarNerd (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Tesla Autopilot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094108867 by StellarNerd (talk) Stop removing my edits unless you have a good explanation" (revert of [29])
2. 19:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "" (revert of [30])
3. 01:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "These reported crashes is after Musk made these comments. If you want to add them you need to rephrase it." (revert of [31])
4. 00:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093963018 by QRep2020 (talk) so has other automakers and AI companies, that does not make it relevant though." (revert of [32])

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tesla Autopilot."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Toyota */ new section"

Comments:

Instead of discussion on article talk, posted on their talk: ""Undoing another editor's work" did not happen, as long as you keep deleting my edits I'll keep re adding it. ". They have reverted four times in the past 24 hours, both me and User:QRep2020. They have potentially a fifth revert in this edit, but that's not a reversal of a very recent edits. All of the four edits listed above are reverts of editors in the last 24 hours. StellarNerd (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:HamHammm reported by User:M.Bitton (Result:Sock blocked)

Page: Ibn Battuta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Added multiple sources from multiple scholarly papers from various academic institutions, universities and various history websites in addition to further clarify the identity of this person, "Maghrebi" is a term that refers to overall geographical region of the Maghreb of just like Southern Europe/Southern European people or South East Asia/South East Asian, Wikipedia should be a source of accuracy please do no undo as it took me a lot of time to edit these sources with the correct format"
2. 19:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094102323 by M.Bitton (talk) I added one additional source, there was no sources in the first place next to Maghrebi, this term is vague and the entirety of the sources I added mention that he was indeed Moroccan, the term Maghrebi is not accurate enough as Maghreb is a vague geographical region that includes Algeria and Tunisia."
3. 19:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094100475 by M.Bitton (talk) Added an additional source from history.com, please stop removing sources and references and provide proof that clarify your stance otherwise this considered WP:VANDAL per Wikipedia rules and I'm gonna be forced to report you."
4. 19:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094099228 by M.Bitton (talk) Please do not remove sources and references next time you edit without a detailed explanation, all the sources added are from highly reputable platforms. If you have any reason (backed by sources of course) to believe that he was from other countries that form the "Maghreb" please provide them."
5. 18:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Added some more precise clarification, plus additional sources."
6. 17:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Early life section states that he was born in Morocco on 24 February 1304.."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ibn Battuta."
2. 19:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */ new section"
3. 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
4. 19:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */ new section"
2. 20:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"

Comments:

This "new" editor keeps replacing scholarly sources about the subject with whatever is mentioned in passing and edit warring against two editors. I left two comments on their talk page that they ignored. I then moved those comments to the article's talk page and pinged them (to no avail). They only started communicating after breaking 3R.

I reported them earlier and retracted the report once another editor got involved. After blanking their talk page, they are back to continue the edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, the claim that they forgot their old account's password doesn't hold much water. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Confirmed sock account has been blocked indef.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Ponyo: Many thanks. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:2603:8001:2902:64F4:589A:844B:7ACB:E018 reported by User:DanCherek (Result: Blocked)

Page: Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2603:8001:2902:64F4:589A:844B:7ACB:E018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 02:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC) "I didnt get it from https://web.archive.org/web/20111112140746/http://www.bos.co.la.ca.us/PDFs/RULES_of_the_Board_December_2008.pdf That Charter is no longer in use"
3. 01:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 23:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor is persistently readding copyright content to this draft, which has a history of revision deletion for the same reason. DanCherek (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. The IP editor persists in restoring copyright violations to the draft. The history shows many revision deletions by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:BilCat reported by User:Sportspop (Result: No action)

Page: Mil Mi-10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BilCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I must first point out that these past days, I was blocked temporarily for edit warring despite not breaching 3RR. I feel that the experience has helped me greatly to identify when edit warring and certainly breach of 3RR is the case.

User:BilCat has single-handedly (ie without consensus or support from other users) edit warred on Mil Mi-10 beginning with this edit on 19th June. Since then he has not left the article alone pretty much day and night. Just a short time ago, BilCat corssed a red line and violated 3RR.

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert and breach

It is my understanding that BilCat is well aware of 3RR and the rules on edit warring based on this edit. I must warn that where he breached 3RR his summary claimed "rvv" (I think reverting vandalism). If he believes that I committed vandalism when he is welcome to report me to the vandalism noticeboard but I was not doing anything of the nature. All I saw was wasted spaces that were not improving the article. I do not believe BilCat should escape sanctioning particularly after what I went through just a week ago. --Sportspop (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

PS. The reasons specified in BilCat's summaries (unsourced) are not covered by Wikipedia:3RRNO. Vandalism is, but his claim is false and nobody will agree with him that anything amounted to vandalism. --Sportspop (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't why know you restored an unsourced claim when you where clearly aware of the problem of the lack of a citation, which at the time seemed like vandalism to me. Are you in the habit of reverting legitimate reversions of unsourced claims? I didn't warn the user adding the content several times, and even told them repeatedly on my talk page they needed a reliable source. I didn't realize I had gone over 3RR tonight,but otherwise my edits and warnings were proper. Anyway, another user had supplied a reference, so we can all move on from here. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This claim isn't "proper" by any definition. Plus there's since been a fifth. You know the rules and you know when it is ok and not ok to revert. Especially with three different editors on the same day. --Sportspop (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Now the user has posted personal attacks on my talk page and in his edit summary, calling me arrogant, along with demands that I don't post on his talk page,and hoping that I get banned for my arrogance! Really? Ok. Well, I'm headed to sleep now, and I hope this can all be dealt with in my absence. The issue with the article has been addressed with a source, and all I did in my last edits was to add the source and fix a date. As I said, my breach of 3RR was unintentional, and I won't cross that line n the future. BilCat (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The above is a matter of opinion and does not exonerate four reverts, and a fifth which happened after he knew about the report. --Sportspop (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• No action. BilCat has acknowledged the edit-warring violation, and the article has apparently been fixed. Sportspop, this malformed report smacks of sour grapes because of your recent block for edit-warring. You are a new user, and you have not gotten off to a good start. I strongly recommend that you find more useful things to do than to hunt out edit-warring by other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Since this hasn't been archived, and User:Sportspop has requested that I not post on his talk page, I'll add this here. Sportspop, I was very tired last night, and should not have been editing because of this. I was frustrated because the other user kept making the same edit over and over, despite repeated warnings to add a reliable source. Instead of seeking page protection and/or starting a discussion on the article's talk page, I just kept reverting, hoping they'd get the message that a reliable source was required. When you reverted my revert, I got angry and took it out on you. I was wrong, and I take full responsibility for that. At that point I went offline, and then, stupidly, I returned about an hour later and found out you'd filed this report. Some of my comments above were also made in anger, and for that I apologize too. We've never interacted before, that I know of, but I do hope that if our paths cross again, we can have a civil interaction. I will not post on your talk page again, except for required notices such as informing you of ANI reports, etc. (Those are not optional.) @Bbb23: Thanks for not blocking me, and I promise to be much more careful of edit warring in the future. Finally, as it turns out, one version of the Mi-10, the Mi-10K, was apparently still in service as of 2014, and may still be in service somewhere! That's why we require reliable sources, and we just don't take someone's word for it. BilCat (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

BilCat.Thanks for explanation. As we got off to bad start that needn't have been as it was, I'll discard what I said about you not posting on my talk page and if you need to, you're welcome by me. I generally aim not to provoke warnings but don't always get things right myself. All the best! --Sportspop (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Alessiorom13 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Warned)

Page: MJ the Musical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alessiorom13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. April 29, 14:33 UTC. [34] Changed "mixed to negative reviews" to "mostly critical acclaim".
2. June 13, 12:39 UTC. [35] Changed "mixed to negative reviews" to "mixed reviews".
3. June 20, 17:29 UTC. [36] Changed "mixed to negative reviews" to "mixed reviews".
4. June 21, 16:44 UTC. [37] Changed "mixed to negative reviews" to "mixed reviews".
5. June 21, 18:42 UTC. [38] Changed "mixed to negative reviews" to "mixed reviews".
6. June 21, 21:05 UTC. [39] revert to restore awards entries

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]

Comments:
Alessiorom13 has been engaged in a non-neutral long-term edit war at the article MJ the Musical. Starting on April 30, talk page discussion among several editors has returned again and again to Alessiorom13's attempted whitewash of the article, by way of diminishing negative reviews and adding poorly sourced positive reviews. Alessiorom13 has not violated WP:3RR in the strict sense but has repeatedly violated WP:NPOV, persistently reverting attempted improvements by others. A few minutes after receiving my edit-warring notice, then countering with an edit-warring warning posted on my talk page,[43] Alessiorom13 turned around and restored their preferred version.[44] This shows they are aware of the consequences. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• A possible solution would be partial block from the page in question. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The same can be said about User:Binksternet who has been participating and started this so called "edit war". As you can see on the Talk:MJ the Musical. Consensus from various different users has been reached yet ignored by User:Binksternet on this very topic. Alessiorom13 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Alessiorom13 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:ZimZalaBim reported by User:Avica1998 (Result: Both warned)

Page: YouTuber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZimZalaBim (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=YouTuber&oldid=1094310556}
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

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

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

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

Comments: User ZimZalaBim refuses to allow edits to the following text, engaging in reversions and threats:

A YouTube personality and/or influencer, more commonly known as a YouTuber, is an individual who produces videos on the video-sharing platform YouTube,[1] specifically whose main or only platforms are one or multiple YouTube channels, personalized subpages of the platform.

The source cited (#2) simply defines “YouTuber” as “video bloggers (vloggers) who regularly post videos on their personal YouTube channels“ , makes no mention of the “main or only [YouTube] platforms” qualifier and relies on a source from 2009 for its citation.

ZimZalaBim rejects the following modification:

A YouTube personality and/or influencer, more commonly known as a YouTuber, is an individual who produces videos on the video-sharing platform YouTube. While the term originally applied to those whose main or only platforms were one or multiple YouTube channels or personalized subpages of the platform, it has since expanded to include those who also utilize similar video platforming services that compete against YouTube…

ZimZalaBim rejects the following sources as “unreliable:” based upon the inclusion of the first:

ZimZalaBim argues that the three sources above do not use the word “YouTuber” and thus are not relevant. The undersigned argues the following:

The source used to justify the qualification “specifically whose main or only platforms are one or multiple YouTube channels, personalized subpages of the platform” says no such thing and is a whole-cloth invention of the original author who wrote it

Any inference of the authenticity of the above qualifier would be based solely upon the state of the video-blogging market as it existed in 2009, not 2022.

That the three proposed sources do not use the term “YouTuber” is irrelevant to the proposed changes, as qualifier as is not supported by any source and is an invention of the author (and premised upon 2009 market conditions, no less).

That ZimZalaBim is displaying an emotional attachment to the concept of “YouTuber” consistent with his qualifier (or the qualifier of the original author of the text) not supported by any source and based upon 2009 market conditions

That ZimZalaBim is displaying an ideological bias against ANY source that challenges the aforementioned emotional attachment

That the qualifier “specifically whose main or only platforms are one or multiple YouTube channels, personalized subpages of the platform” should either be properly sourced, removed or updated with a more accurate qualifier that reflects 2022 market conditions.

That this Wikipedia entry should not be used as a public relations tool for YouTube and its affiliated brands.

Trying not to give this too much credence, but you can read my comments to Avica1988 on their talk page and the YouTuber talk page where I try to explain the logic of why their edits are not acceptable. Lots of bad faith and mis-use of NPOV templates, etc. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim does not address the merits of the complaint Avica1998 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

References

• Result: Both User:Avica1998 and User:ZimZalaBim are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again at YouTuber without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:47.183.120.205 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Semi)

Page: Hot dog variations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 47.183.120.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Do a simple google search, no such thing as a houston dog. https://www.google.com/search?q=houston+style+hot+dog&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS771US771&hl=en-US&ei=oHuyYpjQMpiekPIPgcKSgA0&oq=houston+styled+hot+dog&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAEYADIECAAQDTIICAAQHhAIEA0yBQgAEIYDMgUIABCGAzIFCAAQhgMyBQgAEIYDOgcIABBHELADOgoILhDHARCvARANOgYIABAeEAc6CAgAEB4QCBAHSgQIQRgAUOkTWJwZYOkgaAJwAXgAgAGOAYgBngWSAQM0LjOYAQCgAQHIAQjAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp"
2. 02:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "No sources claim this as a houston dog just stop"
3. 01:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "No sir, houston native. I’m literally on houston Bay Area food groups right now as we speak. We do not claim this as our hot dog, I looked up houston hot dog and there is zero source for this, the hot dog you claim is a houston dog is actually called a true dog CREATED BY A LOS ANGELES NATIVE. The article included in this article Even states he is from Los Angeles. A Texas dog is a New Jersey styled hot dog that’s been deep fried in oil. So please as a houston native we are offended."
4. 01:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "There is no such thing as a houston styled hot dog coming from a houston native. The hot dog provided was a menu item offered at a houston area hot dog restaurant created by a Los Angeles native. Please don’t readd this because it’s stupid."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Hot dog variations."
2. 02:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result: Page semiprotected indefinitely by User:El C per a request at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Jol451shore1 reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: Protected)

Page: Aaron Parnas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jol451shore1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094416030 by Hey man im josh (talk) (The article does not assert that Aaron Parnas' money was used in a donation, only that he sent $5300 to Aaron Investments. It is improper to speculate that his money went to Trump when there is no sourcing to support that)."
2. 13:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094415209 by Pennsylvania2 (talk) (The FEC is responsible for handling all political donations. The cite to the FEC page proves that Aaron never made any donations to Trump. As a result, it is improper to assert that he made donations, when he did not). Stop spreading libellous information."
3. 13:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094413016 by Hey man im josh (talk) This was a constructive edit, as it is improper to (1) cite a blog piece that acknowledges that it is speculating and (2) never states that the $5300 was for a donation to anyone, let alone Trump. This 5300 was never implicated in any other article or legitimate source."
4. 13:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "This is improperly sourced. The article literally notes that it cannot determine what the money was for, and notes that they could be birthday gifts: We of course don’t know the source of these funds Aaron put into one of many entities his father named after him. Some were incorporated around the time Aaron was born. The money could be as innocent as birthday gifts from friends and family. Confirming this with FEC reports would be proper sourcing."
5. 13:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "This is still not properly sourced. There is no indication that the $5300 was "donated" to fund Trump inaugural events. The proper source here would be to look at FEC reports to see whether Aaron Parnas made any donations to Trump or his Committee(s). Moreover, the pictures remain improperly sourced."
6. 02:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "This is not sourced. The first article references pictures posted by Lev Parnas, not Aaron. If Aaron was in one of the pictures, that does note mean "Parnas (referring to Aaron) posted the photographs." The second source does not even have Aaron's name in it. Instead, it is more appropriate for Lev Parnas' page as he created the Aaron Investments entity, as noted by the article."
7. 16:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC) "This information is not supported by the citation included. The citation included refers to Lev Parnas, not Aaron Parnas. This is flat out incorrect information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Aaron Parnas."
2. 13:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Aaron Parnas."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is WP:NOTHERE. They're edit warring in a manner that is completely unproductive. Appears to be a single purpose account for editing on Aaron Parnas, as that's where all of their edits since registration have been. Most of their edits are removing large chunks of content that often is just added back later. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The editing is completely proper. The source cited comes from a blog and asserts that Aaron Parnas sent $5,300 to Aaron Investments. The source does not assert that Aaron's money was ever used to donate to Trump or the Trump campaign. The source only cites to approximately $325,000, coming from Igor Fruman that was donated to Trump. The source merely asserts that Aaron's wire transfer exists, not that the money was used to fund a political donation. By asserting that it was, without any legitimate source to back it up, is extremely dangerous and libelous. This comes after repeated efforts by the individual who included the source to make outlandish allegations on Aaron Parnas' page that have since been disproven. Jol451shore1 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jol451shore1, did you happen to read my warnings on your page about edit warring? I want to quote part of the first warning I placed on your talk page;

The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus.

Regardless of intent, there's been a disagreement on the article content and you've been edit warring about it instead of allowing for discussions to take place and play out on the article talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Noted for the future, I look forward to discussing this on the talk page, if necessary. Jol451shore1 (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I can appreciate your intentions and I hope that all is smooth moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Protected. Normally I would block the editor that is violating 3RR but in this case I'm not convinced that EmptyWheel is a reliable source either - it does appear to be a blog, and we certainly can't use a blog to source a negative element in a BLP. If someone can provide evidence that Emptywheel is reliable, then that's a separate issue. In the meantime, I've fully protected the article for a month, so there's time for an in-depth discussion of reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'd also just point out that there's a specific exemption to the edit-warring policies at WP:3RRNO, which states the one of the exemptions is "Removing contentious material that is libellous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." Now one could certainly argue that edits like this are poorly sourced, and they're certainly biased. Material like that should definitely be impeccably sourced, and this isn't. Black Kite (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There are other sources (not just that site) that show Parnas donated the money. See Page 16 [48]. This comes from the Daily Beast, which is a reliable source.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That Daily Beast page does not show that Aaron Parnas donated any money. All that it shows is a screenshot that Aaron Parnas sent 5,300 dollars to Aaron Investment. It also shows over 1 million dollars worth of money coming into Aaron Investment. The Daily Beast page does not assert that this money went to America First, and the Emptywheel blog asserts that only 325k of the 1+ million dollars went to the PAC. No source says that Aaron Parnas' money went to the pac, or that the money sent has anything to do with a political contribution. Jol451shore1 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

All we know from the Daily Beast is that he donated the $5,300. My suggested edit never says it necessarily went to the Trump PAC. It reads "Parnas donated $5,300 to a shell company named after himself called “Aaron Investments” that his father used to hide assets and avoid creditors. Aaron Investments went on to donate $350,000 to American First Action, a pro-Trump PAC." Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Beast never says that he "donated" any money, merely that three separate wire transfers were made. These could have been for household expenses, personal expenses, etc. There is absolutely no relevance to including this information, especially if it merely discusses Lev Parnas' actions, not Aarons. Your suggested edit is merely biased, with no factual relevance or support. Jol451shore1 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:DAILYBEAST: There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:FRANKHLN reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )

Page: Herbalife Nutrition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Pyramid scheme allegations */"
2. 14:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Liver disease inquiries */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC) to 14:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 09:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC) "Adding in an additional source"
   2. 14:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Liver disease inquiries */"
4. 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Pyramid scheme allegations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
2. 14:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Herbalife Nutrition."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

user continues to whitewash and add copyvios to articles despite warnings and reaching out on talk page PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

appears to be UPE as well based on the username FRANKHLNl (FRANK HLN = HLN = herbalife nutrition) PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:GhostOfDanGurney reported by User:Pelmeen10 (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Comments:
All these 5 edits within 24h to reword "racial slur" to "nigga". Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

First edit shown was not a revert. I have also initiated a talk page discussion which the user making this report has to have known of before making this report since it is mentioned in an edit summary. I'm not sure what this user is wanting out of this report other than possibly a punitive block. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I reported you because there is a possibility you continue edit warring. It's up to admins to decide if a block is necessary. You need to understand that editwarring is not okay, you do not seem to understand that. After starting a discussion on the talk page, you still continued reverting. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• GhostOfDanGurney, your last revert was at 13:58. This report was filed at 15:05. You responded here at 15:08. Your edit was reverted at 16:58 by another editor. You could have self-reverted but did not. It is only now that a block could be considered punitive, not when you said so. Nonetheless, consider yourself warned. If you resume the edit war, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Yae4 reported by User:84.250.14.116 (Result: one week p-block)

Page: GrapheneOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. Special:Diff/1094363773, Special:Diff/1094473794 (by User:Resonantia)
2. Special:Diff/1094477304 (by reporter)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1094307821
2. Special:Diff/1094400458
3. Special:Diff/1094475710
4. Special:Diff/1094489078

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1094472787/1094482255

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Special:Diff/1094481231/1094485592 (by reporter)
2. Special:Diff/1094486178 (by User:Yae4)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1094490395

Comments:

Introducing original research or questionable sources (disputed citations) to the article. More warnings or WP:DR may be the way to go. I would like to revert again (I'm not the only one to disagree with User:Yae4) until consensus is found on the talk page, but I won't continue this edit war. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, but I did a lot of work on this Article over the last day or two, only to see a "swarm" of dormant, single purpose, and IP editors undo half my work with virtually zero discussion. As stated at the Talk page, the IP editor has added other similar primary-source information. Actually, they restored what I added, but somebody deleted: My add[54]; their restore[55]Also please note my bcc of Administrators in my Talk comments, and the lack of any response or dialogue by the Reporter to my Talk comments; and my request for semi-protection.[56] I try not to, but also suspect puppetry, but was dragging feet on asking for investigation, in hopes of getting some real dialogue or consensus. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember what the guideline or essay is named here on enwiki, but editors can be busy and not respond (I think the guideline or essay said to give maybe up to 3 days to respond). I did not have time to respond to talk in 31 minutes, however I did so once I became aware of it and had time. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week (partial) Yae4, after choosing a revert at random, I was looking at your revert edit summary RE: twitter (diff) and, like the IP editor (diff), I found myself confused as to what that has to do with anything. I presume it's about you wanting to omit the qualifier that it was stated, specifically, by Derrek Lee (while the IP editor wants to include it). Personally, I'm not sure why that entire paragraph about Jack Dorsey's tweet is even worth mentioning at all, Derek Lee'ing or not. But then again, this is the first time I've heard of this OS. The point, though, is that this one revert I sampled randomly (which just happened to be yours) did not add up for me. El_C 01:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Because my intent was to undo "Anonymous526" edits; not the "84.250.14.116" edit which occurred 7 minutes before my rollback, and was not observed by me until after. Usually articles like this have much less activity. I agree Dorsey's tweet is insignificant, but GrapheneOS fans seem to believe Tweets are the bee's knees... Anyway, thanks for the wiki-vacation. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) while the IP editor wants to include it I had no intended involvement in regards to the Twitter / Derrek Lee dispute between User:Anonymous526 and User:Yae4; when I became aware the rollback on my diff wasn't intended, I excluded my maintenance tag diff from Yae4's rollback ("fixed" the rollback) and subsequently became uninvolved in that Twitter dispute. In other words, I had no real role in the Twitter / Derrek Lee dispute. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC); edited 01:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)