Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Serial Number 54129 (talk | contribs) at 10:18, 15 July 2020 (→User:Drmies reported by User:66.90.149.252 (Result: No violation, OP warned): re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Evrik reported by User:Flyer22 Frozen (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Baseball metaphors for sex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Evrik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here by me and here by admin Ohnoitsjamie

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Evrik has been reverted by multiple editors, including Crossroads, Ohnoitsjamie and myself, on their image additions to the article in question. Despite our objections to the images and telling the editor to stop edit warring, the editor keeps trying to add the images, engaging in WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior. Evrik is also WP:Gaming the system by coming back every time several days have passed to re-add the images. By this, I mean that it appears that Evrik is trying to game WP:3RR. But WP:3RR aside, it is edit warring. It is a slow edit war. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I support a block; I'll recuse myself erring on the side of WP:INVOLVED, as I did revert one of the (many) attempts to re-add the images. OhNoitsJamie 03:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely WP:IDHT and WP:GAMING. I note that his last block log entry was for the exact same thing, "edit warring over images". Crossroads 03:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• In fact, some of the edits cited above go back a month, and my attempts to work through this have to simply reverting edits. This is so not edit warring. In fact, I have tried discussing this on the talk page, only to be reverted and insulted. I posted a comment eight days ago that went on responded to. I went ahead and made the edit. Three editors in a disagreement, where two hold one opinion and one holds another is not an edit war. in fact, I mentioned that we should take this to dispute resolution, but that was ignored.--evrik  04:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not blocked No administrative actions at this time due to the extremely slow nature of this edit war. However, I will note the following:

@Evrik: The fact that these reverts took place over the course of more than a month does not make it any less an edit war. A slow edit war is still an edit war. It certainly looks like you are willfully ignoring consensus that the images you want to add are not appropriate. Consensus is not only developed by, and reflected in, commentary on a talk page, it is also developed by and reflected in the actions of your fellow editors through the edits that they make. You have now been reverted by three different editors in regards to these images; it should be clear to you at this point that the consensus is the images are not constructive. Nobody objected on the talk page the last time you asked if you could add an image, but that doesn't change the existing consensus that the images are not appropriate, and re-adding them without even a whisper of agreement is willful edit warring.

@Flyer22 Frozen: Personally, I wouldn't have chosen this noticeboard as a venue given the slow nature of this edit war. Administrative remedies here are limited, either full page protection or a long block would be required, neither of which is appropriate to the level of disruption that is occurring. Another form of dispute resolution might have been more appropriate, although I'm not sure how effective it would be. –Darkwind (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Darkwind, I brought the issue here due to experience. Slow edit warring matters have been dealt with at this noticeboard times before, and that includes admins issuing one or more warnings or blocks (not necessarily long-term blocks). Yes, this slow edit war is not contained within one month, but still. In this case, we have one editor being disruptive by repeatedly violating WP:Consensus (a policy) and gaming the system. As made clear by Ohnoitsjamie (a no-nonsense admin), Ohnoitsjamie would have blocked if he were not involved. Blocking Evrik would have been appropriate. And if not a block, at least a stern warning. Because make no mistake about it...not giving him a stern, or at least an explicit, warning to stop has emboldened him. He just does not get it. I do not think that taking this matter to the WP:ANI drama board would have been best. But if Evir continues to engage in his "must insert these baseball images into this article where they absolutely are not needed" behavior, yes, I will report him there.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Flyer. I suppose we all approach things differently, but I can see why you'd think my admonishment to Evrik might not have been clear or direct enough, hence the following.

@Evrik: In case it wasn't clear from my paragraph directed to you above, willful edit warring is a deliberate violation of Misplaced Pages editing norms, and if you do not stop this kind of behavior, you will end up blocked from editing, either this article or the whole site. Consider this a final warning. –Darkwind (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Darkwind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Darkwind, I don't think this should have been brought here, but should have instead gone to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Also, Frozen Flyer has been relatively aggressive and rude about the whole thing, as evidenced by this bon mot, "Go away already. You will end up blocked. Your images will not remain. Except it now. If I start an RfC on it, you don't have a chance. Move the hell on." An RfC would have been welcome. So, I don't think a threat to permanently ban anyone is in order. Thanks. --evrik  20:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darkwind: @Flyer22 Frozen: I am having a problem with this same user on Statue of Robert Baden-Powell, London. They are insisting on including unnecessary and irrelevant information just to increase the character count. I have tried discussing this with them on the talk page, as has another user, but they won't budge. Swatchdog (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Swatchdog: It's a little bit "out of order" to tag on a different article after the report is more or less closed. If you believe there is an actual edit war at the article in question, file a separate report here at ANEW. If you think it's a problem but not "over the line" yet, I suggest trying to follow the advice at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, including taking advantage of dispute resolution processes as necessary. –Darkwind (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I'll deal with it. Swatchdog (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darkwind:, Swatchdog previously posted about the differences here, Misplaced Pages:Teahouse#Conflict with another editor and was advised about what to do. Also, I posted a response there as well. --evrik  20:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User:37.122.183.234 reported by User:Jonas kam (Result: Already blocked)

Page

European Water Polo Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967344768 by Jonas kam (talk) It's vandalism. Not official medals count!"
2. 17:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 966995669 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is likely a sock Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Already blocked –Darkwind (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:JimKaatFan reported by User:Springee (Result: Blocked 24 h)

Page: Tucker Carlson Tonight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JimKaatFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Edit], revert ]
2. Edit], revert ]
3. Edit ], revert]
4. Edit], revert]
5. Edit], revert ]
6. Edit], revert]
7. Edit], revert]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor filed a 3RR report against me yesterday (see the first 3 reverts above). In that report I noted that they were currently at 3RR. ]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion ] and warning that they had exceeded revert limit ]. This warning was prior to their 7th revert. Note edits 2-6 are all within a 24hr period. 1 and 7 are just on either side of the 24hr window.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 h for violating 3RR (twice, if you count that there are two different overlapping 24 hour periods that have more than three reverts, edits 2-6 and 4-7). –Darkwind (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• User:Darkwind, several of the edits that User:JimKaatFan reverted (edits #4, #5, #6) were by the sockpuppet User:MetaTracker. Does that alter your determination? Should the block be changed to a "warning" given that the user seemed both to misunderstand how 3RR worked, is relatively inexperienced in editing high-profile controversial topics (where 3RR kicks in a lot), and was in large part edit-warring with someone who was gaming the system? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Snooganssnoogans: It does not:

  1. While it is not explicitly said on the policy page, my interpretation of 3RRNO #3 is that it only applies where reverts were done because the user who made the edit being undone was a banned/block user evading their ban. Additionally, one should state that as the reason for the revert in the edit summary or in a note on a talk page after the edit, in order to claim the exemption. Since JimKaatFan 1) had no way of knowing MetaTracker was a blocked or banned user, as it was revealed in a checkuser block after the reverts, and 2) they specifically gave other reasons for their reverts, this exemption doesn't apply.
  2. I don't buy the "unaware" or "inexperienced" explanation at all. JimKaatFan filed an ANEW report against Springee first, before 3RR had been violated, which I reviewed and closed with an admonishment to go to the talk page. If one is going to use a policy to complain about the behavior of another editor, one loses any credibility for using ignorance as an excuse when one later violates that policy themselves. (Also, for the record, JimKaatFan has not claimed any such excuse themselves.)
  3. I am absolutely not going to get into a discussion of whether a particular editor is "gaming" anything by filing noticeboard reports.

  –Darkwind (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Gaming was in reference to the sockpuppet gaming the system. 14:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  My apologies for misunderstanding you. Comment struck. –Darkwind (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Iss246 reported by User:Karenwilson12345 (Result: No violation)

Page: Hawthorne effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iss246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967049979

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967097704
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967099248
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967102980
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967103234
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967103438
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hawthorne_effect&oldid=967207365

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I notified Iss246 that sockpuppet and edit war investigations were requested; Iss246 has repeatedly circled back to revisions that I have made over the past few days; I think user:Oceansandsand is also user:Iss246; user:Iss246 has a history of edit warring that resulted in being blocked for one week in June 2020. Karenwilson12345 (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• No violation This is not edit warring; the user made multiple consecutive edits, which is not wrong. If you feel this user is harassing you or following you around, please file a report at WP:ANI. –Darkwind (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I edited the revisions made by user:Karenwilson12345. Mo matter how well intentioned her revisions, a number of them were not satisfactory. I edited the psychological testing entry in such a way as to improve the entry. I think her editing has improved but her first pass through the psychological testing entry needed improvement. Iss246 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Sharief123 reported by User:Faizhaider (Result: Page protected)

Page

Syed Jawad Naqvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sharief123 (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 04:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) to 04:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 04:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967353690 by 14.142.206.26 (talk)"
   2. 04:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC) "All ref(s) are official and are based on information and biography and from official website...."
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC) to 15:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   4. 15:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   5. 15:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   6. 15:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   7. 15:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""

There are many more, whole thing has been going on since at least late April.

This one is the latest of his reverts/undo,

1. 16:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967480597 by Tubi719 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Sharief123#May_2020
• https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Sharief123#July_2020

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#Content_change/addition_dispute_resolution_2020
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#RFC

Comments:

Constantly involved in content dispute multiple editors, no result of warning or effort on article's talk-page or even an rfc. Constantly censoring the content and involved in disruptive edits on the article. When warned, keeps posting coy-paste messages on article talk-page and user-talk. Definitely trying to promote the subject of the article in violation of multiple policies. Fzc_s 10:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What I get by the edits of Sharief123 is that he trying to censor all the criticism on this article even if they are properly sourced. He adds favourable things even if they are not verifiable, he has been involved in edit-warring since very long on this article. He seems to be very biased and guided by his POV and not by Misplaced Pages policies, on top of that he uses bogey of the policies to intimate and harass other editors. He is simply trying to own the article under guise of good faith and what-all. I'm specially bedazzled by recent edits by Sharief123, they added flowery language using peacock terms and added links which hadn't any content to support what they were put to cite. Also, most of existing matter which is cited using third-party reliable sources was removed including any and all the criticism. The edits were clearly pov push and so I have undid them restoring the article to previous state. But he reverted them back and an ip removed all the maintenance templates on the article and he unnecessarily threatened me with the block warning without any previous message or engaging me on article's talk-page despite my attempt to do so.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected 48 hours.

This was a more complicated case than it seemed on the surface, given that Sharief123 (t c) has engaged on the talk page in the past and seemed willing to discuss the article. However, in reading over that communication, it doesn't look like they were effective in communicating why they were making the changes to the article. (I suspect a language barrier.) Now, they're not talking on the talk page at all and just wholesale reverting or repeatedly adding/removing similar content.

I suggest that the involved editors, including 14.142.206.26, Faizhaider, Sharief123, Smsaifhaiderhussaini, and Tubi719, take these next 48 hours to discuss this on the article's talk page and come to a resolution.

@Sharief123: Consider this a strong warning. Your pattern of editing is considered edit warring, and if you continue to do so, you will end up blocked from editing (either this article or the whole site). –Darkwind (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Darkwind Thanks for your balanced approach to settle the situation. I (& various other editors), with best of my effort have tried to engage and explain the reasons to Sharief123 on article's talk-page on his talk-page & on my talk-page but you may have seen the responses at best they can be categorized as being innocent of the situation but actually they full of subversion, contempt, irony, wordplay, and at times even threat (of blocking/reporting/etc.), at least in one case he put up a fake block notice on a IP's talk-page. He not only keeps reverting the edits but also the maintenance tags.

Anyways, I'll try to engage again on articles talk-page.--Fzc_s 05:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Joelaroche reported by User:Balolay (Result: EC protection)

Page

Diriliş: Ertuğrul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Kindly have a look at Diriliş: Ertuğrul, the user is doing edit warring and selective removal of sourced info. Balolay (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page EC protected two weeks by User:MelanieN after a complaint at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

I was removing content that was irrelevant and unsourced (content was sourced but not mentioned anywhere in cited sources). I gave clear explanations for my edits. User:Balolay was repeatedly adding back the content without giving any valid reason to do so. The content being added back was not based on facts, was in violation of the NPOV rule and had a prejudiced view. Instead of taking up the issue on the talk page first, User:Balolay immediately reported me and continued undo edits and add back the same content. This can all be seen in the article's edit history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelaroche (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The current protection prevents both of you from editing the article - and also prevents both of you from getting blocked for WP:Edit warring. I have posted a note on the article's talk page, calling for both of you to discuss your differences there. I suggest you start the discussion. Discuss the content, not the other editor, and support your comments with sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Spudlace reported by User:Melroross (Result: No violation)

• Page: Portuguese cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Spudlace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Spudlace) has been engaged in unjustified WP:DIFF, WP:Vandalism, violated WP:3RV and deleted even several images repeatedly against this article. Repeated warnings on WP:talk have been ignored over the past few days:

Portuguese_cuisine

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Spudlace

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=967169490&oldid=967086611

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=967149938&oldid=967149124

Also because they display a similar MO (aggressive conduct, aggressive language, fanaticism, supposedly new profile with apparent knowledge of Misplaced Pages editing tools which doesn’t add up with new users) to banned serial vandal User:JamesOredan(https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_JamesOredan). Based on experience, the alarm bells are ringing and I strongly suspect this is yet another sockpuppet profile created with single-purpose intent. Please check user’s Spudlace activity.

Many thanks, Melroross (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

2)

This user Spudlace continues to vandalise the same page, with no valid explanation to their persistent reverts of referenced contents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=967204596&oldid=967190779

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Portuguese_cuisine&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Portuguese_cuisine&diff=prev&oldid=967204808

Please assist with this very disruptive, counterproductive and time-consuming reversal mission by Spudlace.

Thank you Melroross (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

3)

This user User:Spudlace continues with disruptive and malicious editing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Spudlace

User:Spudlace Added ‘multiple issues template’ to this article for alleged unreliable sources, bare referencing and WP:WT notices, when very little is left to question. They do not contribute with quality, duly referenced and academic contents, but rather either revert other editors’ good-faith contributions or add peculiar, inaccurate and speculative contents which make little or no sense.

Third request, please assist with this. Melroross (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Spudlace is also involved in pretty aggressive disputed edits at Salsa (sauce). I assume good faith, but a tune-up of approach is certainly in order. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Dicklyon, thank you for this and your comments at Salsa. We were eventually able to reach a consensus there, but I take seriously advice on how I can improve my editing approach. I reverted Melroross' addition of bare URLS as disruptive after I saw on his talk page that many other editors had problems with this user. I now believe this was a mistake (even if it was true) because it made him very angry and he has pinged me at least 6 times and leaving 4 messages on my talk page accusing me of sundry things. Because it doesn't serve the best interests of Misplaced Pages, I am extremely sorry for inflaming this. I'm worried that further replies from me will have the same effect and I also have family obligations related to the pandemic crisis where I am, so I may not be responsive. I can be reached by email.Spudlace (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

——————————————————————————————

For clarity, this is what was ‘pinged’ (?) to the above-user, prior to reporting:

User:Spudlace

Jump to navigationJump to search

Portuguese cuisine: User:Spudlace your profile has been engaging on disruptive reverts on my contents starting with Spanish cuisine and as some sort of “retaliation” against the Portuguese cuisine. Although the referencing style is clearly not an area of expertise, it is used with accuracy and fairness. I am warning you for the second time in less than 24 hours for suspected vandalism, 3RRR and fanaticism. You will be reported to Administrators if you don’t stop with your odd reverts.Melroross (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

When I looked over your edits I saw citations to blogs, commercial websites selling products, unreliable sources that were flagged as self-published sources and sourced content that was removed with false edit summaries. If an administrator tells me that I am editing disruptively I will stop, but I don't believe that you are a good faith editor. Spudlace (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

User (talk) I have a strong suspicion that you are using this account as sockpuppet, based on your disruptive reverts on an article and subject-matter you don’t know enough. Finally, what gives you the right to remove referenced, relevant and accurate content and images on Misplaced Pages; about a country you are clearly not knowledgeable about? This kind of conduct is not tolerated on Misplaced Pages. Have a good day Melroross (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes Melroross (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• No violation strictly from an edit warring perspective.

@Spudlace: While you weren't edit warring, your behavior was not as civil as it could (should?) have been. It started when you referred to Melroross as a disruptive editor while performing a very-large-scale revert. I can guarantee that if you start with calling someone names and undoing over a month of their work on an article, your relationship with that editor is likely to sour very quickly. It continued when you accused them of vandalism in a perfectly ordinary-looking content revision. In your edit summaries, I encourage you to try avoiding commentary about other users themselves, and comment on the reason behind your edit or what you see is wrong with their edit, not their behavior or personality. You can't take back anything you say in an edit summary.

@Melroross: Your response to their revert on this article didn't help. I recognize that it might have been upsetting to see your edits reverted so abruptly, but accusing someone of sockpuppetry without concrete evidence is often considered uncivil. If you feel that someone is indeed socking, report it to WP:SPI; accusing someone of socking to their face has never, ever resulted in anything positive: either 1) they are indeed socking, so of course they know it already and don't need you to tell them (and it's hardly going to scare them into stopping) or 2) they aren't a sock, and you've just pissed them off. It's no wonder that you two kept sniping at each other through reverts and edit summaries after that. Again, you can't take back something you say in an edit summary, so try to keep commentary about your fellow editors out of it.

Also, this is quite minor, but I encourage you to try to consolidate some of your edits. If you didn't save so often, and use preview instead to check your progress, the page history wouldn't be so hard to read. When you make 10-20 consecutive edits, out of a 50-entry list, it's hard to see the patterns of who else is editing, and this makes investigating these complaints that much harder.

To both of you, please take a few days away from this article and each other, before you come back and genuinely try to improve it. Any further disruption may result in page protection or a block against one or both of you, depending on the behavior. –Darkwind (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jerodlycett reported by User:86.146.209.237 (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As an editor of over five years standing, it is hard to believe that he is not aware of edit warring or the three revert rule

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on an article talk page: ,

Note: discussion is at Talk:Philishave where a very similar edit war is in effect. The article Pontiac is openly discussed at that discussion.

Comments:

The Misplaced Pages Manual of Style unambiguously states at MOS:TENSE that when discussing products that are no longer in manufacture but still 'meaningfully exist', then the tense used to describe the brand is present tense. The first example provided unambiguously covers the point, "The PDP-10 is a mainframe computer family manufactured by Digital Equipment Corporation from 1966 into the 1980s". That unambiguously requires that the Pontiac article must also say "Pontiac is a car brand owned, made, and sold by General Motors (though I had modified it to read "Pontiac is a car brand that is owned by General Motors though no longer used for any current models" to remove any doubt as to what is current.

Jerodlycett has now four times reverted it back to "Pontiac was a car brand owned, made, and sold by General Motors in opposition to MOS:TENSE. For the avoidance of doubt Pontiac branded cars still meaningfully exist as Google turns up no end of such cars being offered for sale.

The discussion has been taking place on the Philishave article because Jerodlycett is insisting that "Philishave is the brand name for electric shavers manufactured by the Philips …" should be changed to "Philishave was the brand name for electric shavers manufactured by the Philips …" claiming that the brand no longer exists. Philishave razors clearly do meaningfully exist as Google turns up many suppliers of spare parts.

He falsely attempted to claim that another user agreed with him even though that user had made no further changes to the article or any further discussion, once the position of MOS:TENSE was pointed out (though has been active elsewhere since). He has even attempted to invoke a chilling effect by accusing me of unconstructive editing despite that I am following the manual of style.

Note: I have reverted Pontiac a few times myself but reversion of disruption and/or vandalism does not seem to count for 3RR. I have not reverted the current incorrect version. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Response

First, WP:3RR clearly states what the rule is, which the IP seems to have missed, that they must be within in 24 hours. Secondly, the IP editor has been disruptive, some evidence of this:

• Random third level warning
• Insult used in edit summary
• Attempt to communicate through edit summaries
• And another attempt that was thoroughly ignored
• Talk:Philishave#Philishave is a discontinued brand shows a complete ignoring of what other users have stated and combative behavior.

Interactions with other users have included removal of an image and formatting on others with a summary accusing others of doing this exact behavior shown here, and a reading of guidelines with should and common practice as musts shown here leading, with this lack of understanding of 3RR, to my conclusion that either they lack WP:COMPETENCE or are just WP:NOTHERE. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP did not miss that edit warring does not have to be within 24 hours. That is only a bright line. Four reverts even if outside 24 hours is still edit warring. Dragging up random edits from other places is a poor attempt at trying to deflect attention from your own failure to abide by the manual of style which is what is being discussed here.

Jerodlycett has made blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts. He states above that I "shows a complete ignoring (sic) of what other users have stated". This is an attempt to claim that he has the support of multiple other users. That is a blatant lie. No other user has supported Jerodlycett in his arguments. One user did claim it should be past tense before Jerodlycett joined the discussion, but has made no further comment or argument once the wording of MOS:TENSE was pointed out despite being otherwise active.

Oh yes! and a repeated claim (three of the diffs above where he is communicating via edit summaries) that as I am following the MOS, I have to take it to the talk page to (presumably) get (his?) approval where as Jerodlycett has made no attempt to do so over his going against the MOS. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you also stop misgendering me, proper pronouns are right there on my user page. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Warned as follows:

To 86.146.209.237: Starting with your behavior on this page, you are deliberately misgendering Jerodlycett, as is clear from your attempt at subtle (but actually quite blatant) emphasis on pronouns in your last paragraph. That is rude at best, and it really colors the rest of your behavior in context. If one doesn't know the pronouns one should use to refer to a fellow editor, one can use standard generic gender-neutral language such as they/them, refer to the editor by username only, or, for heaven's sake, look at their userpage where zie makes it pretty clear what pronouns to use. Failing all that, in a worst case, you could have even picked a set of pronouns like he or she and stuck with it (personally, I try to avoid using "he" as a default, but I slip up sometimes), but don't express your uncertainty with either questioning punctuation or italics/bold, much less both, as it really looks like you're just trying to ridicule. At least a default assumption isn't deliberately insulting.

As to your behavior in the article, you changed wording that had been stable since September 7, 2018, or almost two years, so you really shouldn't be surprised if you got reverted. It would have been better for collaboration if you'd gone to the talk page after your first, or even your second revert. Instead, you made the change four times before you apparently gave up and still didn't explain yourself where editors of Pontiac would know where to see it. Looking at the timing, it isn't unreasonable to think you deliberately came to the Pontiac article and changed the wording just because it had been used as an example in a discussion elsewhere that you were participating in. (Again, not conclusive behavior but it adds to the impression that you just want to win the argument.) Regardless of your motive, this is edit warring, even if it isn't 3RR.

Also, violating the MOS isn't generally considered intrinsically blockable behavior. What is blockable behavior is editing in a disruptive way in order to blindly enforce the MOS, or to disregard it, such as edit warring in one direction or the other. The MOS documents broadly-accepted consensus that helps editors maintain a consistent style of writing across the project, but local consensus can and does override it; furthermore, the meaning of "meaningfully exists" (emphasis mine) is certainly debatable. You could have waited for the discussion to get additional input from other editors, or even opened it as an RfC, instead of repeating the edits. It's true, "no other user" has supported zir position, but "no other user" has supported your position either. Just because you think the MOS backs you doesn't automatically make you correct, especially where the meaning of the MOS language is open to interpretation.

Both of you have a responsibility to avoid disruptive behavior and discuss the situation. Following your interpretation of MOS doesn't automatically make your editing acceptable; you can disruptively enforce just about any rule.

@Jerodlycett: As much as the above is true, it is also true that you were edit warring back. No, you didn't violate 3RR, but a slow edit war is still an edit war. After the second revert, I would have suggested explicitly debating the meaning or applicability of the terms used in the MOS, or seeking dispute resolution, etc. as per my suggestions above to the anonymous editor. Also, if communication in edit summaries is not effective, use a talk page instead. "They didn't listen to what I said in my edit summaries" hasn't typically been considered much of an excuse for disruptive editing.

To both of you: I do thank you both for dropping the disruptive edit warring; before either of you change tense in any applicable article, I suggest completing your discussion at Talk:Philishave and reaching an agreement, or using dispute resolution. –Darkwind (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:GevHev4 reported by User:Solavirum (Result: )

Page: 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GevHev4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I've tried my best to protect the NPOV in this article but thr afromentioned user keeps getting involved in an edit war and neglects the talk page.

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

User:Jadebenn reported by User:Moamem

Reason for report

3RR Violation

Page

Space Launch System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967558763&oldid=967529648

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967564483&oldid=967562430

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967574229&oldid=967573716

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967577721&oldid=967576423

Requested remedy

Ban/Topic ban on article

Comments:

While I was in the process of reporting Jadebenn for Editing my comments on the SLS talk page, it came to my attention that the same user had just simultaneously committed a 3RR Violation reverting changes by another user (not me) 4 times in less than 2 hours. This is a clear 3RR Violation. Due to the multiple and simultaneous violations I ask you that the editor Jadebenn be banned from the platform or at least banned from editing the Space Launch System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and its Talk page. Thank you - Moamem (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Edits reverted were vandalism by IPs. Auto-confirmed page protection was applied shortly after. This report seems to be in retaliation to an ongoing ANI case, which is over an incident that may have been the cause of said IPs vandalizing the figure. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your frivolous complaint has nothing to do with this issue. You admitted yourself to the rule braking saying and I quote "I probably shouldn't have removed that material.". As for the 3RR violation it's evident to anyone that can count to 4 and you admitted to it on your own talk page when another user brought it up saying and I quote : "Would rather not get slapped down for incivility or an (unintentional) 3RR vio. Hopefully I didn't just shoot myself in the foot." see here : https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=967558763&oldid=967529648 - Moamem (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You are taking statements out of context. As for the alleged 3RR violation... you do realize there are only three reverts here, right? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 05:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There are exactly 4! I mean lying so blatantly? I gave the reverts for G's sake! - Moamem (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh. You put one in the wrong category. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 05:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Leijurv (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Drmies reported by User:66.90.149.252 (Result: No violation, OP warned)

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

Reason for report: edit warring (no 3RR violation yet due to decision to seek intervention here rather than continue edit warring; WP:0RR and WP:1RR applicable after ample notice that user's actions violate WP policies and guidelines)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. : edit summary: "Why"
2. : edit summary: "No. explain what you are doing, and why. you know this well enough"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute through discussion:

• : edit summary: "that's not how this works; no one need seek approval for a change on the basis that changes must be justified; on the contrary: if there's real concern about an edit, it is up to you to at the very least provide an *argument* that it's actually bad, rather than just not needed"

Comments:

NB: User:Drmies's talk page is locked, so notification of this report has been left as a response to Drmies's recent messages on my own talk page and User talk:Andrew Gray (with a request in the latter case to move the discussion here). 66.90.149.252 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on this IP user's informing multiple unrelated users at and , I believe this is one of our edit-warring IP LTAs. See also (see summary). JavaHurricane 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No violation. IP, this is the wrong approach. Just explain yourself better, that is all that is being asked of you. All this extra-drama is not necessary and is discouraged. El_C 16:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:El_C, at the risk of making a political reference and having the whole comment discounted because of it, there's sort of a big debate going on in the world right now about the lack of accountability for people with power. If Drmies were not a user with special editing privileges, his or her action here would not be dismissed like this. This would *simply not be allowed* if the usernames here were swapped, and we were only considering the substance of what has actually happened and the comments folks have actually made.

And User:JavaHurricane's comments are hardly unbiased—they're involved in the edit warring. And also, like Drmies's comments, dishonest: I reached out to User:Andrew Gray _before_ it escalated into an edit war—precisely to keep it from escalating into an edit war—and my comments to User:David Gerard are hardly indicative of whatever JavaHurricane is suggesting: reaching out to David Gerard, as I mentioned in that very comment, was a "masochistic attempt to stack the deck *against* me". (On the other hand, if you consider the number of established users who've stepped in to, for lack of a better word, act in Drmies's favor, then the suggestion would actually be apropos.)

Please consider the long-term consequences here, especially what this means for Drmies's interactions with other editors—particularly IPs. See . This is WP:OWNERSHIP gatekeeping through-and-through. The onus is on Drmies to actually provide an argument why the edit *shouldn't* be kept—not on an editor to seek Drmies's approval before making a change. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC) (the IP editor in question)

The change the IP was attempting to force into the article was odd, adding nothing useful. Clearly it required explanation. Frankly, it looked like the type of edits we get where someone is just trying to stick their own name into an article. I can't imagine a different outcome if someone with 20 edits had reverted. O3000 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If that were the reason the edit had been reverted, you'd have a point. But it's not. To repeat WP:OWNERSHIP is not a valid reason to revert, no matter the stature of the user. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am not sure why I was asked to weigh in on this, but thought I should respond to say I'd seen it - it seems there is now a start at some discussion on Talk:setuid, which is what I was going to recommend, so I will bow out again. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW: No matter what comes of this particular issue in this particular article, this incident was mishandled. I will fight to my own death (figuratively; on Misplaced Pages) to quash WP:OWN issues on this site. These shenanigans should not fly, and User:JavaHurricane and User:Objective3000 are just as culpable as the initial actor (User:Drmies) here. Serious question: how is this not outright embarrassing and/or shameful for you? You spit out 2 second replies and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about the ethos and history of this project. I'm monitoring your interactions, and combing through your history. Quit fucking this up. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD, an accepted standard for what to do after someone disagrees with an edit someone else makes. And see also WP:ES, an accepted standard for even a token attempt to persuade others that a possibly arbitrary- or valueless-looking edit has merit. If I saw this same behavior between two IPs, I'd come down against the original who kept unexplainedly redoing it because our policies and guidelines are that editors work hard to collaborate and discuss when it becomes clear that there is opposition to one's ideas. DMacks (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: Please see WP:ONUS, which is policy. All the best, ——Serial 09:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic. The edit in question is an unexplained change of the user/account-names in apparently-fictitious (editorially-created) example shell commands--no actual encyclopediac claims, and no add/remove/change that to make any such content more or less verifiable. DMacks (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

...and Drmies actually did explain legitimate-sounding concerns about the edit ; not in a usual place, but clearly IP saw it based on the fact that they responded to it there. By timeline, the IP-account then did not repeat the edit (that's instead when C. A. Russell did). DMacks (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mind you, C. A. Russell, comments such as this—especially to a blocked user's User Page which you know they cannot edit—is outrageous: a personal attack is still a personal attack even if the recipient is indefinitely blocked. Please do not ever do that again. ——Serial 09:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Further, C. A. Russell, comments such as "and then tries to retrofit some bullshit argument to justify their original actions. Let's watch the next instance of this unfold... now", rather suggest that this whole episode was engineered by you to get this very result. That's wholly unproductive behavior. ——Serial 09:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And per DMacks' comment regarding WP:ES, this editsummary indicates they know all about them already: although perhaps less about WP:NPA, considering its contents (fuck Codename Lisa). ——Serial 09:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume that C A Russell is not aware of the policy regarding logged- out editing, which instructs that editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors. In this particular case, it would appear they did both deliberately. ——Serial 09:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, "engineered to prove a point"? No. Please limit your feedback to coherent ones. 1. User Drmies violates Misplaced Pages policies. 2. I reach out to an admin to head off edit warring and provide more-than-ample warning to Drmies that would dissuade either any rational person or anyone who actually gives two shits about what this project stands for from repeating the original ill-considered revert. 3. Drmies persists. 4. I report this clear-cut violation here, on the administrators' noticeboard—you know, where this sort of thing is supposed to be handled. 5. The administrators who respond utterly fail to do their job, opting to provide cover for the admin—with Drmies themselves having left comments of his or her own revealing that (a) Drmies was out of his or her depth and had no idea what they were doing in that article, and (b) that he or she actually feared being sanctioned (why? because of course they'd be sanctioned—after all they had gotten sloppy and had done a bad a stupid thing).

So, then, in response to that failure on the part of the responding admins, I leave a comment somewhere. And you.... point that comment in some sort of tortured, and completely backwards cause-and-effect to explain the earlier thing?

Do you understand the concept of the word wikt:anachronism?

No. There was no engineering here, except the kneejerk dismissal of a complaint against one of Misplaced Pages's own anointed, i.e., engineering on your part.

And please, any cursory glance at my edit history will reveal gnome-like editing almost entirely to content space for over a decade, because I simply don't care for this behind-the-scenes, meta drama. Every time I have to deal with the kind of nonsense I'm being made to deal with here now, my edits drop. The only intended outcome here was to better the affected article by getting rid of a rather embarrassing choice of names. To believe that I wanted to get involved into an inane edit war with an oblivious, well-intentioned-but-ultimately-ill-equipped admin is simply. ridiculous.

Grow up, grow a spine, and do your duty instead of covering for misbehaving admins. Censure of Drmies in this case—which is what should have happened in response to the original incident report—is the only correct way of handling this incident. Anything else is a total failure of accountability. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, in response to User:DMacks the word "onus" might be applicable, but if you'd taken the time to read the policy you linked to, it is absolutely inapplicable to this situation. And WP:BRD is a policy—but not one characterized the actions Drmies took here. I repeat myself, this is a straightforward case of WP:OWNERSHIP through-and-through. Stop covering for bad actors. Geez. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you feel you had a case does not excuse you to then break every rule in the book (see litany of offences above). And you clearly haven't read ONUS or you would realize that DMacks was disputing its applicability). Time to drop the stick, I suggest. ——Serial 10:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:ThecentreCZ reported by User:Buidhe (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Czech Pirate Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No talk page discussion was necessary over the disputed content in most of these reverts because ThecentreCZ eventually added a reliable source for the content that had previously been sourced to failed verification/unreliable sources (that the party is considered center-left). However I have just opened a talk page discussion about the party's alleged flag.

Comments: This isn't really a content dispute but rather an issue with the user repeatedly restoring content that lacks a reliable source or which fails verification in the cited source, as pointed out by two editors (Concus Cretus and myself). (t · c) buidhe 16:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I'd call it a content dispute at heart but it is exacerbated by the behavior of User:ThecentreCZ, who is quick on the revert and slow on the edit summary--they managed only one, and a quick look at the edits show the kind of valid complaint that the user should have taken up on the talk page. So, I was going to let this be, with a warning for ThecentreCZ to stop edit-warring and start talking--but then I saw this, and so yes, I am going to drop a 24-hr disruption block on them, for edit warring, a battleground mentality, unsourced edits (that flag), and a personal attack. Maybe that will show them that we are serious about "collaborative". Drmies (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Mersenne56 reported by User:Adrian J. Hunter (Result: )

Page: The Case Against Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mersenne56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (in the edit summary; user was reading the edit summaries)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , user's response:

Comments:
User is insisting on parity between Vox and Quilette, in spite of consensus recorded at WP:RSP, and edit-warring to keep either both sources (first diff) or neither source (next three diffs) in the article. Adrian J. Hunter 09:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring