Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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.
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. |
|
User:Solidarityandfreedom reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: No action)
Page: Mayra Flores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solidarityandfreedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Added source and info"
- 20:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Evangelicals don’t have a Sacrament of Confirmation only Orthodox Christians and Catholics do. Campaigning with the support of evangelicals =/= being an Evangelical, Donald Trump is an example of this. Also this article uses tweets a sources for other statements but provides no source for this statement. Her own statements directly refute this.
- 18:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Added information and source"
- 18:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Added information and citation on personal life."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 18:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC) ""
- 20:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mayra Flores."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 18:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"
- 20:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"
- 20:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"
Comments:
This user doesn't appear to be able to edit without edit warring, whether it be adding erroneous, unsourced or incorrect information of varying degrees. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not blocked I agree they were heading in the direction of a block, but This edit following the talk page discussion seems to have stopped them; they've gone on to edit other articles since then. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
User:92.10.13.209 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page: Amanda Lear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.10.13.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 00:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096837089 by Binksternet (talk) Removed WP:BLP violation, I encourage you to read the BLP policy - which this info violates"
- 22:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not a gossip column"
- 20:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096816863 by ZimZalaBim (talk) This is an obvious WP:BLP violaton. I am not going to seek consensus regardless of sourcing, considering the purpose of the info. If someone found sourced information of her social security number that would still be a BLP violation and not what Wikipedia is for. Passport + birth cert info is not Wikipedia appropriate and u know it. You'd delete it on any other article."
- 20:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "This entire section and the ending of last quote is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and regardless of intention serves purely as tabloid journalism on something private - potentially violating the privacy of a living person WP:BLP - as a way of exoticising trans women. Either way, if Lear's trans, then she'd be closeted and this would be a big BLP vio - but she said she's cis constantly. Info about her birth certificate and passport is outrageously unacceptable"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Amanda Lear */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This IP has engaged in edit wars on numerous pages over the past week or so. Amanda Lear, Emily St. James, and others. Attempts to engage on user talk page are met with hostility or blanking warnings. ZimZalaBim talk 00:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours It has as of this edit expired and they have returned to editing. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
User:192.181.85.245 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page: Bucharest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 192.181.85.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 01:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
- 04:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 05:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bucharest."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
See also them acting in the previous days. It seems they particularly hate the Turks, see their other edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Disruption continues, I have reported it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Theknightwho reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Both users blocked 24h)
Page: NATO phonetic alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theknightwho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]
Comments:
Not a 3RR violation, but edit-warring nonetheless. Seem to be POINTy edits. Theknightwho removed some unsourced wording [8] (common enough statement in the lit, but not one I have a ref handy for), and I cleaned up the result by restoring the subject of the paragraph. Theknightwho then edit-warred over deleting the subject, claiming it was "redundant". Of course, you don't want the topic of a para to be a pronoun, because if someone copies the para, it won't make sense out of context. Theknightwho seems to object to the wording "spelling alphabet", but that follows from the lead and is well-sourced.
Anyway, it's late, I'm tired and am going to bed. — kwami (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: The full context of this hasn't really been explained, and is cross-project because it involves a disagreement that has mostly happened at Wiktionary. I know we're only concerned about Wikipedia here, but some of the Wiktionary stuff is necessary to understand what went on here.
- The issue is over the term "phonetic alphabet", which has two meanings: it can refer to phonetic transcription (e.g. the IPA) or spelling alphabets (e.g. the NATO phonetic alphabet). @User:Kwamikagami considers the second usage to be incorrect and thinks we should always call those alphabets "spelling alphabets", which I consider to be prescriptivist. I think they're just synonyms, and in any event a prescriptivist tone is explicitly disllowed on Wiktionary (and frowned upon here, so far as I'm aware).
- Kwamikagami added the paragraph in question back in March 2021[9], and made similar edits to the "phonetic alphabet" and "spelling alphabet" entries at Wiktionary[10][11] a few hours later. That paragraph was then used by someone else to add a similar note to the "phonetic alphabet" Wiktionary entry in May 2021.[12]. This issue came to my attention yesterday, when I noticed wikt:Template:phonetic alphabet had just been moved by Kwamikagami to wikt:Template:spelling alphabet[13] on the basis that
these are not phonetic alphabets
. We then had a lengthy discussion in which we managed to come to some level of agreement at a few points, but which was ultimately frustrated because (from my perspective) it didn't really feel like Kwamikagami was arguing in good faith, but instead wanted everyone to follow their preferred terminology, irrespective of whether their arguments actually made any sense when taken as a whole. However, the paragraph in question is one of the things that started that discussion in the first place (yes, I did check the WP article history
), so I changed it to something more neutral when it seemed like Kwamikagami had at least conceded that what mattered was how a term is used, and not what they personally deemed correct.[14] - In that context, Kwamikagami changing the wording from
Although called "phonetic alphabets"
toAlthough spelling alphabets are commonly called "phonetic alphabets"
[15] felt like an attempt to insert prescriptivism in by the back door by implying that one is more correct than the other (and also a bit of WP:OWN, to be honest). I reverted it on the basis that it's redundant (which it is as the referent is obvious), but also because I didn't want to reignite things based on a hunch by making an accusation after one revert. However, after it was reinstated[16] I then explained why it was a problem[17]. Kwamikagami then added their wording for a third time on the basis that I should take it to the talk page and stop edit warring,[18] which felt like pretty obvious bad faith given the discussion we'd already had (and their own edit-warring behaviour). Their warning on my talk page was anything but an attempt to resolve the issue,[19] and just seemed like a way to throw their weight around while insulting me. - Honestly, I'm not happy that any of this happened and wish I hadn't got involved, but I'm really unimpressed with the actions of an editor that has this much experience. Theknightwho (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- So far there is nothing about this disagreement on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was completely exhausted dealing with this because it felt like the points had been discussed already between the two of us, but someone else has conveniently started a conversation on the talk page on the name issue, so hopefully we can build some kind of consensus on how to handle the naming collision between the two kinds of "phonetic alphabet". Theknightwho (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- So far there is nothing about this disagreement on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Since making this report, Kwamikagami has replied to the previous conversation on Wiktionary[20] about something else, and also decided to call me
grossly ignorant
on a project talk page over a different disagreement, without even tagging me to inform me they’d made the post[21] (which I have had to move to the correct forum, as things work a little differently on Wiktionary due to it being smaller). What they have not done is try to engage with me on this issue anywhere. I’m struggling to see the good faith here. Theknightwho (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami: has now reverted for a fourth time, clearly trying to circumvent 3RR on a technicality.[22] This is a breach of WP:3RR, which says that
Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.
They have still made no attempt to discuss the issue, and this user is experienced enough to be aware that this is bad faith. Theknightwho (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours "Not a 3RR violation, but edit-warring nonetheless." Indeed. You are both capable of resolving this dispute through discussion as you have clearly tried at length. Consider using DRN or something else and bringing in some other people to make a consensus more likely. After you come back in from the hall. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
User:1.144.111.89 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 60h)
Page: Julie Christie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1.144.111.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [23]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33] (not the article talk page, but I tried to explain the issue by reaching out directly on the editor's talk page)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34]
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 60 hours since they went well beyond 3RR and never responded to requests to discuss Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Lyvia Lessa reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: Both users blocked; one for 24h other for 12h )
Page: Javon Walton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lyvia Lessa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 03:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Javon Walton."
- 03:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Javon Walton."
- 03:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Javon Walton."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
I see a big problem with this report. The editor you reported was not given an edit warning or 3RR warning on their talk page, so they likely have no idea about edit-warring or more specifically about 3RR. There are vandalism templates you placed on their talk page, but their edits are not vandalism. Further, they didn't violate 3RR, you are the one who has violated the 3RR rule, making 4 reverts within 22 minutes of each other. I also don't see that you've made any attempt to discuss this on the talk page or on the user's talk page, and even your edit summaries don't include an explanation of what's wrong with the edit so how would they know? Maybe slow down and discuss the content? - Aoidh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Btspurplegalaxy: Please address the issues raised by Aoidh.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: They're continuing to edit but haven't addressed this or made any attempt at further talk page discussion. I think perhaps @Btspurplegalaxy: does need a small block for violating the bright-line rule of 3RR so that they don't think it's okay to continue to edit-war and just ignore the AN3 discussion when it doesn't get the result they want. The only reason the edit warring stopped is because @Lyvia Lessa: stopped, but Bts still violated 3RR and has refused to comment here further about how they edit-warred without discussion, and they likely would have continued to edit war had Lyvia not stopped first. Since they want to ignore these concerns about how they handled their edit warring I think that a block would get their attention and would be preventative in that it would help prevent future edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really have a comment on anything. If you need to have me blocked, then go ahead and proceed with it. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 00:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: They're continuing to edit but haven't addressed this or made any attempt at further talk page discussion. I think perhaps @Btspurplegalaxy: does need a small block for violating the bright-line rule of 3RR so that they don't think it's okay to continue to edit-war and just ignore the AN3 discussion when it doesn't get the result they want. The only reason the edit warring stopped is because @Lyvia Lessa: stopped, but Bts still violated 3RR and has refused to comment here further about how they edit-warred without discussion, and they likely would have continued to edit war had Lyvia not stopped first. Since they want to ignore these concerns about how they handled their edit warring I think that a block would get their attention and would be preventative in that it would help prevent future edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked Although BTSPurplegalaxy's is, per above, shorter than usual. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Semsûrî reported by User:178.218.98.228 (Result: Declined)
Page: Yazidi nationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Semsûrî (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [35]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41][42]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]
Comments:
User:47.227.95.73 is the same person as User:Semsûrî and is gaming the system by using an another IP. 178.218.98.228 (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is a sockpuppet (Ezidishingali) that has been vandalizing Kurdish subjects for some time now through VPN. Semsûrî (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Denying is useless. 178.218.98.228 (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Declined Reported user's edits qualify for a 3RR exemption for reverting a blocked user's edits. @Semsûrî: please report the sockpuppet next time rather than make so many reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Xyxx6587 reported by User:Zoglophie (Result: Malformed)
Page: P. V. Sindhu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xyxx6587 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comments:
Also in page Tai Tzu-ying, keeps ignoring talk page messages and edit summaries made by me when I reverted their edits and manually revert to their preferred version..zoglophie 13:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
User:HMRC69 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: )
Page: Grant Shapps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HMRC69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [44]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]
Comments:
VVikingTalkEdits 13:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
[[User:]] reported by User:Minaghahraman (Result: Declined)
Page: Template:Https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید مهدی موسوی
MEHDI MOUSAVI: Template:Https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=بحث کاربر:Mahdi Mousavi&oldid=35058582
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/بحث:سید_مهدی_موسوی#اشکالات_بی%E2%80%8Cشمار_در_محتوا،_اطلاعات_و_منابع
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I was trying to edit a page -which I found out about its short comings because of its English version- And tried my best to point out the fact that it has no references except the subject himself, but as I wad still editing, the subject himself and with an ID, identical to his own name, boldly edited his own page! I have joined just a couple of days ago and one of the first steps was the declaration of not to try to create or edit a page for myself or someone close.
Are people really allowed to create their own personal pages on Wiki, brag about anything they want and keep the others from criticizing or editing their pages? Don’t understand how someone can boldly do this and don’t even feel the need to create a fake account and under a different name… Would appreciate it you answer my question; spend a lot of time working on that page and witnessing this bold action made me feel hopeless about bettering things and striving towards the truth. Thank you
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Also, this noticeboard only covers the English Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
User:2601:240:8400:8A00:0:0:0:831A reported by User:Czello (Result: No action)
Page: List of WWE Champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:240:8400:8A00:0:0:0:831A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Changed the end date of WWE Championship Name"
- 12:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Names */"
- 12:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Reigns */"
- 12:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Names */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 12:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "/* List of WWE champions */ new section"
Comments:
- Not blocked The user does seem to be headed toward making a pest of themselves, even though they only edit intermittently just about every projectspace edit they've ever made has been reverted. However, since this report, they have not edited in over 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
User:2A01:4B00:8449:3900:C8AE:161A:FE24:E93D reported by User:JeffUK (Result: /64 range blocked for six months)
Page: X-Men: The Last Stand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:C8AE:161A:FE24:E93D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 11:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Lol. It is you who doesn't understand basic English. 'They' is not a singular pronoun. Grammatical errors corrected."
- 11:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Corrected aforesaid grammatical errors"
- 09:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Corrected grammatical errors. Plural wrongly being used to describe a singular person."
- 21:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC) "Corrected grammatical errors"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
WP:Nothere, warned for warring on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A01:4B00:8449:3900:C8AE:161A:FE24:E93D&oldid=1096834237 already JeffUK (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of six months And not just the IP, but the whole range ... they have a quite a history of doing this sort of thing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Msftwin95 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page: Counting Crows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Msftwin95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 02:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097158660 by FlightTime (talk) Cut it out. I used three sources, all of which are reliable."
- 01:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097137582 by Binksternet (talk) I'm pretty sure it counts as a reliable source, but I've added a couple more for good measure. Whether Counting Crows are a rock rather than a jangle pop band is your own point of view, as many sources describe them as both."
- 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097134399 by Binksternet (talk) The source explicitly refers to them as jangle pop. I honestly have no idea why this was reverted."
- 21:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097120348 by Binksternet (talk) Sourced genre"
- Special:Diff/1097169958
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 01:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Counting Crows."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Now starting on another page Special:Diff/1097170392 - FlightTime (open channel) 03:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments:
- Now with this reversion Msftwin95 is past 3RR to 5RR. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- 6RR now. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Clicriffhard reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Blocked)
Page: Talk:Graham Linehan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Clicriffhard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [52]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: My attempt to resolve the issue at Clicriffhard's talk page. Newimpartial's attempt to resolve the issue at Clicriffhard's talk page.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [58]
Comments:
Pretty straightforward 3RR violation at Talk:Graham Linehan over removal, and then hatting of a disruptive IP editor's comments. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I would point out that while the four reverts were not identical with each other (nor does that matter), they actually all involved restoring an IP comment and all included restoring the non-neutral subject line favored by the IP, He's not anti-trans. He's pro-women. There's a difference.
Also note that I tried twice to hat the off-topic IP comment after CliCriffhard objected to its removal [59] [60], to which Clicriffhard responded with the last two reverts.
Also note that, after Clicriffhard became aware of the GENSEX discretionary sanctions - that is, before the third and fourth reverts. Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- A minor factual correction: I did not become aware of the GENSEX discretionary sanctions until just now as the pair of you made multiple comments on my talk page in a short space of time and also started this conversation and I haven't been able to keep up with it. Having scanned the page now, I don't understand the relevance to the issue at hand, but perhaps you can explain that. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Editors are expected to hold themselves to higher standards (e.g., when it comes to civility and edit warring) on discretionary sanctions topics such as this one. Graham Linehan is a controversial figure precisely for what he would call his "gender critical" activism.
- Also, you can't really blame the activity of other editors for you not having read a notice posted to your Talk page), when you wrote responses to the sections immediately above and below it over the next 45 minutes after it was posted. Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, this is absurd. Sideswipe9th and Newimpartial have been repeatedly trying to delete or remove portions of an IP user's comment on an article's talk page, and I've simply reinstated it because it is very clearly a comment about the article's treatment of its subject - I don't find it a very compelling comment but they have every right to make it and either be engaged with or ignored. For whatever reason, Sideswipe9th has decided to accuse me of edit-warring and not Newimpartial, who was the user who started the repeated deletion of someone else's comment on a talk page. Sideswipe9th is also fully aware that I was midway through posting on an administrators' noticeboard to get some outside input, but has decided that it's a clever idea to race me to it?! Frankly I don't know what to make of that, but I hope that whoever picks this up is able to see through it. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- What part of WP:3RRNO do you think covers
I've simply reinstated it because it is very clearly a comment about the article's treatment of its subject - I don't find it a very compelling comment but they have every right to make
? The policy is not known to care about editors' feelings or noble intentions. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC) - None of this excuses the WP:3RR violation you have made by virtue of your fourth revert to that page, in the space of 4 hours. If you self-revert, I will be happy to withdraw this as resolved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Again, you are trying to game the system by splitting your edit-warring between the two of you and then claiming it's a simple numbers game, and I'm sure you understand that you'd have hit this magic line before me if you hadn't worked in tandem. And again, you (specifically Newimpartial) made the initial reversion of the IP editor's talk page comment, and then the pair of you have taken it in turns to repeat the deletion with subtle variations. That is edit-warring. I'm completely fed up with the bad-faith argumentation, the hypocrisy, the game-playing, and the bullying of various editors that I've seen from a small group of people that includes the pair of you over the course of what must be many months now. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is a whole lot of WP:ASPERSIONS - are you sure that's where you want to go with this? Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Again, please stop playing silly games. You can't be deliberately provocative in the hope of eliciting a reaction and then start tugging on the admins' skirts when people don't enjoy it. Or rather, you can, but only if people let you. The fact that this sort of manipulation seems to work forces me to consider that Wikipedia does not, but I hope that someone here will have the intelligence to see through it. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Clicriffhard, please stop with the accusations. More than one editor is allowed to dispute your conduct on a talkpage, and you appear to be abusing the talkpage as a soapbox rather than as a serious discussion of content. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not posting on the talk page. I am trying to enable an IP user to make on-topic comments on a talkpage. That is literally all. Which accusations do you disagree with anyway? Clicriffhard (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm trying to find reasons to not block you for edit-warring and personal attacks. You're not making it easy, and your responses on this talkpage do not provide assurance that you understand the problem. I suggest you withdraw your accusations against other editors, rather than upping the ante. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Which accusations do you disagree with? Again, if you want to say that I'm edit-warring for trying to prevent editors from *repeatedly deleting another user's comment on a talk page* then I hope you'll at least say the same of Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th before long. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that the issue Acroterion is having is that you've made multiple accusations of bad behavior of other editors without providing any supporting evidence. It's not easy to say what accusations someone disagrees with if they don't know what your justification for making the accusations is in the first place. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking only for myself,
playing silly games
, beingdeliberately provocative in the hope of eliciting a reaction ... tugging on the admins' skirts when people don't enjoy it
andmanipulation
make up a long list of accusations that are (1) false, (2) egregious violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA and (3) not supported by a shred of evidence. I'm not entirely convinced that you have calmly considered your approach to this forum, TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Which accusations do you disagree with? Again, if you want to say that I'm edit-warring for trying to prevent editors from *repeatedly deleting another user's comment on a talk page* then I hope you'll at least say the same of Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th before long. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm trying to find reasons to not block you for edit-warring and personal attacks. You're not making it easy, and your responses on this talkpage do not provide assurance that you understand the problem. I suggest you withdraw your accusations against other editors, rather than upping the ante. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not posting on the talk page. I am trying to enable an IP user to make on-topic comments on a talkpage. That is literally all. Which accusations do you disagree with anyway? Clicriffhard (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is a whole lot of WP:ASPERSIONS - are you sure that's where you want to go with this? Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Again, you are trying to game the system by splitting your edit-warring between the two of you and then claiming it's a simple numbers game, and I'm sure you understand that you'd have hit this magic line before me if you hadn't worked in tandem. And again, you (specifically Newimpartial) made the initial reversion of the IP editor's talk page comment, and then the pair of you have taken it in turns to repeat the deletion with subtle variations. That is edit-warring. I'm completely fed up with the bad-faith argumentation, the hypocrisy, the game-playing, and the bullying of various editors that I've seen from a small group of people that includes the pair of you over the course of what must be many months now. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Just an observation. But, I think it might've been best to have hatted & collapsed the questionable discussion, rather then outright delete it. An editor tends to anger quicker & more, if their post gets deleted. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- GoodDay if you care to read the third and fourth diffs, those were reverting Newimpartial's hatting and collapsing of that discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, it isn't my post that they're deleting. My annoyance, which might seem excessive to you, is because I've seen the same group of editors enforce the same possessive strictures on the article in question over a long period, and now they've resorted to deleting comments on a talk page, which strikes me as outrageous. On the whole, I feel extremely disappointed and disillusioned that Wikipedia editors in general are more interested in fussing over superficial "civility" than making sure that the site remains a collaborative encyclopedia and not an easily manipulable collection of pamphlets.
- I agree that it would have been better to hat and collapse the discussion than outright delete it, but when that was attempted, half of the comment (being contained in the title) was needlessly deleted in the process. In any event, I struggle to see a justification for immediately hatting the comment before anyone's had a chance to discuss/dispute/develop its points. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are aware that in the version you reverted for your fourth revert, I retained the IP's section title text within the collapsed section. You saw that, right? Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I've blocked Clicriffhard for 24 hours, primarily for personal attacks, which have continued after I asked that they be withdrawn. "What did I do wrong?" is simply unresponsive to an obvious problem with conduct toward other editors, and is a red flag for further issues. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Editonic reported by User:NikolaosFanaris (Result: Both blocked)
Page: Adonis Georgiadis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editonic (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: [65]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I attempted to resolve this and asked him to provide proof that WP policy does not allow the political position to be stated in the introduction. He refused to provide proof, admitted there is no policy and reverted me again.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [66]
Comments:
Pretty straightforward 3RR violation and continuous removal of cited content showing the affilication of a certain Greek politician with far-right movements. Editonic keeps erasing the label citing WP policy, which is a straightforward lie, and instead kept reverting me without engaging in a discussion. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have already replied at my talk page; Political positions are not put in the lead by general rule, plus asked the editor to provide me examples of such and they did not. Editonic (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Examples of other articles? There is no WP policy prohibiting this. If you want to add similar labels to other articles, feel free to. Until then, stop vandalising. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: And now a 6th revert(!) even after I initiated a discussion in the talk page to which he didn't respond! It's quite clear that he is opinions on the article without contributing in good faith. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously hadn't seen it as of that time but already made a compromise with my last edit to the page (i.e. putting the information at the controversy part). And yes, as for the former I can re-mention the ones I already did at my talk page (Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Alexis Tsipras, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) and many other ones. Editonic (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you understand that you cannot force those opinions on articles? You refused to discuss this instead pushed for instant reverts - you have violated 3RR repeatedly without even engaging in dialogue. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- What was done on my talk page and the responds at almost all your edit summaries, actually is one. Not to mention the fact you also reverted mοst of my edits without providing an edit summary, thus am I the one there who does not want to make a dialogue? Editonic (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Furthermore, at the article's tp you claim I believed Georgiadis does not belong at the far-right. Never claimed such thing, just suggested that since the information is already part of the infobox and another section, it is an exaggeration to put it on the lead too (besides not being put there commonly). Editonic (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is just your opinion and have not provided any WP policy articles to back this. It's just your POV. Just because it ain't common (which can be disputed), does not give you the right to remove cited content and a clear ideological affiliation without prior discussion. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Already explained the reason I did it but as you can notice per my last edit, I already implemented a compromise by putting the information at the controversy part. Editonic (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is just your opinion and have not provided any WP policy articles to back this. It's just your POV. Just because it ain't common (which can be disputed), does not give you the right to remove cited content and a clear ideological affiliation without prior discussion. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Furthermore, at the article's tp you claim I believed Georgiadis does not belong at the far-right. Never claimed such thing, just suggested that since the information is already part of the infobox and another section, it is an exaggeration to put it on the lead too (besides not being put there commonly). Editonic (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- What was done on my talk page and the responds at almost all your edit summaries, actually is one. Not to mention the fact you also reverted mοst of my edits without providing an edit summary, thus am I the one there who does not want to make a dialogue? Editonic (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you understand that you cannot force those opinions on articles? You refused to discuss this instead pushed for instant reverts - you have violated 3RR repeatedly without even engaging in dialogue. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously hadn't seen it as of that time but already made a compromise with my last edit to the page (i.e. putting the information at the controversy part). And yes, as for the former I can re-mention the ones I already did at my talk page (Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Alexis Tsipras, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) and many other ones. Editonic (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- NikolaosFanaris indefinitely blocked for edit-warring (this is not his first time - he seems to spend most of his time edit-warring given the number of contributions). Editonic indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Grenertson1 reported by User:Sammi Brie (Result: User and underlying /64 blocked for 24 hours)
Page: Ring of Honor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grenertson1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 14:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC) to 14:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- 14:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097163510 by Yoshi24517 (talk) It did not defend the titles at supecard of honor."
- 14:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097237407 by Grenertson1 (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 13:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC) to 13:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- 13:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097076488 by 2600:6C55:4B00:75D:25A0:9184:E85B:D97F (talk)"
- 13:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097072506 by Czello (talk) Again i don't like the Sinclair era logo in black."
- 13:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097043267 by CeltBrowne (talk) and I Don't like the old logo in black."
- 19:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User is heavily reverting and removing content without much sense on a variety of wrestling and television pages. They have pushed past 3RR on this page. They undid a logo change on Up TV, removed references, removed the short description on American Samoa without giving a reason, etc. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Along with the underlying /64, from which they made a few edits. I am acting on the assumption they were unaware at the time that they weren't logged in; there may well be competence issues in play here. But if it should be necessary to block this user again, the /64 should be blocked as well for the same duration. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Rocco30 reported by User:Tamzin (Result: No action)
Page: Shinzo Abe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rocco30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [67] for 1–2; [68] for 3–5
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [69] (rv of [70], itself an rv of Rocco's first removal):
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And there is no mention of tension relations with "various" countries, only tension with Korea.
- [71]:
biased source.(bad wording like "ultra" nationalist.) It goes against the wiki neutrality policy.
- [72] (rv of [73], itself an rv of Rocco's addition):
Recover deleted content without reason.
- [74]:
There is no reason to remove it. Please do not try to maintain only one-sided opinions.
- [75]:
Add only articles with a summary.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76] after the 2nd revert
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [77]
Comments:
Rocco has made 5 reverts in 19 hours concerning Shinzo Abe and South Korea. I'll grant that there may be a few others in the page history who are past 3RR, but in the manner that tends to happen on pages getting a surge of visibility: reverting lots of disparate unconstructive edits. Rocco seems to be the only one who has crossed 3RR over just one matter, despite my warning them when they were at 2 reverts, and multiple past warnings for edit-warring. They are indefinitely blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia for disruption. I reverted their 2nd revert, so would like an uninvolved admin to take a look. No reverts in seven hours (last revert occurring around 1 AM in Japan), but I see no reason to think they've stopped. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have never ignored your warning. Rather, I accepted your warning and left the description of the comfort women as it is. I just added it because I think Abe's opinion is necessary after that, and it is also important from the wiki's multiple and neutral point of view. So it's not a revert.
- On the other hand, a member named John is trying to revert , and this part seems to need a discussion.
- By the way, I am Korean. This can be found by examining my IP history. Rocco30 (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding the content, you were advised by a different user that even if Abe did really made that response, it should be placed in the body, but you did not listen. Your constant messy re-additions of your edit to the lead section is disruptive and is why you were being reverted. Your references are all WP:BAREURLS as well. John Yunshire (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- "The lead should summarize the article; this is not mentioned anywhere else in the body of the article. If you wish to make this addition it should be put in the body first. Maybe in the section regarding his fourth term." are you talking about this?
- I may have misinterpreted it. that the article did not contain relevant information. WP:BAREURLS I will keep it. Rocco30 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have also replaced your Japanese sources with English ones, the Japan and South Korea issue in 2019 was widely covered in English sources as well, so I don't see why we can't just use that instead. It is also much more impartial to use an English source when compared to a Japanese or Korean source, especially when the topic relates to both countries. John Yunshire (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, thank you for replacing with the English source.Originally, I was trying to find an article in Korea, but it was difficult to find an article with Abe's position as the title in Korea. I added it because another user said the title and content had to match. I also understand well what you said, and I will try to add more in English in the future. Rocco30 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have also replaced your Japanese sources with English ones, the Japan and South Korea issue in 2019 was widely covered in English sources as well, so I don't see why we can't just use that instead. It is also much more impartial to use an English source when compared to a Japanese or Korean source, especially when the topic relates to both countries. John Yunshire (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding the content, you were advised by a different user that even if Abe did really made that response, it should be placed in the body, but you did not listen. Your constant messy re-additions of your edit to the lead section is disruptive and is why you were being reverted. Your references are all WP:BAREURLS as well. John Yunshire (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not blocked I grant that if I had come across this fresh yesterday, without any of the discussion above, I would have been strongly inclined to block. However, this discussion seems to have been productive and Rocco has not edited the page in almost 18 hours. So, for now, I don't see a need to act. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
User:73.88.136.56 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: blocked 15mo)
Page: Toy Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.88.136.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 05:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "We do not want voice actors on images. They are bad for us."
- 04:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "We do not want voice actors on images."
- 04:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "We do not want voice actors on images."
- 04:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "We do not want voice actors on images."
- 04:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "We do not want voice actors on images."
- 04:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "We do not want voice actors on images."
- 04:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "We do not want voice actors on images."
- 04:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "We do not want voice actors on images."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 04:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on The Incredibles."
- 04:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on The Incredibles."
- 04:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Toy Story."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Also edit warring on
- Toy Story 2 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Incredibles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Long-term disruptive static IP. IP blocked 15 months (prior to having noticed this report). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
User:JoeKZ03 reported by User:Cassiopeia (Result: Blocked indef)
Page: UFC on ESPN: dos Anjos vs. Fiziev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:JoeKZ03
Previous version reverted to: [78]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89] and [90]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91] and editor deleted the message so many times - see here
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [92]
- In repsond to all the unsourced and edit warring messages, the editor personal attack on the editors - see
[93], [94], [95], [96], and [97]
Comments:
- The editor in question is clearly WP:NOTHERE based on his responses and personal attacks. See [98] ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 05:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- User clearly intends to vandalize the page and attack other users until a ban is given. They have made it known repeatedly through the edit history of the page in question. Sdpdude9
- Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
User:176.35.218.33 reported by User:Fama Clamosa (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Orkney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 176.35.218.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 09:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097361068 by Fama Clamosa (talk) rv disruptive editor making unexplained revert, apparently with no other intent than to edit-war"
- 09:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097360277 by 86.187.165.115 (talk)"
- 08:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097296195 by DeCausa (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of two weeks as an LTA by Blablubbs Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
User:206.162.215.31 & User:74.132.143.168 reported by User:Throast (Result: Both IPs and /16 ranges blocked for two weeks without talk page access)
Page: Chanel Rion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- 206.162.215.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 74.132.143.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WP:ONUS, though this is obviously a case of clear vandalism
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff
Comments:
Rampant vandal with no intention of stopping. Range block might be appropriate looking at the IP's comment. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of different times 74.35 got 31 hours; 202.162 2 weeks. I did indeed make the latter a range block and, just because they said they liked a challenge, cut off talk page access for the duration as I also suspect they would misuse that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Update: I have similarly extended the block on the other IP to its range, for the same time, without talk page access. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, these IPs are the same person. Why would they get different blocks? Throast (talk | contribs) 22:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Update: I have similarly extended the block on the other IP to its range, for the same time, without talk page access. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of different times 74.35 got 31 hours; 202.162 2 weeks. I did indeed make the latter a range block and, just because they said they liked a challenge, cut off talk page access for the duration as I also suspect they would misuse that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)