Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive31--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
==Violations==
Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] violation on
{{Article|Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters}}. {{3RRV|Emokid200618}}:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# (31 December 2024)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
# (6 January 2024)
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
# (7 January 2025)
* 2nd revert:
# (8 January 2025)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
;Comments:
This user has been blocked multiple times before with incrementing values. The last block was 72 hours. The user has also stated that the user does not care about violating 3RR. Recommend a longer block or an indefinite one. ] 21:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
*Please provide diffs for reverts, not oldids. ] 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
===] reported by ] (Result:48h)===
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
] violation on
:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{AN3|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
;Comments:
Blocked for violating 3RR before. All reverts include some insistence about the ship being "ironclad." Some of the reverts were actually vandalism (removing cited sources). After leaving a note on his page, incivil
].
User removed cited statements (after removed the citations) with misleading summaries (saying they were "vandalism") ]
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
Not sure whether it's appropriate to add back the reference myself (he does not like references which don't support his ideas), but at this point I guess it's obvious that he's not interested in article quality, so would just be an edit war anyway. —<font face="Verdana" color="#003399">''']'''</font><sup><small><font color="#009933">]</font></small></sup> 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:There's simply no 3rr. Furthermore, Lactose has already admitted that I didn't delete his references on my talk page. In spite of his admission he's again falsely claiming this accusation again. If you look at the talk page and history of this wiki-article, you'll see that Lactose has continually made disruptive edits and reverts rather than participating in the talk page and engaging in progressive and responsive edits as I have done. This 3rr report is simply vindictive and further disruptive behavior by Lactose.] 22:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:: Perhaps you misunderstood something--I never said you didn't remove the references (look at the diff's). Reporting someone for edit-warring and reverting 4 times is not vindictive. (I wish I had realized your reverts didn't stem from lack of knowledge but lack of desire to move forward earlier, unfortunately it took until your 4th revert for me to realize it.) —<font face="Verdana" color="#003399">''']'''</font><sup><small><font color="#009933">]</font></small></sup> 23:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
# {{diff2|1268346280|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
# {{diff2|1268345229|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Turtle_ship&diff=122326394&oldid=122325406] 23:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Somewhat complex case, but it does appear to me that all the edits given above are in fact reverts, and it's clear melonbarmonster is edit warring. Blocking for 48 hours due to repeat offense. Other admins: review if necessary, complex cases can always use another set of eyes. ] 02:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:no vio)===
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
] was blanking the article on {{Article|Capella University}} as well as making ] on others. Instead of discussing his concerns on the ] he instead improperly used his position as a Misplaced Pages editor to block others who were reporting his vandalism.
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] was even ] that his whitewashing and blanking were innappropriate.
This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It also must be noted that ] was following the advice of another user ] and ] who has been warned multiple times for engaging in ].
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Finally, it must be noted that the user ] blocked was rightfully persuing the proper channels to resolve the conflict which ] escalated. For example, in addition to the ], the situation was reported on the ].] 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm filing an RFCU. This editor's only two edits are on this page and they are very similar to the editor whose 3RR violation led to him or her being blocked a few hours ago. --] 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:*This is absurd. Only two reverts given; not even an effort to make this ''look'' like a real 3RR report. And coming from an account clearly created solely to make this report. Please don't waste our time with this. ] 02:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
*:{{u|Shecose}}, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ] (]) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:noblock)===
== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
] violation on
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
{{Article|Keith Olbermann}}. {{3RRV|Groovyman}}:
* Previous version reverted to (or very, very closely to):
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Comments: He has been around for 2 months, I don't know if that means he is still a "new user" or not. I changed the version he kept putting back about two (and a half) times, incorporating some of what he wanted in. Twice more his version was changed by (several) other users. Please note that, although I have edited the page 3 times in last day, once was just to revert vandalism. I'm not requesting a block specifically, just some kind of intervention, as I'm afraid to put back the collaboration of several users and ip's for fear of violating 3RR myself. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]</span>] 23:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
#
*No block for now: user not warned until after most recent revert. If it continues, please update this report. ] 02:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
#
#
===] reported by ] (Result:no vio)===
] violation on
{{Article|Turtle ship}}. {{3RRV|LactoseTI }}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
Comment: reinserted comment about controversy
* 2nd revert:
Comment: reinserts comment about Admiral Yi’s war diary
* Previous version reverted to:
* 3rd revert:
Comment: reinsertion of comment about Japanese ship.
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
] violation on
{{Article|Troy, Michigan }}. {{3RRV|LactoseTI }}:
*Previousversionreverted to:
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
* 4th revert:
Comment: reinserted vandalism, “the only gay person in troy, and is known for not being able to walk in a straight line, and is madly in love with madison mittelbrun.”
* 5th revert:
Comment: Second revert in the same minute, reinserted vandalism, “], likes to suck if you know what i mean"
* Previous version reverted to:
* 6th revert:
Comment: Deleted text, “ ], famous minor league player”
] 01:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
: I'm not sure what you're getting at... The Troy, Michigan was related to me removing spam, not adding it (although one tripped up with the script and I re-added some unintentionally, which I immediately corrected--that happens in the fight against spam).
::You replaced one vandalism for another.] 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::: The script goes back to the previous revert. In verifying nothing went wrong, I realized there was a chain of vandalism there and reverted back to the most recent, cleanest version I could find. Though I don't really see a need to explain, I'm sure any admin who looks at this will realize immediately what you're trying to do here. —<font face="Verdana" color="#003399">''']'''</font><sup><small><font color="#009933">]</font></small></sup> 01:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
: Besides that, 3RR applies to one article at a time, and reverts together in a single block don't even count at all... or you'd be guilty of about 15 reverts instead of 4. You are allowed 3 reverts, not 4. —<font face="Verdana" color="#003399">''']'''</font><sup><small><font color="#009933">]</font></small></sup> 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:{{u|Theonewithreason}}, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::The 3RR rule is an electric fence.] 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*No violation. 3RR applies only to the same article. ] 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24hours)===
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sillypickle123}}
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Comments: 142.157.201.134 and Neoelitism are quite clearly one and the same individual (see their respective contribs).
# {{diff2|1268583865|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268451301|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268450870|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268449472|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268448980|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
24 hours, obviously the same editor. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268447335|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
# {{diff2|1268463321|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===] reported by ] (Result:1 month)===
# {{diff|oldid=1268447335|diff=1268451519|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
] violation on
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Article|Nasser_Pourpirar}}. {{3RRV|Ahwaz}}:
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: (previous version reverted to: )
* 4th revert:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
;Comments: User:Ahwaz has been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and sockpupetry 16 times by now, in less than a year. He's just returned to editing after a 1-month block for edit-waring , yet he's resumed edit-waring and broken 3RR again, even after he was explicitly told the last time he was blocked, that he was very close to being blocked indefinitely if he doesn't improve his behavior. --] 02:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:*Another month. ] 04:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] violation on {{Article|The Argumentative Indian}}. {{3RRV|70.113.114.144}}:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version (before edit war):
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
# {{diff2|1268688649|01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
# {{diff2|1268687321|01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=1268684554|diff=1268686155|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268685840|01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
## {{diff2|1268686155|01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*1st revert:
# {{diff2|1268688594|01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "]Created page with '== January 2025 == ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> You didn't read the ] carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
* Diff of 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|1268690605|01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268694009|02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268695553|02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Comments''': Edit war by a Hindu nationalist IP user, who is also relying on a blog to support his POV pushing. Another editor has tried to be reasonable with him on the talk page without success. ] 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
] violation on
{{Article|Four Great Inventions of ancient China}}. {{3RRV|Gun Powder Ma}}:
The user was not following the ] correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
:YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! ] (]) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
<!--
:THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. ] (]) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
;Comments: A total of 6th revert, clearly had violated the 3RR rules. Funny things is that that guy even made a report on other while received without any result. When a reporter himself had violated the 3RR rules he should had blocked as well. ] 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::Those are edits. They aren't all reverting back to the same version of the article - at least not the one you've cited. Result: no violation. {{unsign|Waggers|12:47, 13 April 2007}}
:::Unfortunately those ain't just edits as you can see, an editor does not have to perform ''the same'' revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted for your info. That's how three-revert rule appiled from ]. ] 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there no respone from any of the admins. Is that mean I should made another troll report on this. Regards ] 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|180.195.212.14}}
{{Article|Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict}}. {{3RRV|Francis Tyers}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
The user is edit-warring to insert a list of "supported by" countries into the military conflict infobox.
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert: </s>
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Comments:
Established user, very well knows about 3RR - been warned anyways. ] 12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:I've taken both users to task and will watch the situation. In fact, Baristarim was in violation of 3RR himself. I'd say we can handle this without blocks for the moment. ] ] 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
::I've agreed to not edit article/template space for the duration of this day. - ] ] 13:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:::Ok, I stroke the report. I generally don't bring things to 3RR, but I ''really'' don't like scorched redirects (I have had bad memories :)) ] 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], ]
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hrs)===
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
] violation on
{{Article|Misplaced Pages:Straw polls}}.
<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{3RRV|Netscott}}:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
*1st revert: (to )
*2nd revert: (same as above)
*3rd revert: (hiding text, in effect reverting to that same version again)
*4th revert: (removal of other text, after hiding it , in effect reverting to that same version again)
*5th revert: (removal of unrelated text added last week , note earlier revert warring over this text )
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Discovery Zone}} <br />
<!--
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|73.194.17.8}}
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Comments:
:This user has previously been blocked for 3RR .
:The user objects to all content on ] that does not match his opinion, calling it "soapboxing" or "propaganda" , and requests that other people cease editing the page .
:Other recent revert warring by this user on ] (note ]) and ] (note ). See also ] on ] last week, in particular by ].
:] 13:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. This user is attempting to game this 3RR system by fabricating reverts (note the level of detail he's gone into to justify that the diffs he's provided are reverts). This user himself has a long history of violating 3RR. He himself just recently evaded a block for ] and has previously done so as well: ], ]. I admit that edit warring is wrong and that both Radiant! and I have been engaging in it. If I am to be blocked for that then I would recommend that ] be blocked as well. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Also please note that both ] and I have engaged in volumious discussions at ], ] and ] as we attempt to resolve this ongoing dispute about Misplaced Pages guidelines properly reflecting Misplaced Pages practice surrounding polling. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
</pre>
#
:::Wow, guys. Uncool. Two experienced editors like you should have been able to talk this out long before it got to 3RR. Tough call. It's going to take some looking into, and I'd appreciate another admin's opinion on this. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
#
::It looks like netscott was trying to game the system. I would expect him to be very aware of the ] and as an administrator, be held to a higher standard. I personally think an appropriate ] block is in order here. If it had been any other editor, they most likley would have been blocked. ] 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
#
:::Somewhat confused by this comment, as Netscott is not, and has never been, an ]. ] 04:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
#
:::::Actually Crislk02 if we want to talk about gaming the system, I would recommend reviewing ]'s behavior illustrated in ]. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Well neither of us is editing on these pages currently. Probably a better solution would be for ] to be protected and for us to engage in mediation because this dispute has revolved around us. I hate to admit it but this has even carried over to ] where Radiant! reverted four times yesterday: , , , . {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Decision''': I am very unhappy about this, but I have blocked Netscott for 24 hours. I have also protected the page (I'm sure it's the "wrong version") and although I know Radiant! can still edit it, I implore him not to. It was a pretty tough call not to block both editors, so please don't prove me wrong. I definitely suggest you guys find better mediation than 3RR. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::As an uninvolved admin I'm a little concerned by this block - 2 of these edits are clearly not reverts (one is simply commenting out a single line while the other is a one-line content edit). I think this decision should be reviewed, although it was taken in complete good faith by the blocking admin and they handled the above exchange extremely well. It stands *regardless* that users should seek far more appropriate ways of dealing with conflict - both of the users involved have a long history of positive contributions to the encyclopaedia. ] 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hrs)===
] violation on
{{Article|N. R. Narayana Murthy}}.
*Previousversionrevertedto:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* Diff of 3RRwarning:
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
;Comments: There has been edit-warring about Murthy's actions regarding the playing of the Indian nation anthem during a recent visit of President Kalam to ]. I had attempted to move this to a discussion on the article's talk page, but 131.193.9.108 has been repeatedly adding back a version that blatantly violates ] and perhaps ] and ignoring warnings. I am afraid, however, that I may myself have violated ] in removing this material. I request Administrator evaluation of my own actions, as well as a block of 131.193.9.108. ] 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />Slow edit war, not 3RR, but editor has shown no effort to engage. -- ] (]) 15:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
**I have blocked the IP for 24 hours several hours ago because of edit waring since the IP was presistant and refused to discuss the changes, but I would also like to see your side of the story on why this section shouldn't be in the article and how it is not NPOV and vandalism. Since you have called yourself out and stepped out of the edit war after the last time the IP placed the section in, I don't see a point in blocking you as that would be punitive and pointless at this point. I will, however, suggest using caution when reverting another user's edits without discussing it with them on their talk page, this way you can see why they keep adding it into the article and get their side of the story and prevent further conflict. ''''']]<sup>]</sup>''''' 00:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:Noviolation)===
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
* 4th revert: adding {{fact}} tags to paragraphs he had attempted to alter in the past.
* 5th revert: Removes “Distanced himself from the crime” a line from a paragraph he has deleted in the past.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Have not warned, but user is experienced and has been blocked for 3RR on this article before:
-->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Comments: The edits here all involve removing or altering bits user has objected to in the past. <font color="green">]</font> 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
I'm really not seeing a clear intent to edit war here, most of these edits are pretty different. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268792658|15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268747259|09:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268721660|05:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1268541485|08:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::This is crazy. I am fixing references, removing unsourced material (wp:blp) and trying to improve this article. Anything I remove is unsourced or written in a pov manner. I probably reformatted 12 or 13 references today. Not to mention removing vandalism. I swear that I am acting in the best of faith and by the book.] 06:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
:::All of the edits above are completely legit. ] 06:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===] reported by ] (Result:article protected)===
] violation on
{{Article|WWE No Mercy}}. {{3RRV|Maestro25}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Comments: User is intent on starting an edit war over a very trivial issue (he keeps removing the "-" is Fatal Four-Way match). He is ignoring the evidence presented on both the talk page of the article and at ]. I have shown that WWE uses both "Fatal Four Way" and "Fatal Four-Way", that third party sources use both (but mainly use the dash), that the dash makes it grammatically correct, and that using the dash has been the de facto standard for as long as I can remember in PPV articles here at WP. Since I have a feeling he will just continue the reerting (he stopped yesterday after he reached 3 reverts), I decided to report him here. I feel silly about such a trivial issue, but he insists on changing the standard used here even though no one agrees with him. ] 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
*Article protected by AuburnPilot. Please discuss rather than revert warring, and I'm referring to everyone here. ] 06:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
**He still violated 3RR. He won't discuss the issue. He will only say that since WWE doesn't use the dash, neither should we (even though I pointed out to him that WWE sometimes uses it and sometimes doesn't). ] 10:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Was just blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring. Is now edit warring on ]. Two reverts on 10 Jan and 2 on 11 Jan. ] ] 16:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:1 week)===
*Blocked indefinitely.--] (]) 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
] violation on
{{Article|Template:911ct}}. {{3RRV|Lovelight}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
Not all reverts are listed here.
Still at it:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th
<!--
-->
;Comments: Lovelight again, been blocked for these actions before. S/he's singlehandedly trying to force a name change on this template, along with adding a bunch of names to the supporters list this time. It just goes on and on. As you can see it's been happening all day. ] 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
*Rarely have I seen this much revert warring in so short a time. 1 week, taking into account previous violations. ] 06:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: Warning)===
] violation on
{{Article|Boris Stomakhin}}. {{3RRV|Biophys}}:
* Previous version reverted to: 21:03, 2 February 2007
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: 14:21, 13 April 2007
* 2nd revert: 14:35, 13 April 2007
* 3rd revert: 05:44, 14 April 2007
* 4th revert: 14:12, 12 April 2007
* Diff of 3RR warning: 14:46, 13 April 2007
I have warned him . ] 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
For BLP concerns see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Outside_view_by_Alex_Bakharev - outside view of Alex Bakharev and here ]. ] 06:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
;Comments: Biophys claims that the article is protected, although protection term has elapsed. He perfectly knows what is ] since I was blocked once because of dispute with him.] 06:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Neither one of you has violated 3RR ''yet'', but you're both pushing it. Please complete your mediation case and come to an agreement, no one's going to get what they want through edit warring. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|Four Great Inventions of ancient China}}. {{3RRV|Gun Powder Ma}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|University of Wisconsin System}}. {{3RRV|Psantora}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
;Comments: Repeatedly messing up the images and deleting useful comments. Didn't stop after discussion. ] 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' As I'm sure an admin will notice, the first "revert" is anything but; it's an editor making useful edits. Miaers himself then violated 3RR and was blocked for two weeks. Cheers, ] 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
As long as it is more than 3, it is a violation. I was blocked even for removing copyvio images. ] 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
**3RR blocks are meant to be preventative. As this report is about two weeks old, a block now could only be punitive. No action. ] 06:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no rule on the time lag for violation. He was not reported 2 weeks ago because I was wrongly blocked 2 weeks ago. I don't think ] has realized he had violated 3RR. He needs to be blocked for the violation to prevent hime from any violation in the future. ] 13:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{300 (film)|300}}. {{3RRV}}:
* Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=300_%28film%29&diff=122746962&oldid=122697157]
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:
Though the user was warned along with the welcome template by ], the user continued to revert. When Slowking Man about the reverts on the offemder's page, Iranzulqarnain responded by accusing Slowking of , and then posted a similar remark on the oh-so-calm 300 Discussion Page.
=== Example ===
<pre>
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
;Comments:
</pre>
==Request for comment at ]==
Hi, I've been trying to wikify and clean the article on ] for over a year now and I'm getting repeatedly reverted by two users, one of whom is mentioned in the article and citing himself. There are numerous issues involved. Please comment: ''']'''. Thanks: --] 09:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (7 January 2025)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments: The user was warned multiple times to not insert poorly sourcedcontentious material in a page which is a living person's biography. Despite this, the user has continued to insert original research, while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.
I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user CNMall41 has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. Shecose (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I realize the policy states, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, right? This is three, not more than three. It shows the desperation. Shecose (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Shecose, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "←Created page with '== January 2025 == Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You didn't read the MOS:TVCAST carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user was not following the MOS:TVCAST correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Update this page
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely Jauerback/dude. 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
