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.
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
==Violations==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
<!-- Please add new listings at the ***BOTTOM*** of this page, just before the "Report new violation" header". -->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
===]===
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
] violation on {{Article|Socialism}}. {{3RRV|infinity0}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
# (31 December 2024)
* Previous version reverted to: (herearrangedlinks before revert, leaving rearrangment after rv) <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
# (6 January 2024)
* 1st revert:
# (7 January 2025)
* 2nd revert:
# (8 January 2025)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Reported by: ] 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) '''Comments:''' 4th revert happened 24 hours and 55 minutes after first revert, but this user already broke 3RR 3 times ( ) in last 3 months and I think he delayed last revert on purpose to avoid breaking 3RR technically. ] 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
:Vision Thing seems to have a against me. In my defence, I did NOT violate 3RR, and Vision Thing's (spam) edits were reverted by other users too. -- ]''']''' 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
::Infinity0: it is best to show diffs containing the reverts Vision Thing did -- your response will have more weight in you handle it this way. --] 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
:OK, here are Vision Thing's insertion and reinsertion of links: . -- ]''']''' 20:00, 26 April 2006 (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 />
] violation on {{Article|The Ave.}}. {{3RRV|Gephart}}:
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:
: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)
* 1st revert:
::{{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)
* 2nd revert:
:::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)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
Reported by: '''] ('']'')''' 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
'''Comments:'''
* Experienced user. Reverts concern the removal of a pic which no-one else so far has had a problem with. He is assuming bad faith and has already declared his intention to carry out a revert war until he gets his way . - '''] ('']'')''' 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
**I dont exactly know if users have the option to defend themselves or were they would do it, so I, ], will do it right here (if this is not the place, please direct to the appropriate area or let me know i have not chance). Although i have been using wikipedia for a little under a year, i can honestly say i never knew about the 3RR (i know for the future). I guess i have never had any trouble with other users up until today. ] continued to revert what i had done without being willing to discuss the picture in question. And, as i noticed above, he posted another 3RR violation, stating "the persons unwillingness to discuss," so i know he can imagine the frustration i was feeling. I posted twice on the article talk page and once on his user page, but got no direct answer to the simple questions i asked him; he continually beat around the bush to put it. I know i violated policy is "declaring an edit war" in my last post, put that simply came out of frustration, and my intents were never genuine. Anyways, that is my side of the story.--] 00:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::: OK, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but to your own user page is quite ridiculous, shocking and disgraceful, containing falsehoods such as "Calgacus will start a mini-revert war" (actually, you, as you admit here, started it), "he intentionally ignores talk pages" (I actually responded to all your comments all the talk page) and slander "cause you to violate the ] rule" (you yourself did this), "intentionally" (who could you know?). I reported you here because I like to edit articles and concentrate on content, so I report all 3RRs I come across. The latter edit has discredited your attempt to convince of your own good faith. I remind you to consult ], and very much hope you don't need a block to reform your character. Thanks. - '''] ('']'')''' 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===]===
# {{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:'''
] violation on {{Article|Cold fusion controversy}}. {{3RRV|JedRothwell}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: 13:34, 27 April 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cold_fusion_controversy&diff=50419455&oldid=50419132
* 2nd revert: 13:44, 27 April 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cold_fusion_controversy&diff=50420518&oldid=50419787
* 3rd revert: 14:07, 27 April 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cold_fusion_controversy&diff=50423391&oldid=50422134
* 4th revert: 14:21, 27 April 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cold_fusion_controversy&diff=50425225&oldid=50424171
Reported by: ]<sup>]</sup> 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
* 5th revert: 15:24, 27 April 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cold_fusion_controversy&diff=50433449&oldid=50424171
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Comments:'''
Note that this is the second time that Jed has gone over 3RR and he was again warned before his 4th revert: . ] 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
: 24h. Note that I have some history over this article, though it was a long time ago, so feel free to review this block if required ] 15:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 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 ] 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)
] violation on {{Article|April 27}}. {{3RRV|71.144.93.38}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
*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)
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
::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)
* 1st revert:
*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)
* 2nd revert:
*:{{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)
* 3th revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
Reported by: ] 15:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
'''Comments:''' 5th revert came after I put a warning on the anon's talk page.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
: 8h. Sorry I forgot to note that earlier ] 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
] violation on {{Article|Kosovo}}. {{3RRV|Manojlo}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
#
#
#
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
Reported by: ] 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Comments:'''
If looked at ] user continues to revert continuously, hiding behind the claim that "minor parts" are edited, and misleads with the Comments, but in fact he is trying to impose his POV. I put several test warnings to him, but he just kept removing them from his talk page. Action is appreciated. Thank you, ] 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Stephanie Adams}}. {{3RRV|GODDESSY}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
*1strevert:
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
'''Comment''' 1-3 were the same reversion, 4 was removal of deletion tag, 5 was a partial reversion back to original version. Pretty basic edit war.--] 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
:Perhaps off topic, but the user seems to have ] issues about the article.--] 21:09, 27 April 2006 (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)
:: 24h, for 3RR and self-biog ] 21:56, 27 April 2006 (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)
:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sillypickle123}}
] violation on {{Article|Squamish, British Columbia}}. {{3RRV|207.81.122.3}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* 1nd revert:
* 2rd revert:
* 3th revert:
* 4st revert:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Reported by: ] 00:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
'''Comments:'''
# {{diff2|1268447335|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
This seems to all be one user, but a very persistant one. He has been doing these reverts for months. He has been warned on multiple accounts previously (note that he removes warnings from talk pages), and uses many accounts.
# {{diff2|1268463321|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
*] (] • ])
*] (] • ])
*] (] • ])
*] (] • ])
*] (] • ])
*] (] • ])
*] (] • ])
*] (] • ]) (probable)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===]===
# {{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 {{Article|Argentina}} and {{Article|Demographics of Argentina}}. {{3RRV|Al-Andalus}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
*{{Article|Argentina}}
**Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
**1st revert:
**2nd revert:
**3rd revert:
**4th revert:
**5th revert:
*{{Article|Demographics of Argentina}}
**Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
**1st revert:
**2nd revert:
**3rd revert:
**4th revert:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
Reported by: ] 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
'''Comments:''' User has been warned four times by three different users, refusing to discuss the issue or change his behavior. --] 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
: 24h ] 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===]===
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
# {{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:'''
] violation on {{Article|Liancourt Rocks}}. {{3RRV|211.225.70.220}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
# {{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 ].
'''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)'"
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
# {{diff2|1268690605|01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1268694009|02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1268695553|02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Reported by: ] 12:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
This user keeps reverting against consensus, to variations of '''East Sea''' (instead of '''Sea of Japan'''). A warning has been placed on the user page after the 6th revert.--] 13:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
: Seems to have got bored and gone off. Warned. ] 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
===]===
: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)
] violation on {{Article|Aromanians}}. {{3RRV|Greier}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
: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)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|180.195.212.14}}
The user is edit-warring to insert a list of "supported by" countries into the military conflict infobox.
:But ] is one more time challanged by you ]. You don't speak with him on talk page first. You just report him here. --] 18:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::It's not my job to babysit him - how many users is that ludicrous propaganda of his being reverted by? He knows he oughtn't continue reverting, but he does it anyway. Quite evidently (from his user talk page), many users have tried to speak with him, alas, in vain. ] 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:::I haven't seen you try to talk with Greier...--] 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
:::I've seen you just reverting his work. If you complain of something go to the talk page first. This is Misplaced Pages...--] 18:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:::: - after my hard work was ], he hurt my feelings. ] 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], ]
:::::Well, unless you're ] I don't see why you're so upset and why your feelings are hurted. That's really bulshit what you have written there. That work deserve immediatelly reverted. --] 18:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Comments:'''
*User has been of the 3RR and has been blocked before on numerous occasions. One may also be interested in these lovely edit summaries and have a word with him about them , and . ] 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:*I don't agree with this, User:Greier was challanged by ]. --] 13:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:In fact, {{3RRV|Telex}} was also on Administrator's noticeboard warned not to revert and to make compromise on talk page first. --] 13:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
*{{user|Steaua}} is a sockpuppet of permabanned {{userblock|Bonaparte}} - for more info, see ]. ] 13:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
*:Don't you think that Greier is his sock, too? From what I know of both, their style of editing seems to have much in common. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks Steaua for support. I know Romanians on wikipedia are on a constant... let`s call it stress, from a combined pack of Greeks, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Hungarians, Ukrainians.... They all have theyr own (apparentelly contrasting) ideas on what Romanian/Aromanian/Vlach people mean, from where Romanian/Aromanians/Vlach camed from, on what Romanians/"Vlach" language means... About your propose to block me... haa hahahaha hahah haaaa haha... ] 18:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
''2006-04-28 18:54:09 Mikkalai blocked "Greier (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR acc. to report)'' which seems fair enough ] 18:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
A russian coallition of force...russian blocking, just fine...--] 19:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 1 month) ==
===]===
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Discovery Zone}} <br />
] violation on ]. {{3RRV|137.186.145.102}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|73.194.17.8}}
*1strevert:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Reported by: ] <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">]</font></span> 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
'''Comments:''' He violates ] about the talk page. ] <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">]</font></span> 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
: Getting into edit wars on peoples own talk pages is unproductive and offensive. ] 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
::I concur. I've already spoken with Ardenn about how ridiculous it is to consider as vandalism a user's removal of his obviously too large signature from their talk page (the image in Ardenn's current signature is much smaller that the one he left on the talk page in question), as he left a message about vandalism over this issue prior to this report of a 3RR violation. I am absolutely certain that Ardenn understands that what he is arguing over is exceedingly unimportant, and yet he insists on making an issue out of it. <span style="border: 1px solid #CC0000;">]]</span> 20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
===]===
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
] violation on {{Article|Pope Benedict XVI}}. {{3RRV|DevoutOne}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />Slow edit war, not 3RR, but editor has shown no effort to engage. -- ] (]) 15:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|1 month}} ] (]) 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
Reported by: ] ] 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dave Upthegrove}}
'''Comments:'''
Looks like this account was created only to insert links to ] in the article. I posted on talk, he replied with a template. May be a sockpuppet.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}
: Of the pope? :-))) In that case, only 1h for now as a gentle reminder that the rules can be enforced ] 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
===]===
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
] violation on {{Article|Persian Jews}}. {{3RRV|Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg}}:
# {{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:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
Reported by: —] 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Comments:'''
*User has been blocked for 3RR before. —] 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The only previous time I was blocked the admin apoligized later . In this case however I will admit I broke the 3RR as I forgot I rv a couple of times yesterday and could not revert myself as I had already been reverted. I apoligize.- ] | ] 00:16, 29 April 2006 (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)
===]===
*Blocked indefinitely.--] (]) 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
] violation on {{Article|Werner_Herzog}}. {{3RRV|154.20.148.186}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
Reported by: ] 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked 48h. `'] ] 01:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
* Both the first four and the second four reverts constitute a 3RR violation.
* I the user after the first violation, without effect.
* He was blocked for similar offenses previously (see his ]). --] 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Ann Coulter}} {{3RRV|Daveinaustin}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
Reported by: ] (]) 06:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
* User is repeatedly adding POV to the article and removing legitimate text, though he refuses to cite sources (not that that's relevant when investigating 3RR)
* His submissions have been reverted by three separate editors.
* User has been sufficiently warned, yet refuses to stop.
: Are these really reverts? They look like insertions of different POV text ] 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
::I was just about to say the same thing. Ami, can you show where he has reverted to text you had deleted, or repeatedly inserted something? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:::No, I suppose I can't. I've only reverted one of his edits, and then one of the article's main contributors (of which I'm not) asked me to do something about him as he had refused to stop inserting POV into the article. Looking at the history it seemed to be 3RR, so I listed him here. I guess I should have looked more closely. He seems to have either given up now or gone to bed, so I guess there's no reason to take any action. If the problem persists, hopefully they'll open up an RfC--I was just trying to find a quick and temporary solution to a problem that I shouldn't have gotten involved with in the first place. Sorry for taking your time. ] (]) 18:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
3RR violation on {{article|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources}}
*Version reverted to: ; this is the archiving of the page, which the next four reverts undo most of.
*1st revert
*2nd revert
*3rd revert
*4th revert
Reported by ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments'''
Gene Nygaard has reverted my archiving of the talk page four times in 90 minutes, part of a pattern of disruption from him that has been going on there for days. He has been editing for some time and is familiar with the 3RR policy. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
: Um. It looks like no-one (including me) wants to step into your edit war with GN. You both know whats-what. You (both) shouldn't be edit warring over archiving a talk page. For what its worth, my preference is to archive, unless people object, in which case it can be left for a week or a month or whatever ] 22:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
::William, are you saying it's okay for him to violate 3RR because it's a talk page? If so, he'll simply keep on doing it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
::Violating 3RR to scuttle the archiving of a page is not just lame, but disruptive. There's no legitimate excuse. Blocked for 24 hr for the 3RR vio. Any further disruption when the block expires will earn him another 24. ] 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Seems like SV has also violated 3RR (see below) and in this case seems to have archived discussion less than a day old. Given my experience of her removing comment she doesn't like, I am, unfortunately, not surprised. We should expect evenhandedness in applying 3RR. In fact I'll go further and say admins who violate policy should be dealt with more firmly than ordinary users. ] 05:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
*She reverted herself on that long before you even made your complaint, as you well know, so this accusation is little more than trolling at this point. Also, this section is about Gene Nygaard's 3RR violation, it's not a venue for ]; furthermore, your continued ] of ] must cease. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Jay, I don't well know that at all. In any case her comments below appear to be a mea culpa. I don't suppose you'd consider apologising to me? May I remind you to be civil and not make illogical accusations? ] 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:Her self-block goes above and beyond the call of duty, and just serves to highlight her acute sense of responsibility, justice and fairplay. I'd recommend not putting words in her mouth, especially considering the amount you have been harassing her. I don't suppose you'd consider desiting from your continued violations of ]? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 07:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Geber}}. {{3RRV|Jidan}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
Reported by: ] 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' ] has been previously blocked for 3RR, on three occasions during the last six weeks. --] 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:They aren't all reverts. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
* There are more than 3 reverts in the period of time. Some are just complex reverts to accomplish the same goal. Blocked for 48 hours. He should know better. ]<sub>(])</sub> 14:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:*I don't mean to intrude, but there is a theoretical 3RR violation (depending on how nitpicky the admin wants to be). If you check all diffs, you'll notice that he's removed the link ] at least five times (so we have four reverts). According to the policy, partial reverts count as well. ] 14:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:**I don't see any more then three reverts. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
:: There are six reverts there. As per ], not all the reverts have to be the same, any undoing of another editor's work counts as a revert. --] 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
*It's three straight forward reverts, and then two more edits to accomplish the same thing (change to an ethnicity of Arab). Looks like a straight forward attempt at wikilawyering to me, and he should know better.
:*
:*
:*
:*
]<sub>(])</sub> 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Anarchism}}. {{3RRV|Hogeye}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: ()
* 2nd revert: ()
* 3rd revert: ()
* 4th revert: ()
* 5th revert: ()
Reported by: -- ]''']''' 17:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' This is the user's first group of edits since being banned for a month for personal attacks and disruptive editing.
There's eight now (not counting the sockpuppet edit mentioned below); for easy viewing: . The user also made other changes to the article that were reverted, but those ones were all around the same things. Four of the reversions to his edits were by myself, and I'd rather avoid making any more. ] 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
There's another one by an anon which is most likely Hogeye at . ] 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
: Um, OK, this is getting silly. Errm... 48h? ] 22:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Elo_rating_system}}. {{3RRV|Wolfkeeper}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Reported by: ] 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
I attemped so that someone can explain to him why you cannot include unsourced and unfounded claims in the article, and for a full day the ] article was at peace, but apparently he has become restless because he began reverting my edits again, and worse he calls my edits vandalism, displaying lack of faith on me as an editor . ] 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore he is now posting on my userpage, calling me names and insulting me, and deleted my earlier attempts to mediate with him on his userpage. ] 06:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
: 12h for first offence ] 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Abdullah Öcalan}}. {{3RRV|Metb82}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert: (as {{user|85.97.8.133}}, who is the same person as Metb82; proof: )
* 2nd revert: (as 85.97.8.133)
* 3rd revert: (as Metb82)
* 4th revert: (as Metb82)
Reported by: —] 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
*User has been blocked for 3RR before. —] 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
] violation on {{article|2003 invasion of Iraq}}. {{3RRV|Lemuel_Gulliver}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Reported by: ] 05:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
These editor is clearly aware of what he is doing. His edit summaries state:
*"Such an assertion needs to be made in the body of the text, attributed and explained. Not stated so baldly"
*"This is another way it could be done"
*"Attributed version. The simplest solution is not to include it"
*"Quotes alone is another option"
* He was warned on his talk page as well as with edit summary which stated:
"rv / v Gulliver - You have reverted this 3 times already. The last 2 times were vandalism. Stop now or face 3RR and vandal report"
:Here are the real diffs: , , , , . At that point I left the article for others to worry about. Incidentally, I don't actually like those compromises. As I argued, I believe it is best to make such a controversial assertion ("part of the War on Terrorism") in the body of the text, where it can be attributed and explained.
:It is also worth noting that Merecat is refusing to enter discussion on the matter, by deleting comments on his talk page. He has also misused vandalism templates and been warned for it. He has also reverted the article three times and risks breaking the 3RR. — ] ] 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Gulliver's knowledge of procedure is sufficient that he knew enough to come looking for this page. With such knowledge, he's certain to know that the place to dialog is the article talk page, not by leaving insults on my talk page. Please review the article talk page see that Gulliver is part of a small group of POV warriors, determined to delete this category from the article. ] 05:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:"Part of a small group of POV warriors"? Please keep conspiracy paranoia off this page. I happened across the article, noticed unattributed POV, and tried to remedy it in various ways. — ] ] 06:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about "one of a number of POV reverters"? ] 06:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:"A Wikipedian implementing NPOV policy as usual" is fine. In any case, there is no 3RR violation, and so I won't entertain you further by engaging you in unnecessary debate. The admins who manage this page have better things to read. — ] ] 06:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources}}. {{3RRV|SlimVirgin}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
WP should be about even-handedness not sysops supporting each other without adequate research.
Reported by: ] 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
*same activity involving ] in report above
* ] 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
**She reverted herself on that long before you even made your complaint, as you well know, so this accusation is little more than trolling at this point. Also, your continued ] of ] must cease. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Jay am I wrong that she arhived the page 4 times within 24 hours? I don't understand what you mean by saying she reverted herself. I'm always happy to learn. ] 06:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:I hadn't reverted four times when I reported Gene Nygaard. After he was blocked (or around the same time; I forget the sequence exactly), I went back to ] and I restored the archiving that Gene had reverted, without realizing that I was still within the 24 hour period. As soon as I realized, I reverted myself. Normally, that's enough to avoid a block for 3RR. However, as an admin, I should have been more careful, and as someone who had just reported someone else for 3RR, I should have been more careful still, so I'm going to block myself now for 24 hours. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This appears noble Slim and I assume good faith, but to make it more lifelike would you agree that Gene should be able to nominate (at any time within the next 30 days) a time for you to go offline for 24 hours from the time of his nomination? ] 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:LOL! ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 07:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:Wow, what a solution Mcready, I can obviously see how it relates to your complaint.- ] | ] 07:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:Let's keep this in perspective. SV was trying to archive a talk page that contained nothing more than fruitless and disruptive agitation from a chronic malcontent. Gene Nygaard's opposition to the archiving was nothing more than insisting on yet further disruption. SV was in the right to archive and Gene Nygaard was in the wrong to repeatedly revert it. In responding to Gene Nygaard's unwarranted reversions, SV's actions did not rise to the level of a block for 3RR, while Gene's certainly did. I'm fine with SV being unblocked, but not with Gene Nygaard. ] 15:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Jay Bennish}}. {{3RRV|Lemuel_Gulliver}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Reported by: anon
'''Comments:'''
:Sorry, but it has to be more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. In this case, only 3 of the reverts are. —] 06:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:You wouldn't happen to be a ], would you? Two false accusations of 3RR violation in such a short space of time! As Khoikhoi correctly notes, the first revert was not within 24 hours (it was a fortnight ago!). The edit marked as the fourth revert was an attempt at compromise. Two reverts do not a 3RR violation make. Please do not flood this page with bogus reports. — ] ] 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Asian fetish}}. {{3RRV|Gnetwerker}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
Reported by: ] 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
User continues to insert two poorly referenced sections ("Popular terminology" and "Academic terminology") and to relabel another section on ''Origins'' as my personal essay on ''Origins''. Other editors have called for the deleted sections to go, e.g.:
:If the claim that "Postcolonialists and Neomarxists have argued that the alleged commodity fetishism of Asians arises in a similar manner." can't be cited, the whole section needs to go. ] 17:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to explain my edits several times, explaining why the referenced "Origins" section should replace the "Popular terminology" and "Academic terminology" sections, but user refuses to listen, accusing me of promoting a personal agenda. The extreme irony in this situation is that I was the one who wrote 75% of the two unsourced sections, and now I want to replace my own unsourced work with sourced work. The relevant discussion can be found here:
]
User also has a history of violating ], not to mention ]. More to the point, he continues to believe that, as an Asian American, I am somehow always writing with a ] and that I am intellectually incapable of striving for ], and that he has become the "unofficial mediator" of the article. I have tried to reason and to ], but he refuses to reason. Personally, I think that that is somewhat racist, but that's my personal opinion. Cheers, ] 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Asian fetish}}. {{3RRV|Wzhao553}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: - 17:36, April 29, 2006
* 2nd revert: - 22:53, April 29, 2006
* 3rd revert: - 23:06, April 29, 2006
* 4th revert: - 00:49, April 30, 2006
Reported by: ] 09:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' After a long period of stability on a controversial topic, ], who has proclaimed that he edits "with an Asian American POV", has inserted a mjor section of ]. While this has reluctantly been retained for discussion, Wzhao wishes for it to dominate the article, and consistently reverts to his version of the article, despite edits aiming to preserve his opinion while maintaining a balance in the article. The basline version includes his edit, but not as the sole purpose of the article, yet he consistently reverts. -- ] 09:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Developed country}}. {{3RRV|125.172.23.237}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Reported by: ] 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:'''
Keeps removing ] from the article, even though other users (including me) have reinstated them back. Keeps claiming that he is reverting vandalism. ] 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked for 24h ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 16:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Caroline_Cox,_Baroness_Cox}}. {{3RRV|Hale-Byrne}}:
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Reported by: ] | ] 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
'''Comments:''' User has on four occasions removed the same paragraph of sourced information. He has accepted some minor changes that are not in that paragraph and so the previous version is not exactly the same as the version reverted to.
== Report new violation ==
Place new reports '''ABOVE''' this header, using the template below. Do '''not''' edit the template itself.
See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get
the quickest responses. From the article's History page, '''use ] (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button''' to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted.
<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->
<pre><nowiki>
===]===
] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USER_NAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Reported by: ~~~~
'''Comments:'''
<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!--></nowiki></pre>
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)
