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) ==
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: stale) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Mesut Özil}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Maurice Flesier}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Previous version reverted to:
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|616895240|10:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Özil is Turkish origin German."
# {{diff2|616904479|12:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Some fixes?? To remove ethnicity, not an satisfactory explanation."
# {{diff2|616922814|15:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 616913338 by ] (]) Before the back, please discuss on the talk page!"
# {{diff2|616944765|18:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 616939465 by ] (])"
*
This is three days later, but there is still no consensus here.
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|616913374|14:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|616993409|02:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* July 2014 */ +"
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article 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 />
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
;<u>Comments:</u>
: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) ==
Editor is aware of 3RR, ], ]. ] (]) 02:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:A solution to this problem was "German-Turkish footballer". I agree that the user has breached openpara, mosbio and 3rr. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 04:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. There is an ongoing report at ANI about Walter's behavior generally. Regarding the 3RR report here, it's a bit hard to evaluate ''other'' editors' conduct on the page because there's so much activity on the article, both by named accounts and IPs, and some of it involves content disputes, whereas some of it is just obvious vandalism.--] (]) 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:: I made a single revert there over the time period so please do not cloud the issue Bbb23. The issue is simple: the editor made four reverts here trying to impose a specific version of the article against four separate editors: two registered and two anon. The editor then singled me out on the talk page as I was the only editor involved. This is a clear-cut case. If the editor is not blocked I would expect a detailed explanation as to why this editor can get away with violating 3RR even after being reported, and "stale" is not detailed. ] (]) 03:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
* {{AN3|s}} - ] <small>(])</small> 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Sergio Busquets}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Panhead2014}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Previous version reverted to:
# {{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 theuser'sreverts:
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|617089773|19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 616985390 by ] (]) Violates WP's policy on neutrality. WP is about facts. See Talk."
# {{diff2|616981833|00:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 616977992 by ] (]) It wasn't included by a consensus, rather an attempt to slur the individual with ambiguous language. Wholly irrelevant and biased comment."
# {{diff2|616977017|23:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 616976239 by ] (]) This content has no place in the article other than to present a biased outlook on a solitary incident that is wholly irrelevant."
# {{diff2|616914776|14:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Biased, negative and defamatory content. Irrelevant and unnecessary. Its inclusion is not in the interest of fairness and suits a certain agenda designed to slur the person."
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|616979272|23:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
User has been engaged on ] as well as ], to no avail. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. First, the reported user has not breached 3RR as the fourth revert is well outside the 24-hour window. Second, although one of the sources is not available to me because it requires a password, the others do not support much of the material that the reported user is removing. That would be a ] violation and is exempt from edit warring. Also, the user has participated in a discussion.--] (]) 23:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
'''Comment''' agree there is a source which should be deleted due to login requirement. I am happy reconsider wording of the passage to better reflect reliable sources. There has been a reluctance by Panhead2014 to engage in meaningful discussion on their talk page and the article's talk page but the latest entry is a start. '''<font color="blue">]</font>''' '''''<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;color:red">]</span>''''' 05:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}}.--] (]) 05:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
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)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|De que te quiero, te quiero}} <br />
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|WeirdPsycopath}}
*: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:
::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 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)
*:{{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: Filer informed) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
Diffs of the user's reverts:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
#
# It is is the issue that makes the user
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
I explained 2 times the user about editing in discussion and not seem to mind anything, so I request the intervention of an administrator and . Besides several messages that the user has left on my talk are insults and personal attacks.--<b>]</b> ] 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
*Account {{AN3|b}} indefinitely by {{U|DangerousPanda}} as compromised.--] (]) 01:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Puncayshun}}
#
;User being reported: {{userlinks|50.157.101.36}}
#
#
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617145787|06:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617145191|06:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 617145169 by ] (])"
# {{diff|oldid=617145072|diff=617145145|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC) to 06:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|617145102|06:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|617145145|06:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} "added well known facts"
# {{diff2|617145031|06:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
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)
Constantly removing speedy tags for no reason. ] (]) 06:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. Probably unnecessary as the article has been deleted and salted. However, Iblockedthe two named accounts involvedin the articleforsockpuppetry,andtheIPisobviouslyalso the sameperson.--] (]) 11:50, 16July2014 (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) ==
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
# {{diff2|1268448980|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|617170649|11:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Talkback (]) (])"
;Diffs of attempttoresolvedisputeon article talk page:
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{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:'''
# {{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>
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
User adding ] and ] to a number of articles. User had been blocked yesterday as a warning but continues to add content despite warning. Note that user admits to being the author of the thesis from which content is being added. ] ] 11:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|60 hours}} by {{U|Acroterion}}. The user is fortunate that another administrator blocked first as I was prepared to block the user indefinitely as ].--] (]) 12:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
**Maybe I'm feeling benevolent this morning, but blocked primarily for promotion and retaliatory disruption after many warnings. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 12:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
***That's just a clearer and more specific basis than mine, which was shorthand for the same thing. My guess is an indef is inevitable, but I have no objection to a little benevolence.--] (]) 12:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
;Page: {{pagelinks|German submarine U-995}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Sakhal}}
;Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
'''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:'''
# {{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)'"
;Diffs of edit warring / 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:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
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)
;<u>Comments:</u>
: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)
Also operates as ] - use Misplaced Pages to promote own website. Despite multiple warnings to stop adding spamlinks he doesn't stop. Similar behaviour in 2008 and 2013. ] (]) 19:46, 16 July 2014 (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)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
:There are also grounds for suspecting that the website in question frequently contains material uploaded in breach of copyright: this example (linked in our ] article) certainly does. ] (]) 19:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
::{{u|Denniss}} I would suggest that you move this to ]. First, you have filed an incomplete report. Next the user has only edited the article twice that I can see - the IP is most likely the same person so you might also file a ]. Both of these can lead to this being closed with no action taken. OTOH yours and {{u|AndyTheGrump}}'s concerns merit the attention of an admin. This is just a suggestion so please feel free to proceed as you wish and thanks to you both for your vigilance. ]|] 20:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
'''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.
:::Yeah - this probably isn't the best place to deal with this issue. An RFPP isn't going to help much though - multiple articles are being spammed with links, and we can't protect them all indefinitely. I suspect blacklisting the website may be the only effective solution. ] (]) 20:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}} indefinitely as a spam-only account. The IP is currently blocked but not for very long. If there is a problem, please let me know, and I will block the IP for longer.--] (]) 21:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] (Result: Both warned) ==
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ramadan}} </br>
#
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hajj}}
#
#
#
Please speak with ] about his edits on ] and ]. He is edit warring on both. The main discussion is at the talkpage of ], where he has been active in the last 4 posts. So far only 2 editors have posted in them, disagreeing. He is aggressive and unpleasant, and simply misunderstands ]. Please see his userpage that I suspect him to be less than neutral on the subject, as in ]. ] (]) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
::The cheek, so If I am edit warring what exactly are you doing. Beware of ] Here is your history it is strange that you come and say they should talk to me. I did my fair share but my friend you are hiding behind 3rr to ] you have not used the talk page to settle anything, only to edit how you want, and then hold a discussion (reminds me of a certain country) See Your own user page, talk about Pot calling kettle black LOL. --] (]) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
::: I am active replying to you on the talkpages of those 2 articles, with over 20 edits today. Is that how you proof all your arguments?
:::: I know ], but I also know that I edit according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, which you are misunderstanding and misusing, supposedly to make a ] connected with your ]. ] (]) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Not sure your point, Are you not engaged in the edit war you are reporting? Or am I edit warring with your twin? Do you know what this space is for? So why are you discussing ] here? there is a dispute or request for comments for that kind of stuff. And I also have "suspect" about you per your colorful userpage. Anyone can make accusations, making mature points is another thing. So per your contributions you have done more edit warring than me, and on two articles got your version inserted, yet you tell me about Edit warring.? --] (]) 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: You can not remove sourced information without good reason, and your reasons are challenged by 2 editors. They actually have been proven wrong already. That leaves us with you edit warring for the sake of edit warring. So why shouldn't I tell you about edit warring? ] (]) 21:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::If my reasons were so wrong why then did you have to go and change this ? So you were reverting me and never check out my objections. Clearly I was not wrong. Now Two editors means nothing, what counts is the ability to make a case using Policy. We do not ] and the talk page shows clearly who started the off key remarks, imagine lecturing me about what I know. I never did that, I simply copy and pasted policy for you to see. This nonsense of "You do not know what you are talking about" is for teenagers, it is only you saying so, argue by rationale not "You are wrong", that is just below me. Now the question for bonus prizes, Since you know about Misplaced Pages, What does wikipedia say about handling Disputes? Did you follow that? '''What is Wiki policy for avoiding Edit war show the people here the steps you took to avoid it.'''If I am guilty you are equally so. --] (]) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::For the record this is the remark that started the whole thing going South: No idea why this remark was made? Who is this guy to talk for so many other editors?--] (]) 21:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}}. {{U|Debresser}} and {{U|Inayity}}, you are both warned that if you continue this battle in the article, you may be blocked without any further notice or warning, regardless of whether you breached ]. The only reason you're not being blocked now is because you both skirted 3RR by the skin of your collective teeth. Debresser, if you want to report disruptive conduct, take it to another noticeboard. If you want to report edit warring, then file an appropriate report with a proper header and diffs.--] (]) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:: Bbb23 (or other willing editors) I posted this way because I wanted somebody to explain to Inayity what he is doing, not to have him punished. He should be stopped from removing information he doesn't like. He continues with , which is so wrong because 1. it was discussed 2. the info is well sourced 3. he is ] Misplaced Pages. Can you explain this to him? If not, where should I take this? ] (]) 09:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:::If you want to raise Inayity's conduct but not have him sanctioned for edit warring, then take it to ]. Make sure you're clear what you're asking for. I make no prediction as to whether such a report will be received favorably.--] (]) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], ]
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lo que la vida me robó}} <br />'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|La malquerida (telenovela)}}<br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mario252}}
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Previous version reverted to:
<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Diffs of the user's reverts:
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Hello, sought to punish this person, because I'm tired of explaining about their issues, all it does is ignore my messages and delete them, which seems to me a lack of respect by the user, the same user if read messages but ignores them. On the issues generated wars and explain my reasons, but he did not seem to care nothing and continue with the same, nor cares to reach consensus. I have placed a complaint , but I see that so far no decision was taken, and as time passes the user continues to fall in edit wars with me and as I have tried to explain in his discussion but is useless.--<b>]</b> ] 06:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Discovery Zone}} <br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|73.194.17.8}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected) ==
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Schapelle Corby}}
#
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Techy-rat}}
#
#
#
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617304407|11:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* See also */"
# {{diff2|617303732|11:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* See also */"
# {{diff2|617302923|11:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* See also */"
# {{diff2|617300622|11:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* See also */ added a link ..."
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />Slow edit war, not 3RR, but editor has shown no effort to engage. -- ] (]) 15:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
;<u>Comments:</u>
Single purpose account. Has only edited one page in its lifetime. ] (]) 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} (semi) for one month by {{U|Nick}}.
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Operation Protective Edge}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Al-Andalusi}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617321532|14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Casualties and losses */ remove opinion and OR" this revert of this edit
# {{diff2|617205265|17:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* top */ partial revert of Irondome's change" revert of this edit
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617332163|16:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
;<u>Comments:</u>
The article is part of ] and under 1RR. I have asked the user to revert himself. ] (])/] 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
An edit war? ] (]) 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:Are you going to revert yourself?--] (])/] 18:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
::And which edit is that? I'm asking because myself and the rest of the involved editors have not been part of a dispute let alone an "edit war". ] (]) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:::You made two reverts of two different users.You may undo your last revert ] (])/] 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
::::The last one is in agreement with ]. I fail to see the issue here. ] (]) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::The issue is you made two reverts to ] article .--] (])/] 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
'''Comment'''. Shrike, could you do me the courtesy of examining the 4 cases I cited I'm still not certain I understand this rule, but since you do, tell me why (a) those are not examples of what you consider to be edit-warring on the same page (b) if they are, why did you ignore them? ] (]) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
::::].If you think that someone else broke 1RR please report him.Don't ask any one to do you your job for you--] (])/] 05:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::Absolutely no. I don't want to stain my excellent record as someone who refuses to take people to arbitration. I didn't ask people to do my job. I did the work, and asked for a judgement. 3 major breaking news articles were written because editors from different POV, once on my suggestion, agreed not to use the IR as an instrument to gain editorial advantages. All the article builders broke it on those three pages, and no one was reported because we peons committed to the composition of articles, and not I/P warring games, know you just cannot write those articles and not break the rule, because it means that after an alteration, everything else all editors can do for 24 hours is just pile in more information regardless of the dissonance and unreadability this would cause. I don't chase 1R infractions or aste time combing someone's contribs to find if I can get him off the page, and make life comfortable for one of two POVs: I look to the merit of each edit, and if it is good or sound, I approve. If it is lousy, I mark it for correction, hoping someone else sights it if I can't revert it. The rule exists to enable article creation, not to create obstacles and enmity among collegues.] (]) 07:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. This is getting tiresome. On a narrow technical level, if Al-Andalusi had not stated in the edit sumary that the first edit was a partial revert, other than the change of the word "claimed" to "announced", I wouldn't even notice it. Plus, I don't even know which edit of {{U|Irondome}}'s, Al-Andalusi is partly reverting. The second diff is clearly a revert. So, thee may not even be a 1RR violation here, not sure. There is no exemption from 1RR because an article is a current event that is being heavily edited by many, many users with an eye to improving the information and the sources. For one thing, it's hard for an administrator to sort out that kind of content analysis. God knows I'm relatively aggressive when it comes to blocking editors for violating 3RR or for violating 1RR in contravention of ArbCom sanctions, but even I am not favorably impressed by these reports. I strongly urge ''anyone'' who wants to file such a report about this particular article to go to ]. Again, I'm not taking any action here (I officially alerted Al-Andalusi of the sanctions), although another administrator is free to do whatever he or she deems appropriate as I'm not closing the report.--] (]) 21:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
::I have fixed the report.
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|List of countries and dependencies by area}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|108.4.147.159}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=617229366|diff=617319333|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC) to 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|617318999|14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Countries and dependencies by area */"
## {{diff2|617319333|14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Countries and dependencies by area (including Costal and Territorial waters) */"
# {{diff|oldid=617145879|diff=617227961|label=Consecutive edits made from 20:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC) to 20:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|617227705|20:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Countries and dependencies by area */"
## {{diff2|617227961|20:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Countries and dependencies by area */"
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
;<u>Comments:</u>
It appears that all this IP's edits have been reverted as unexplained, against consensus, and/or vandalism. Also is just 12 days out from being blocked for 3 months for the same thing. <span class="nowrap">—  <span style="border:2px solid #000;margin-top:2px;bottom:2px;background:#09B9B9">]</span>  <small>(])  (])  <span style="color:#9C9C9C">(User:Wtwilson3)</span></small>  —</span> 19:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking through the list of edits this IP has made, they don't seem interested in being a constructive contributor to the project. It seems like basically the user is making changes that don't appear to be vandalism but basically amount to it. I have written on the IP's talk page, , and indicated in the edit summaries to go to the article talk page but nothing has been done by the editor. ] (]) 19:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|six months}}. I didn't block the IP for edit warring or for breach of 3RR as they reverted only twice in a 24-hour window. Rather, the block is for a resumption of their disruptive editing after the last block, which was for three months.--] (]) 22:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
== ], ], and ] reported by ] (Result: Semi) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Morgellons}} <br />
'''User being reported:'''
#{{userlinks|Ccpb101}}
#{{userlinks|66.87.131.105}}
#{{userlinks| 66.87.131.82}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
Previous version reverted to: (type 1 only)
:All edits remove
:#", but in reality no such things are present." from the lead, or
:#"indicating that there were no disease organisms present in Morgellons patients" in a later paragraph.
Unless otherwise specified, the diffs in question do both 1 and 2.
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# (type 2 only)
#
# (as 1st IP)
#
# (as 2nd IP)
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
To named editor:
* (nw-3rr template)
* (nw-ewsoft template)
2nd IP warned
*
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't, but there is consensus on archived article talk pages that this should not be done, and the user was informed of this consensus.
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
If either
#the ewsoft warning is considered adequate, IP1 is the same as the user, or
#IP2 is the same as the user,
then the 4th revert was after the warning. Otherwise, technically, not.
If edit#1 is not considered a revert, then both IPs must the same person to get a count of 4 reverts. However, I'm pretty sure the new text in the second section has been in the article previously, but perhaps only before 2011, when the new reference came out. — ] ] 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I will note in passing that while Arthur Rubin didn't start a thread on the article's talk page, he did make a point of reaching out Ccpb101 on Ccpb101's user talk page , noting the existence of prior discussions in the article talk page's archives, and briefly explaining some of the problems with the sources that Ccpb101 was using. ](]) 19:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Semiprotected two months. An IP who claims to be from the CIA has , stating "This article has been deleted due to controversial and sensitive matters". ] (]) 20:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ferdinand I of Romania}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|FactStraight}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
]</br>
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>The "editing war" turns grotesque in my opinion. I think it is due time that you put an end to such destructive attitudes which scare away in disgust any decent editor: already 10x time spent waging editing wars than usefully editing...</u> <br /> ] (]) 05:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:I haven't checked the page (nor does it appear that I will have time to), but I don't see any diffs. {{nao}} ] ] 06:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::FactStraight has only made one edit to the article since it was created. ] (]) 13:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1979 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
also<br>
{{pagelinks|1980 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1981 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1982 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1983 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1984 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1985 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1986 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1987 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1988 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1989 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1990 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1991 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1992 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|1993 Australian Touring Car Championship}} <br />
{{pagelinks|2014 International V8 Supercars Championship}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Therock9998}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts (just on ] the others are much the same):
# 01:45, July 17, 2014
# 00:01, July 18, 2014
# 01:13, July 18, 2014
# 02:56, July 18, 2014
# 07:31, July 18, 2014
# 08:19, July 18, 2014
and now
# 09:02, July 18, 2014
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
On going attempts to get involved user to cease damaging table coding. Evaded a block when applied as an ] by establishing this User ID. I hesitate to say Sock Puppetting as this is plainly a new user and would not understanding either the terminology or that it is considered poor etiquette. Refuses to communicate with other editors. Am at a complete loss, and I have probably overstepped the line myself attempting and tender my apologies. ] (]) 09:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:No he or she is just being disruptive and a vandal. On going vandalistic edits across a couple of dozen Australian motorsport articles. --] (]) 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Jake Borras}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Jhakeyborras}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|617449075|12:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617448660|12:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617446923|12:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|617446501|12:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} ""
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|617444416|12:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Notifying author of deletion nomination for ]"
# {{diff2|617446463|12:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Notifying author of deletion nomination for ]"
# {{diff2|617447202|12:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|617448865|12:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)}} "Notifying author of deletion nomination for ]"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
;<u>Comments:</u>
Constant removal of templates when user is creator of page that is being templates. ] (]) 12:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC) A user tryimnig to persistently create an autobio. The article has been deleted three times in rapid succession and now salted. --] (]) 13:15, 18 July 2014 (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)
