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: Protected) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Yom Kippur War<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ykantor<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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. -->
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)
Previousversionrevertedto:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
<!-- 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:
# After a few days of no reply I proceeded to edit citing ], the user immediately surfaced and undid my edit claiming that my reply was insufficient (in the edit summary), all this without replying in the talk-page. A day later I proceeded to undo his edit for failing to engage in the discussion, hoping that this might push him to reply.
# The user briefly announced a unilateral compromise in the talk-page which he immediately materialized (without actually addressing my reply). I then replied to his announcement on the talk-page and waited nearly a week for him to reply, to no avail. I once again proceeded to edit citing ].
# Without replying in the talk-page the user reverted my BRD-edit claiming that I have yet to gather consensus for an edit, and furthermore, the user manually undid a similar BRD-edit I had made pertaining to a dispute with another editor.
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- 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:
<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 />
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> I have opened a discussion in the article's talk-page and the user replied actively at first however he/she has stopped replying in favor of reverting my attempts at ] without actually contributing to the discussion that I have invited him to return to several times. The one time he did reply after that point was to briefly announce his compromise, which he reached unilaterally, and then proceeded to immediately materialize it before receiving any input. His edits are often slightly botched and ill-conceived. <br /> ] (]) 01:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
: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) ==
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
=== Ykantor- My reply===
] complain is a bit bizarre, as it seems that he is the one who violates the rules.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
<P>-
<P>- Editing History:<P>:
On 3 December I . Turnopoems deleted some of my edit and . So ] deleted . In my opinion this was an edit war , especially since 2 editors supported this text , Vs 1 editor- ] who opposed this text. Turnopoems and replaced it with an unsupported and misleading text. Turnopoems although he have not fully replied to my talkpage questions yet. But he . Then . He and warned Turnpoems again that he had no consensus. Unsurprisingly, . I while warning him "You have been already told that you do not have an consensus".
<P>- Turnopoems and RULES:
<P>-Turnopoems has undone many more that any other editor in this section. He does not pay attention to the consensus view and he forcibly push his opinion. He repeated it in the other argument which is discussed in the same talk page section. So it seems to be a typical behavior.
<P>- During his other argument, he , while falsely claiming that "The issue has been settled on talk". The other editor while telling him that "No settlement and no consensus yet". Does it suit the "good faith" editing?
<P>- Turnopoems repeatedly decides that a couple of days waiting for the response is too much, so he returns to his habit - undoing the other editor. e.g. , .
<P>- Turnopoems tend to ignore or to evasively reply to my questions in the talk page, . So a discussion with him is rather fruitless. e.g. My question (at 22 DEC and 26 DEC):""misleading as it implies that Cairo was a strategic target". Is this claim a wp:or ? ". He have not replied to this question yet.
<P>- Turnopoems idea of a discussion is that he stands for his initial text and does not want to modify it. I tried to compromise with him and significantly modified my text towards his attitude, although it is not the best text I wish to have, since I wanted to finish with this exhaustive arguement. ] (]) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
=== Turnopoems - Rebuttal===
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<P>First things first, you need to acclimatize yourself to the guidelines of this website. I have not violated any rules in regard to ], all my edits have been fully compliant and the reason why I undid the revert done by the other editor was for two reasons:
# {{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:'''
<P>- He was indefinitely banned for sockpuppetry (reverting his contribution is exempted from ]).
<P>- He did not partake in the open discussion which aims to resolve the matter and thus his contribution, much like yours, are nothing but a disruption.
<P>The other reason why I have continuously undone your edits is because a) you refuse to partake in the discussion and thus your position becomes moot and b) a longer period of time has elapsed and I chose to adhere to ]:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<P>''Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, '''if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. An edit will either get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article—either is a good outcome'''.''
<P>I mentioned that the issue had been settled in the edit summary because the other editor asked for a source in order for me to include the text, which I included in my edit. He then reverted my edit, despite the lack of consensus, claiming that my source was insufficient based on a far-fetched, personal interpretation of the text in the source.
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<P>Misplaced Pages's content is not dictated by majority-rule, it doesn't matter if ten editors are fighting against one lone opinion as long as it's sufficiently backed by sources and/or complies with guidelines established by the community. Your responsibility is to discuss the matter to reach consensus, if you're unable to do that for whatever personal reasons (i.e. to avoid "exhaustive arguments") then please refrain from disrupting the work of people who are trying to make serious contributions on Misplaced Pages. If you felt that the argument has reached a dead-end then you have several tools at your disposal for dispute resolution, instead you chose to engage in edit warring.
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<P>Your compromise was unilateral and falls short of actually achieving anything in regard to my complaints, and I '''EXPLICITLY''' explained why I disapproved of it in the talk page where I offered a counter-proposal which you completely disregarded only to continue reverting my attempts at ] (without replying on the talk-page).
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)
You are the exhibiting the exact behavior defined in ], constantly reverting edits under the pretexts of lack of consensus while forgetting that this is a two-way street. Where is your consensus for indiscriminately reverting my edits? ] (]) 14:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' The ] is fully protected two months. This protection may be lifted if consensus is reached on Talk. ] and ] seem to be engaged in a slow revert war. On the talk page there is a lack of clear proposals for article wording that people could support or oppose. The talk discussion has been running since 1 December but it is extremely boring and goes lazily in circles. ] but it's so vaguely-worded it's unlikely to be helpful. Anyone who is interested in this issue would be performing a service if they could nudge the participants to clarify the options and vote on them. The dispute is about just a few words in the infobox. ] (]) 04:27, 13 January 2015 (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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer warned) ==
::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|Alexandra Stan discography}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.111.184.146}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
<!-- 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. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
Previous version 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:
# "(Undid revision 641923476 by Harout72 (talk))"
# "(Undid revision 641950694 by Harout72 (talk))"
# "(Undid revision 641955854 by Harout72 (talk) He's a lead artist)"
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
#
#
<!-- 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. -->
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
I didn't start a discussion on the talk-page, but I offered the IP to do so in the . I did also warn the IP on his/her talk of incorrect changes he/she was making. The edit warring continued after each warning. Also, note that the IP has made the same changes at ] and ].
--] (]) 09:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
:], you have made four reverts while the IP you are reporting has only three. Per the usual rules you are the person who should be blocked. Are you willing to promise to stop warring on this article (and wait for consensus) to avoid sanctions? ] (]) 21:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
::I'm only trying to keep the articles mentioned above correct based on what the cover states on the single, ''featuring''. As you can see the IP keeps reverting without trying to have a discussion, there is no way to reach a consensus with someone who keeps hitting the ''revert'' button. I'm not going to edit anymore the articles, but if you could keep an eye on the IP and his/her reverts, it would help the articles stay clear of misinformation. I had no intention of making it look like as though I was edit-warring.--] (]) 22:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Filer warned. It is up to editor consensus how the word 'featuring' should be interpreted. If the two performers sing a duet on the record, you can understand that some people would draw their own conclusions. Consider opening a discussion on an article talk page. You can use ] if you and the IP can't come to an agreement. ] (]) 00:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] and socks reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected; Knisfo blocked) ==
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
;Page: {{pagelinks|Northern Cyprus}}
;Users being reported:
*{{userlinks|46.114.139.160}}
*{{userlinks|46.115.15.229}}
*{{userlinks| 46.115.15.219}}
*{{userlinks|Knisfo}}
;Please see also
*]
;Previous version reverted to:
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)
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
:{{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)
# {{diff2|642010197|13:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)}} "]"
:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
# {{diff2|641996216|09:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)}} IP sock 46.115.15.229 "("only" is not neutral, i said ! neither is your "pseudostate". and you cannot even answer that question asked twice. because you dont know an answer, there is no answer. "only" is not neutral, period. (btw, this article's language is biased in general))"
# {{diff2|641992700|08:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)}} IP sock 46.115.15.229 "(How many recognitions does it take for the "only" to be dropped ?!? Is Abkhazia recognized by "four countries" or "four countries only", Kosovo by "108" or "108 only", Montenegro by "176" or "176 only" ?!?)"
# {{diff2|641986734|07:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)}} IP sock 46.115.15.219 " ("recognized by Turkey" is the fact, "recognized by Turkey only" is the fact plus e/valuation. That's not neutral language. How many recognitions does it take for the "only" to be dropped ? 10 ? 100 ? and who is it up to to determine ?!?)"
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|641997421|10:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Recent edit-warring for removal of the word "only" */ comment"
# {{diff2|641999738|11:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Recent edit-warring for removal of the word "only" */ ce"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sillypickle123}}
;<u>Comments:</u>
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Sock of {{u|Knisfo}}. The third IP today, just violated 3RR. Please see also ]. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 18:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} (semi) for two weeks and Knisfo blocked for one month based on report at SPI.--] (]) 08:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Resolved) ==
# {{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:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Zionist political violence}} <br />
# {{diff2|1268447335|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ashurbanippal}}
# {{diff2|1268463321|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- 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. -->
# {{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>
Previous version reverted to:
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
<!-- 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:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
I haven't edited this page.] (]) 03:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268688649|01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
:Strange you didn't report VanEman, who broke 3RR first:
# {{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 */"
#
:Double standard?
:You intervened late. We already achieved consensus. I'll be more careful anyway. Thanks for your selective "collaboration".--] (]) 03:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::I intervened when I first noticed it. You had reverted 4 times in a short period of time. I presumed an Admin would notice that it takes more than 1 to make an edit war.] (]) 04:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:::The fact that you decided to report me (and only me) despite this edit war was started by another user is suspicious (at least). Don't you think?--] (]) 04:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
I must say, I noticed that ] has a pattern of "shoot before talk" (edit warring before trying and discussing the situation). I don't think it comes from an evil place, but I do think he needs to be explained the usage for talk page and why it is important to have a discussion before jumping to revert wars.
# {{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)'"
I think that the information provided by ] is very important and useful for the article. I mean, how can the official position of the establishment and public opinions not be important? ] (]) 03:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268690605|01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
:It's done, my fiend. We achieved consensus. Take a look at the end of ].--] (]) 03:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268694009|02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
::After a long and pointless edit war, it seems? ] (]) 03:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268695553|02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
:::Not started by me. Why do you keep ]? The dispute is solved.--] (]) 03:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I certainly hope it is, but is the issue of you choosing to edit war as first option and not having a discussion first really resolved? ] (]) 04:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. After an egregious edit war by Ashurbanippal and VanEman, the parties have apparently resolved the issue. Both editors have been alerted to ]'s discretionary sanctions.--] (]) 08:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
*'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tiger I}}
*'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|79.141.163.7}}
:The IP made an overly detailed edit. I reverted, requesting that the edit be taken to talk. I was reverted again. I warned the user on T/P as to their attitude. I also reverted, urgently requesting that they take to talk. The IP reverted me again, claiming that the rationale of my revert must be discussed on talk first before I revert. An absurd reversal of B.R.D. I request some eyes here. Cheers ] (]) 04:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
In fact, ] did violate the ] see recent edits:
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)
Sorry but ] applies here. Thanks ] (]) 04:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::I am assuming it is a competency issue. Can you not grasp the idea of gaining consensus and discussion? I will say no more. ] (]) 04:25, 12 January 2015 (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)
You are on the behave that my addendum to the article is not okish, but you haven't represent any valid argumentation. Instead of removing it, represent some factuals in the Talk that the profound ground trials is not legitimate as the Wa Pruef 1 estiamtes. Thanks ] (]) 04:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:Myedsummariesweredetailed.Yourefusedtogototalk.Iamquitehappytodiscuss.Everyoneknowsmyrecordondiscussionhere.Nowgototalkand we can discuss and pull the plug on this dreary tussle. Then we can free up boardspace here for less trivial matters. Ok? ] (]) 04:38, 12 January 2015 (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)
::Don't try to twist, you removed my addendum because you simply don't like it ] ] (]) 04:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Parties are now in discussion on relevant talk page. Cheers ] (]) 04:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The revert still continues on the article, even the case was meant to find a consensus in the Talk page. Now ] just reverted it again within 24 hours, after ] recent reverts: Could please some taking action of these arbitary revert warring? Thanks ] (]) 13:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' No violation – it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break ]. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page. ] (]) 01:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks, may I ask the question how to report ] if he continues with abusive language ] and defamation? ] (]) 11:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|180.195.212.14}}
::{{resolved}} Parties now in cooperative discussion on article talk to improve article. ] (]) 22:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The user is edit-warring to insert a list of "supported by" countries into the military conflict infobox.
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Safety of electronic cigarettes}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|AlbinoFerret}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], ]
<!-- 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: Was recently warned here on Dec 20th 2014 and Nov 7th, 2014 Warned again here on Jan 12
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Was brought to WPMED . Additionally this warning he left on ] made it clear he knew he was at 3 reverts and yet kept going. ] (] · ] · ]) 06:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 1 month) ==
:Only one of the diff's is a revert. The rest are edits that added content with different words, in different locations. ] 06:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::These are all reverts, you are making more or less the same change in each. ] (] · ] · ]) 06:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Per the ] page "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." None of the last three diffs undid another editors actions, they are in different places and used different words. To show a revert you need a previous version to match, please show previous versions that match my edits. Secondly I started the discussion on the section, while Yobol reverted three times, and after he was warned he had made three reverts, he posted the WikiProject Medicine talk page, not to get people to comment, but to get my last edit removed,, " needs to be either removed or qualified because a minority of the authors have previously received money or honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies" Which you did calling it a "good faih edit". That can be considered canvassing. The last edit would then be credited to him, he has now reverted 4 times. ] 06:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:Answering the first line, Yobol had three reverts, not me in that notice. ] 06:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Discovery Zone}} <br />
AlbinoFerret tried to hide text from a . That did not work. He eventually deleted some of the text. He has made a lot of reverts to delete relevant text.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|73.194.17.8}}
See ]. Now he deleted a sentence from a . That did not work. Now he added nonsense to mainspace. See ]. This is just continuation of past behaviour. See ]. Note. I am involved and I did support a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. ] (]) 06:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:Your comment strings together removals over days and weeks. All of which have talk page section dealing with removing that questionable material. That section you like to link to on AN/I also has a very large section on you. What you have in those diff's is content disputes. ] 07:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}}.--] (]) 08:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Abductive}}
#
#
#
<!-- 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: (I'm not sure if I've done this correctly)
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- 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:
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: several discussions:
# ]
# ]
# ]
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> The edit warring has been with several editors, and Abductive has refused to answer point-blank questions while making accusations of racism.] ] 07:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. {{ping|Curly Turkey}} It's hard enough evaluating an edit warring report on an article that has as much activity as this one. You make it that much harder by not listing the diffs in chronological order. If another admin wants to figure this out, that's up to them. I suggest you rearrange them.--] (]) 09:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
** I don't understand---they ''are'' in chronological order! ] ] 09:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
***My apologies. They are in reverse chronologial order. It's late and I personally don't like them listed that way, but there's nothing that requires you to do it earliest to latest. I'll take another look.--] (]) 09:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
**** Sorry, I didn't know they were supposed to be ordered that way---I assumed they should be in the order they show up in the edit history list. I've re-ordered them. ] ] 09:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. I hate looking at the activity on articles like this one, but the user edit warred over two days and also breached ] in series of four reverts and even in another series where the fourth revert was just outside the 24-hour window (gaming).--] (]) 09:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
*****or the revert was made because the editor cared about the content of the article and didn't notice exactly what time it was, whatever 'appened to AGF. ] (]) 13:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />Slow edit war, not 3RR, but editor has shown no effort to engage. -- ] (]) 15:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
*{{AN3|b|1 month}} ] (]) 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Rihanna}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Joseph Prasad}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dave Upthegrove}}
;Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|642148555|12:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Why should I have to take it to the talk page, when two editors thinks actress should be on there, and two that should not. It does not have to be my responsibility."
# {{diff2|642146158|11:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642145780 by ] (]) Mariah Carey had 9 films, only two cameo appearances. That's different. Discuss on talk page."
# {{diff2|642145199|11:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642142587 by ] (]) In the article ], only three films were actual roles, rest were cameos. Since this is getting edit warred, why not discuss on talk page?"
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|642146905|12:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
;<u>Comments:</u>
User has violated 3RR, is edit warring with three other editors and is causing disruption. Refusal from the editor to take it to the talk page. See history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rihanna&action=history — ] 13:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:Actually I only edit warred with two, when the third editor came in, I dropped a discussion on the talk page, so far, no responses. -- ] (]) 13:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:: No, I mean that you have made three reverts on the same article in less than 24 hours. In less than 24 minutes, in fact. You are not allowed to do this. You shouldn't just remove stuff from an article. If you have two editors reverting you saying not to do something, you don't keep on actively doing it. If you feel something is wrong, you drop a message on the talk page ''first'', not when three editors have collectively reverted you five times. You could be potentially blocked from editing because you of your three reverts. — ] 20:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I was reverted four times, collectively, not five. The other one was SNUGGUMS. I understood, and I have posted a discussion on talk page. -- ] (]) 00:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
::::] has broken 3RR with a series of four reverts beginning at 11:08 on 12 January. The last time he broke 3RR (December 20) he by the closing admin. At some point he should start following the policy. He might agree to stop editing the ] article for two weeks to avoid sanctions. ] (]) 01:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' ] is warned that he may be blocked if he continues to revert. On his talk page, he has stated that he is removing the ] article from his watchlist. On that basis I'm closing this with no block. ] (]) 03:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|LlywelynII}}
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#
<!-- 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: (note, ] is my alternate account for use on my mobile phone)
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion ] - the editor in question posted on the talk page and then continued to edit-war on the article and across others, despite the fact that I made my objection to his edits quite clear.
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
As I noted above, the editor in question has repeatedly tried to insert problematic edits to several related articles, despite my making my objections known to him. I am well aware that he has not violated ], but his attitude toward editing certainly violates the prohibition on edit-warring and the suggestion that when one is ] rather than continue to revert. ] (]) 13:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:I'm not sure there's any need to respond to this. There is no 3rr even close to involved; he is the one reverting the pages in violation of (at least) 4 other editors' consensus to maintain the pages' GA status and shepherd them through the DYK process; ''I'' was the one who went to the talk pages and linked him to the existing (months old) discussion he is ignoring and reverting; I did so on every talk page of each article in question; he ignored and failed to respond to the concerns on each article in question; he performed wholesale reverts on the basis of no policy in violation of policies that I noted I was upholding (including the reintroduction of typos such as missing commas and removal of helpful links such as the otherwise unknown Italian China station).
:Is it necessary to block Parsec? Could an adult just hold his hand, explain how {{sc|agf}} works, and walk him through how to avoid {{sc|ownership}} issues? (I ''do'' appreciate his work creating the pages, but his reply at the ] is something like a textbook example.) — ] 13:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::Please read what I wrote. Specifically the line {{xt|"I am well aware that he has not violated ], but his attitude toward editing certainly violates the prohibition on edit-warring"}}.
::As for me failing to respond to posts on the article talk pages, I'd like to ask you what ] ]. It seems you think it sufficient to post the same boilerplate messages on article talk pages and then ignore subsequent posts.
::As for consensus, I again ask where is this imaginary consensus? I certainly see no discussions on the relevant talk pages.
::And as for your wholly unnecessary final comment, are you aware of how ] works? ] (]) 13:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Re: your "response", apart from it having followed half of the edits above, I'm curious what you response you felt ] or ] would have merited, since you obviously didn't bother to read what I had written or followed the link provided there to the (months long) consensus at the DYK discussion. I mean, yes, that consensus obviously wouldn't have changed your mind as it still hasn't, but it's not me that is edit warring at that point. — ] 13:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::::The discussion at DYK is irrelevant - you apparently have your own rules over there that do no exist in the rest of Misplaced Pages. As I have said several times now, this kind of nonsense it the reason I abandoned DYK in the first place - thanks for confirming my decision. As for discussion threads, I would have preferred you respond to any of the threads on ], which you ignored. As for edit-warring, perhaps you don't understand what the phrase means. Please read the first sentence of ], keeping in mind that posting boilerplate messages on article talk pages and then ignoring subsequent posts while continuing to try to force your changes through looks a lot like trying to ] (which you will note is prohibited in the second paragraph of the policy on edit-warring). ] (]) 14:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::The discussion at DYK is an existing months-long discussion of 4+ editors agreeing to the changes in question and overriding your personal preference about the pages' content (which is not to say a different consensus couldn't be put together on the talk pages.) You made no attempt whatsoever at discussion but simply posted a threat; I would have checked the talk pages before a second or third revert of any page, but that's not what was going on here. I was just introducing the changes to the series of pages per the existing discussion.<br><br>But continue lecturing me about errors I didn't introduce, typos you can't notice, grammar that "do no exist", and violations of the spirit of the rules: You are absolutely a helpful editor who creates generally good pages, so it's good to be able to see how unpleasant your attitude has become now that you've started this process over your {{sc|ownership}} issues and failure to notice a {{sc|consensus}}. I'll wait for a third-party review, though, lest ''I'' start to become as unpleasant. — ] 14:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, let's look at timestamps. I replied to your boilerplate comments . Your next revert came nearly an hour later . And you're telling me you read my responses first? Or that I made no attempt to discuss anything?
:::::::Again, DYK is irrelevant - you can have all the rules you want about prohibiting citations in the lead (which contradicts the ''far'' wider consensus that ] represents) or whatever else, but they do not exist outside the confines of DYK.
:::::::Lol, ''I'm'' the unpleasant one? Your first post here you suggested I need an adult to hold my hand. If I became unpleasant, it's because I got tired of dealing with your condescension (which is compounded by the fact that you don't have a clue what you're talking about) and unwillingness to discuss your changes. ] (]) 15:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::As all of your points are addressed above, I'll just note that you ''began'' unpleasant, apparently through confusing a consensus of editors with "irrelevan" and differing editors' attempts to introduce that consensus with "reverting" and doing so over multiple pages as "edit warring". You acknowledge that I was nowhere near 3rr but then drag me through this process for not having deferred to you instead of that consensus in ''initial'' edits to the pages. You're quite right that your attitude and {{sc|ownership}} ''are'' making me more unpleasant, though, so I will wait for someone to come through and process this. — ] 00:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::So you don't refute that your revert came '''an hour''' after my talk page posts and that you ignored said posts? Glad we're clear on that. As for my alleged unpleasantness, what exactly is hostile about a simple statement that your edits or a simple request to ? I see you're still not getting it. Let me spell it out. '''Edit-warring is ''not'' limited only to 3RR violations'''. You ''have'' edit-warred on the articles. The question of how the situation will be resolved is the only thing in question. ] (]) 01:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
:To go through the process though: {{sc|a)}} the first edit was not a revert at all and {{sc|b)}}, while I will stop editing the class of ships while this is arbitrated, I'll note that I was just trying to introduce the consensus from the DYK articles across a series of pages in good faith (not edit warring) and {{sc|c)}} 3rr applies to a single page, not a series of them. No problem with avoiding these pages, though, if a consensus of dispassionate editors here feel the DYK kids were mistaken. {{sc|d)}} The only edits I certainly ''do'' wish to contest are the reinclusion of a typo and removal of the links to Italy's China station on the ''Lombardia'' page since those are not a matter of policy or style differences but simple improvements. — ] 13:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::The first edit was a revert of Oceanh's edit - edit warring does not differentiate between who introduced the changes, nor does it matter than the changes were not identical.
::I would have appreciated if you had stopped editing the articles as soon as the dispute had arisen - we would not have had to come here if that had been the case. You would do well to review ].
::''Please'' stop talking about 3rr - no one likes a red herring.
::There are no typos in the ''Lombardia'' diff - there ''are'' grammatical mistakes that you had introduced, on the other hand. ] (]) 13:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I'll talk about the policy this page is designed to enforce since I haven't violated it and the only 'spirit' being violated arose from your increasingly impossible-to-justify {{sc|ownership}} issues. You've paid so little attention to the edits involved, you ''still'' think I restored Oceanh's mention of 7 ships of the class although I did nothing of the kind on any page. With regard to the 'introduction' of errors, your grammar has similarly failed you, although (mea culpa) my memory failed me: the missing period you restored is in the lead of the ] page. — ] 14:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Please advise where I have stated that you, specifically ''Llywelyn'', introduced the error that ''Calabria'' was a member of this class of ships. I don't think it's ''me'' who hasn't been reading what has been said (and it's worth noting ] and ]).
::::As for grammar, it is not within the scope of this page (or my job) to instruct you on basic rules of grammar. That you do not see your errors is not evidence that they do not exist. ] (]) 14:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm sure you aren't but, if you were genuinely confused, it was in the instances here and elsewhere where you repeatedly complained about my edits introducing errors into the pages. Unless you had another one in mind, in which case I'm still curious what it was. (].) — ] 14:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Please do not splice threaded comments. And please do not make false accusations and then back out of them when someone called your bluff. The fact is, you ''did'' introduce errors . Again, that you are not aware of them does not mean they do not exist. ] (]) 15:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Leaving aside that is one edit and not anything in the plural, ''it's not wrong''. As established downpage, the ships were all built ''and'' launched prior to 1900, which simply makes it another error you reintroduced through your reverts. (If it was common practice for the Italian Navy to launch ships that were not yet built, I do apologize and can only plead {{sc|gf}}. I assumed the original editor had confused "built" with "commissioned".) — ] 00:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::''This'' is what drives me up the wall - you have ''no idea'' what you're talking about, yet you have the gall to insist on being correct. Every ship that has been built in the last several hundred years has been launched incomplete. The remaining ] work frequently lasts several years. You ask for an assumption of good faith - that would be much easier to grant ''if you would listen to people who know what the hell they're talking about''. ] (]) 01:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked for three months) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Ellie Goulding}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|80.111.184.146}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|642088534|01:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642030063 by ] (])"
# {{diff|oldid=642128148|diff=642135196|label=Consecutive edits made from 09:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC) to 09:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|642135101|09:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642128148 by ] (])"
## {{diff2|642135196|09:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Personal life */"
# {{diff2|642155162|13:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642144392 by ] (])"
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|642144449|11:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]. (])"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
*They have quite the record, and they're still doing the same thing. Three months' block. ] (]) 00:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Drovethrughosts}}
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#
<!-- 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:
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>Please see previous reports, no matter how I and others have tried user keeps reverting legitimate citations and factual evidence, seems to think they 'own' page., user insists an international co production is 'American', has reverted a total of 27 times:</u> <br />
*Really need some guidance here please. ] (]) 16:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC) -->
::No, you weren't admin please check page history, you've proceeded to revert four times in one hour, not only that you altered the page chronology for some reason. User Drovethrughosts proceeded to produce '100 proof evidence' (NOR anyone?) that the show according to a pirated video tape (which no-one has seen) was 'American' while I edited in actual citations from tv industry experts referring to the UK's collaboration with Universal on Battlestar Galactica (2004) from Google Books. If administration care to check talk history they will find other editors who both edited the article (reverted immediately) and discussed adding the fact that the UK co-funded the show so no, it isn't just me, although I have been the one most recently having to put up with this crazy page 'ownership'. ] (]) 17:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The only editor edit warring here is Twobells. He is determined to force in an edit, based on one iffy and one unreliable source that he feels somehow makes the American TV series Battlestar Galactica a US/UK (with UK primacy) television production, despite the only foundation for his claim is limited contributed funding of the mini-series and first season by the UK network Sky1 (along with the Canadian network Space, which doesn't seem to interest him); the principle source of funding was NBC Universal, which produced and funded the mini-series and five season series for the SciFi/Syfy Network. His whole argument hangs on the mistaken notion that the country of the source of funding, not the country of the production company is somehow the country of origin, in opposition to the standard established by consensus at Project:Television. Worse, he's filed one prior case here against myself and Drovethrughosts (the latter case was malformed and mistakenly removed by the closing admin, but wasn't worth pursuing), and is back at it today, but persists in edit warring and restarting the edit war, oblivious to the face he is the instigator of these edit wars. He is long past editing to improve the article. This has become some sort of cause (possibly based on anti-American sentiment, if a conversation with another editor and some past editing patterns are to be believed) he has taken up, not only on this article, but on a couple others as well, and he's determined to continue to edit war, engage in ] (see some recent edits) and harassment via these noticeboards to have his way. Meanwhile, he has no foundation for his changes, despite his loud claims of so-called "legitimate" sources, both of which have been challenged as unreliable. His engagement on the show's talk page is not designed to reach consensus, but rather to dominate the discourse and tell other editors what is and is not correct, yet demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of (or blindness to) a range of policies he claims are being "violated." It seems abundantly apparent to me that he is not editing in good faith, but rather to win at any costs. --] (]) 16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
*Admin, please see both history and the previous 3RR report regarding editor ] to see who is doing the reverting and edit warring, the sources are completely legitimate cited from Google Books. I have no interest in UK being 'primary' whatsoever, I have no idea where that came from. Editor Drmargi is confused as to how production credits work and was himself previously reported for reverting 7 edits in 24 hours (see 3RR archive 367). To be honest both users Dmargi and DroveThrughosts seem to think they 'own' the article and jointly rush to attack anyone who might edit the article which is completely unacceptable and what is worse user ] states that in editing the article that flies in the face of their wishes it is somehow ] which is frankly ludicrous in that they have a nice comfy albeit incorrect article and nothing is going to change that. He goes on to suggest that there seems to be some sort of 'anti-americanism' going on which is frankly ludicrous and reflects a increasing sense of desperation considering I am Anglo-American. I have tried to explain how co-production articles work citing examples such as '']'' and '']'' but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. In closing, the article reached consensus (when you calculate the numbers) on adding the UK contribution back In December; however neither editor seems to accept that consensus as it flies in the face of their beliefs pertaining to this tv show. ] (]) 16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
::*"I have no interest in UK being 'primary' whatsoever, I have no idea where that came from" — then why did you put it as "" and " then, when clearly the US is the primary producer of the series. ] (]) 17:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
::*"To be honest both users Dmargi and DroveThrughosts seem to think they 'own' the article and jointly rush to attack anyone who might edit the article which is completely unacceptable." — how are our edits any different than yours? You were the one to start the edit war twice now. And no, it's not "anyone", it's just ''you'' making these edits. ] (]) 17:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
::*"The article reached consensus (when you calculate the numbers)" — what are you talking about? You refer to things that have never happened, the article did not read consensus and what numbers did you calculate? I'm sorry, but I think copyright laws which define country of origin is a better source than someone on Google Books. ] (]) 17:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
::*"I have tried to explain how co-production articles work citing examples such as '']'' and '']'' but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears — as far as I see, it states "''Guardians of the Galaxy'' is a 2014 American superhero film..." Also, see ]. ] (]) 18:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
::This article was the subject of a ] on 30 December. The result was 5 days of full protection. It appears that ] has a theory about the nationality of this TV show: "''it is the country that funds a production that defines ownership''", but he seems to be the only one who believes this. Unless Twobells will make a promise to accept consensus from now on, a block may be necessary. Twobells has . Both Drmargi and Twobells would strengthen their case if they would give links to the policies they mention about TV shows and to the prior 3RRs. ] (]) 17:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
::: I don't know, Ed. I can throw in a few links when I have time, but any admin doing due diligence will have to look at the article edit history and talk page, which paints a vivid picture of what's gone on. I think the real issues underlying the edit war are Twobells's disruptive editing, constant restarting of this edit war, abuse of this noticeboard, and lack of willingness to work toward consensus. He stirs the pot, goes away for a while, apparently until he thinks things have calmed down, and then is back again, starting all over. Meanwhile, a quick glance at his edit history shows he's not editing anywhere else. Make of it what you will. I'm heartily weary of the whole situation. ] (]) 20:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
:'''Result:''' Twobells is blocked 48 hours. ] is warned for edit warring. This dispute happened before, on 30 December. That time the 3RR was closed with protection. It seems that Twobells just isn't going to stop, no matter what anyone says. Twobells doesn't appear to have any support from other editors but he keeps reverting anyway. ] (]) 02:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sayerslle}}
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#
<!-- 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:
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User has a conflict of interest. ] (]) 16:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC) -->
:User has a couple of trolls seeking to censor info from a RS more like. spa anon ips and editors with one edit ffs - what conflict of interest? - censor the RS all you like - whats your interest in it anyhow? maybe you have the conflict of interest etc . ] (]) 16:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
::Why are you ? ] (]) 17:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
::Et vous? why are you. I am not. its pointless to edit in a tidal wave of SPAs anyhow. I must learn.] (]) 17:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
:::English please. ] (]) 18:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Semiprotected two weeks. Sayerslle did not violate 3RR but the IP did. This is a biographical article on a controversial person. ] (]) 18:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Two articles semied) ==
'''Pages:''' {{pagelinks|2013 Copa Libertadores}} {{pagelinks|2014 Copa do Brasil}}
<br>
<br>
'''Users being reported:''' <s>{{userlinks|80.111.184.146}}</s> {{userlinks|187.15.192.28}} {{userlinks|187.15.194.230}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268792658|15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# - ''(Undid revision 641976314 by Gsfelipe94 (talk))''
# {{diff2|1268747259|09:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# - ''(Undid revision 642043139 by Gsfelipe94 (talk) not a graph, it is Atlético Mineiros starting lineup on that game.)''
# {{diff2|1268721660|05:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# - ''(Undid revision 642195316 by Gsfelipe94 (talk))''
# {{diff2|1268541485|08:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# - ''(Undid revision 641907914 by Gsfelipe94 (talk))''
# - ''(Undid revision 641976260 by Gsfelipe94 (talk))''
# - ''(Undid revision 642043031 by Gsfelipe94 (talk) it is not a graph, it both teams starting XI, do you know anything about football?)''
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# ]
# ]
# ]
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
I'm adding only one IP for the title, but as you can see, it's probably an user with multiple IPs. Due to his edits, he might have a Portuguese profile, but didn't create an English one. Also based on those edits, I believe he's Brazilian and that his edits are only based on the fact that he is a supporter of Atlético Mineiro. Tried to reason with the person via article's edit summary and reached each IP with a talk page for discussion as well. I used to deal with it only via edit summary, but now I decided to follow the standard path and report cases instead of just reverting them in a loop at the articles. Thanks ] (]) 16:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Semiprotected both listed articles for two months. Edit warring by IP-hopper. I struck out one IP from the header because he didn't edit either of the listed articles. ] (]) 02:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:My bad. I probably copied and paste from a previous IP, so I'm to blame for that. The other IP was ], just for information. Thanks for dealing with it ] (]) 05:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Charleston, South Carolina}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Scsu76}}
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|642366246|21:53, 13 January 2015}} (→Armed Forces: Relevant - check your history.)
# {{diff2|642346736|19:30, 13 January 2015}} (→Armed Forces: The entire section is relevant to Charleston, just as other information in the write-up. Apparently, you do not like the fact the military built the economy of Charleston - "Joint Base Charleston".)
# {{diff2|642338564|18:21, 13 January 2015}} (→Armed Forces: "Join Base Charleston" and the military section belongs in the Charleston write up. Otherwise, the entire section on Charleston will need to be re-written, on ALL topics. People want to know about the AREA; Remember, "Joint Base CHAR")
# {{diff2|641613550|18:59, 8 January 2015}} (→Armed Forces: Yo are wrong, otherwise, the entire write up of Charleston would need to exlcude all aspects of Metro Charleston, i.e. "Port of Charleston", etc. Look at the military emblem "Joint Base Charleston.")
# {{diff2|641348967|03:33, 7 January 2015}} (→Armed Forces: Each City is listed. It is called "Joint Base Charleston", not "Joint Base North Charleston" for a reason. Section is correct.)
# {{diff2|638849498|00:50, 20 December 2014}} (→Armed Forces)
Diff of warning for edit warring: {{diff2|642363604|21:32, 13 January 2015}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
An IP and this user appear to have been in an edit war for a while before I came across it today (note: I am not the IP, and welcome any checkuser to verify if there is any question on this whatsoever).
I have attempted to discuss the issue on the user's talk page at ], but they have refused to respond - simply reverting. Their argument seems to be that because the base is called "]" (and not "Joint Base North Charleston", or "Joint Base Charleston Metro Area"), and because Charleston owes its development to the military, that the military section needs to be expanded to cover all military units in the metro area. This despite the fact that most of those units are actually not within the borders of Charleston itself, but instead are located in the greater ], mostly in the cities of ], ], and ]. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 22:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sardanaphalus}}
<!-- 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:
#
#
Sardanaphalus has a habit of reinstating his edits, even if they are reverted for good reason; In this case, half the section of the linked template became unreadable, so I reverted. But he takes it personally, so I warned him to not to do so, or I would report him to 3RR, even after one revert. Minutes later, he does it anyway. By doing so, he is damaging legibility of templates (not only this one). He has been instructed be several editors (and admins) to show restraint and ''test'' his edits before implementing them, but it falls on deaf ears. <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {{]}}</code> 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|nve}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 04:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Heybob124}}
<!-- 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: n/a
<!-- 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 edits:
#
#
#
#
<!-- 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:
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User is dead-set on adding sloppy/unsourced/duplicative content to the lead of ] despite having been repeatedly reverted by multiple users. User was blocked as ] yesterday for 24 hours, then came right back after the block expired with this new account. Shows no indication of having even seen talk page warnings. ] (]) 01:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 04:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Smoking cessation}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Ready to quit smoking?}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|642393418|02:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642393345 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|642393136|02:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642393054 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|642392947|02:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642392843 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|642392698|01:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642392510 by ] (]) Video doesn't even exist."
# {{diff2|642392224|01:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642392173 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|642391856|01:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642391737 by ] (]) It was an example, not a spam."
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|642392871|01:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
;<u>Comments:</u>
]Blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist; I'd say this should be left open for now however, as there may be more to this than meets the eye (I should add I saw this linked on ]). He seems to be saying he's the owner of an anti-smoking website in the UK. ]<span style="background-color: #9ffff5; padding: 3px; border-radius: 6px 6px 6px 6px;"><b>]</b></span>] 02:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|1989 (Taylor Swift album)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Joseph Prasad}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|642394813|02:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642394648 by ] (]) Yet ] only says Big Machine."
# {{diff2|642392797|01:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Does not look official whatsoever, and home come then it was not mentioned by Big Machine or Swift herself then?"
# {{diff2|642390872|01:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Republic is not her label's official site. Her label is Big Machine.http://www.bigmachinelabelgroup.com/artist/taylor-swift/"
# {{diff2|642266637|05:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)}} "As far as I can tell, I see no release date on that source. How come Billboard has no article for it yet?"
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|642395241|02:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
;<u>Comments:</u>
User has engaged in an edit-war on the ] album page for ''1989'' with another user. User did not open discussion on talk page of album, or on user's talk page. ''']''' ] 02:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:And again, yet the other editor was not warned for violations. The only reason I'm always on here is because every time there is an edit war like this, I am always the ONLY one who get reported, even though others edit war as well. -- ] (]) 02:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:The user was reverting a perfectly legit and cited update because he did find the source (Republic Records' official website) to appear "official" enough, and stated that Big Machine is her label. I informed him that Republic handled her releases to pop radio (and is listed on ] as one of their artists) but he continued reverting. I then took the matter to his talk page to discuss but he was non-compliant. ] (]) 03:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::{{AN3|b}} – 24 hours. The ink is not yet dry on the previous 3RR report of Joseph Prasad. ] is warned for edit warring. See . ] (]) 03:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Andiar.rohnds}}
<!-- 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 this version, it can clearly be seen that in the section "Muslim reactions", the sub-section "Condemning the attack" is higher than "Supporting the attack".
<!-- 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''':
#
#
#
#
In each of these reverts, the user moves the sub-section "Supporting the attack" above "Condemning the attack".
<!-- 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''':
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page''':
<u>Comments:</u> The user has made 4 reverts in less than 24-hours. I recall reverting the user only 2 times, meaning the other 2 times the user has edit-warred with some other user. The user doesn't seem to have engaged in any discussion during the first 3 reverts. Even though during that time, I had posted messages on the talk page. (Here's the section: ]). I to the user's talk page, pointing out to them that they had been reverting without discussing. After that Andiar.rohnds did post on the talk page, but immediately after that reverted me again (making it the 4th revert in <24hours). I also found their comment on the talk page somewhat unhelpful, esp since they started off with "Misplaced Pages is not your personal agenda device..." Since then, another user has posted on the talk page, and seems to also disagree with Andiar.rohnds. Coupled with the fact that others have reverted Andiar.rohnds' reverts, it seems clear to me that Andiar.rohnds' position is in the minority here.
After the 4th revert, I warned the user and to self-revert. The user by saying I was "confused" and I should go read ]
I'll gladly take this report back if Andiar.rohnds self-reverts and agrees to resolve this matter through discussion.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)<br />
::Discussions were had, and previously archived. Discussion still continues on main talk page. User simply will not listen and is reporting falsehoods. --] (]) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
*Since I reported the user, they are to make the exact same reverts. Andiar.rohnds didn't revert me, but rather someone else. It seems Andiar.rohnds is not willing to stop reverting.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:*Andiar.rohnds' usual revert is to simply swap the order of Islamic sources supporting the attack versus those condemning the attack, to put those supporting the attack first. Andiar.rohnds often cites ] as his reason for reverting, but I am unclear on whether that talk thread reached any conclusion. Maybe the submitter of this 3RR, ], wants to comment? I confess that Andiar.rohnds comment at the beginning of the thread suggests that his motivation is personal POV and does not show a desire to reflect what reliable sources have written: "''This information is not relevant to the current event and serves an extraneous social agenda, and should be removed immediately. --Andiar.rohnds (talk)''" It is unclear how Misplaced Pages policy justifies Andiar.rohnds' reasoning. ] (]) 18:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
== Ryulong on the ANI board (Result: declined)==
{{archive top|1=AN3 issue concluded some time ago. Thanks to everyone for their views, but this notice board isn't the place for the rest of this thread. Please consider a usertalk page or a different noticeboard if you'd like to continue the discussion. -- ] (]) 11:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}}
] has far surpassed 3RR on the AN/I board. The underlying argument he seems to put forth is that the user in question is (probably) banned. What he doesn't seem to appreciate is that he is the subject of the complaint and that at least two other users consider the merits of the complaint to worth at least a cursory notice. ] (]) 08:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:] says that reverts to edits by banned editors or their sockpuppets and meatpuppets are exempt from 3RR. Whether or not I am the subject of the thread that this banned editor started is immaterial.—] (]) 08:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::I find your general demeanor to be reprehensible. That this user may (or may not) be banned but they have become peripheral to your conduct at this point. ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Unless the edits made by this user are beneficial to the project (which the baseless complaints I was violating ] or whatever else he was going to pull up) do not qualify. {{u|ToQ100gou}}/{{u|ToQ100gou2}} and his dynamic IP addresses are not allowed to edit the English Misplaced Pages until he properly appeals his ban like a normal person. I am fully within policy to remove the content and have it remain removed.—] (]) 09:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::::You continue to make excuses for your behavior by degrading your target. The status of your victim does not release you from your own responsibilities. ] (]) 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::This is where you are incorrect. Because ToQ100gou is banned, none of his edits are allowed per ]. Reverting edits by a banned user is exempt from 3RR.—] (]) 09:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::I have ceased removing the section on ANI as it wasn't getting anywhere. Clearly, these two editors strongly dislike each other, and while Ryulong may or may not be removing these comments due to "I don't like them there" wikipedia is not a battleground. That being said, I do think that, while Ryulong may not be the right person for removing these comments since they're about him, his comments about ] are valid, which is part of the reason why I ceased reverting him. Reviewing admins may also want to take a look at the note left on my talk page. <span style="text-shadow:#A2E1FC 2px -2px 9px;">— ] <sup>]</sup></span> 09:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
{{AN3|d}} per ]. Ideally Ryulong would not be the one removing these posts by an indef-blocked editor, given they were about Ryulong in the first place. But removal of what is basically a trolling by an indef-blocked editor is not the basis for a 3RR sanction. -- ] (]) 09:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:"Trolling" suggests that there is not inherently valid commentary to be had. Were to Ryulong to have treated any other editor this way he'd be in line for consequence. ] (]) 09:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Hi. Editors in good standing have every right to lodge ANI complaints and have them considered. That right is not routinely extended to the sock puppets of indef-blocked editors. I would add in passing that I also reviewed the actual complaint, and it lacked merit on the evidence provided. Had the material not been removed, I would have declined and closed the thread. -- ] (]) 09:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::I don't mean to interject, but where does it say the user was banned? Aren't bans different from being blocked? ] (]) 09:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::The master account is indef blocked. There are a fair few similarities between indef blocks and bans, but practical differences are outlined at ]. -- ] (]) 09:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I see, but does the 3RR apply because multiple non-blocked users were also reverted? ] (]) 09:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:Ya can't fault a guy for knowing the loopholes and how to exploit them. You can, however, fault the loopholes. ―] ] 09:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::It's genuinely disgusting and people are beginning to take notice. ] (]) 09:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::This is not a loophole. Banned editors and indefinitely blocked editors are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages and other users are not allowed to proxy for them. GraniteSand seems to want the report there because he feels I am somehow toxic to the project and must be punished, even when those complaints are brought up by someone who blatantly admits they are evading a ban by saying they are totally not, obviously being a banned editor, and is definitely not someone in good standing. You are also heavily mistaken how these threads are supposed to operate because once it is declined that is the end of it. If you actually believe there are violations of policy that I have performed then you are perfectly free as an editor in good standing to report me for them but this situation here is not the case.—] (]) 10:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::You were clearly within the letter of policy. You could have stepped aside and let another editor revert, with the same outcome. Instead you chose to make a battle of it. Almost as if you enjoy battles, especially when you know you'll win. I think we could do with less of that. ―] ] 10:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::GraniteSand is a user in good standing, and free to post the concern if they feel it is meritous (bearing in mind they're then liable for the contents of it). I count three reversions there (unless I'm mistaken), and reverting the banned editor is a non-consideration, so it falls slightly short of being actionable. But reverting GraniteSand (or any other user in good standing) is not 3RR exempt. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 10:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Even if the content is originally by a user not in good standing? Because I'm pretty sure there was just a whole arbitration case concerning this to some extent.—] (]) 10:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:Banned users are not allowed to edit in any way, shape or form, regardless of the alleged quality of their edits. And standing up for banned users is not a good thing to be doing. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 10:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::No one is "standing up for a banned user". ―] ] 10:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::If you restore a banned editor's edits after they were deleted, then you're standing up for the banned editor. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 10:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Not necessarily. His edits were not restored because they were seen to be proper. They were restored because multiple editors felt it was (ethically) wrong for Ryulong to be the one removing them. ―] ] 10:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::And yet we have multiple attempts to explain that according to policy this was wrong to assume. Simply because the editor was complaining about me is immaterial to the fact that he should not have been editing anyway.—] (]) 10:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::I put "ethically" in parens for emphasis and clarity. You do know the difference between legal and ethical? ―] ] 11:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation ) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Death of Leelah Alcorn}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|WWGB}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=642333089|diff=642362469|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC) to 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|642362253|21:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Death */ nothing in sources about postponement just change of venue"
## {{diff2|642362469|21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642333089 by ] (]) notability not established"
# {{diff2|642382187|00:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Death */ it's the family's business who they invite to the funeral, this is just trivia published by the tabloid rag Daily Mail. It's also pathetic that some editors can't resist a cheap shot against the family"
# {{diff2|642445940|12:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "/* top */ ce"
# {{diff2|642447763|12:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "/* top */ grossly untrue"
# {{diff2|642448000|12:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642447857 by ] (]) opinion, gain consensus on talk page for this sweeping statement"
# {{diff2|642450083|13:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 642449204 by ] (]) please contribute to discussion on talk page, thanks"
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|642448763|13:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "/* EW */ new section"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|642449863|13:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}} "/* "Alcorn's parents were publicly accused of pushing her to suicide" */"
;<u>Comments:</u>
Diff #3, while it looks like a minor copy edit, reverts of WWGB's edit .- ]] 13:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledge the exercise of strong involvement in this article, however, my edit history shows that my edits were spread across a range of issues within the article, rather than just an edit war. I did not exceed three edits on any one issue (while acknowledging my understanding of ]). If it assists the resolution of this matter, I will stand aside from further edits of this article for 24 hours. Regards, ] (]) 13:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{ec}}I'm sorry, but you don't get three reverts per issue. I can't help but think that you may have been trying to ] the system. You certainly don't offer any assurances that you will stop edit warring after 24 hours, or that you will adhere to ]. You also ignored a warning and continued to edit war.- ]] 13:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I second MrX's concerns, and have felt WWGB's edits to be disruptive (albeit perhaps well-meaning) in this context. Particularly problematic for me has been their decision to refer to those making edits which they disagree with as "pathetic", in doing so showing no regard for ]. ] (]) 13:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:There is where there seems to be a 4:1 verdict in favor of saying the parents were 'publicly accused of pushing her to suicide.' Can WWGB respond here to answer the talk thread? Is there any ] argument regarding the parents to show that WWGB's reverts were justifiable? Usually BLP is satisfied if a reliable source is linked, though I notice that there is no inline cite for 'publicly accused'. If WWGB won't accept the result of the talk thread, can they say if there are any conditions under which they would stop reverting? ] (]) 18:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::Just to provide an update, the talk page verdict is now at 5:1. ] (]) 19:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': There is no way this should have been reported here. Many (most?) of these reverts were undoing clear BLP violations: controversial claims about to living people linked to unreliable sources. WWGB was completely justified with , for example, even if the edit summary was inappropriate. ]] (]) 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
**With due respect to StAnselm, I disagree completely. This was entirely the appropriate place for WWGB's behaviour to be discussed; they may be exonerated of any criticism, but it was the appropriate place for it to be discussed nonetheless. There were no BLP violations present, as the 5:1 consensus at the talk page appears to have vindicated. ] (]) 19:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I don't know what "5:1 consensus" you mean - in any case, consensus is not determined by counting votes. According to our policy and long-standing consensus about reliable sources, WWGB was reverting a clear BLP violation. ]] (]) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Are you talking about ]? The five editors in question are saying that it was not reliably sourced according to BLP standards - that implies a BLP violation. ]] (]) 20:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::::No, that's not the section that we are referring to; the one in question is ]. There, five editors have agreed that '''''the edit in question was not a BLP violation''''', despite WWGB's insistent and repeated statements to the contrary. ] (]) 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::StAnselm, that demonstrates a profound lack of comprehension of ] and it's rather hypocritical considering that you tried to rename a related article, ] to ] and added <nowiki>{{sic}}</nowiki> to the lead. The content is sourced, which you well know, and if you didn't know, you could discover for yourself in about 17 seconds with minimal effort.- ]] 20:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Let's say is once again, slowly: BLP-related claims need to be ''reliably'' sourced, and the Daily Mail is '''not''' a reliable source. ]] (]) 20:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I would add that StAnselm has been blocked before for edit warring while fallaciously claiming that he was defending against a BLP violation.- ]] 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::::StAnselm, I respect you as an editor, but you are confusing two completely different debates over at the talk page; the one that is relevant here has nothing to do with the validity of the ''Daily Mail''. That's a different debate being held in a different place. Best, ] (]) 20:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}} While I guess some edit summaries could be better, there were some serious BLP issues with some edits that needed to be reverted. No violation found. <small>] | ] | ]</small> 20:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:Which edits do you think needed to be reverted?. Please share your findings.- ]] 20:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lordship of Ireland}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Pktlaurence}}
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
<!-- 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:
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussion here: ]. Final attempt to reason here:
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Editor no longer willing to resolve the issue on the talk page. ] (]) 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tony Jones (theologian)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Edit Fact}}
<!-- 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:
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
# Note: from {{userlinks|FreeRangeFrog}} makes these an almost complete revert to
<!-- 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:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
First attempt - reverted:
Second attempt:
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
I attempted to improve the references, but that edit was reverted too. So I stopped due to the 3RR.
But I still believe some of the sources are reliable based on the topic.
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)
:'''No violation''' - {{u|Edit Fact}} has made a total of three edits to the article and per policy only two reverts as two of the edits were consecutive. -- ] ] 19:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
*Blocked indefinitely.--] (]) 16:29, 11 January 2025 (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)
