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.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
# (31 December 2024)
#
# (6 January 2024)
#
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (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) ==
Baffling edits, baffling discussion on article talk page, out of ideas. ] ] 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Asked not to cross post at ] . Not sure why the user name is giving an error in this report, possibly because the page hasn't been created yet? ] ] 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::While the user clearly has some ], I disagree with you calling their edits original research on the talk page since they seem to me to be ]. They even reproduce some of that math there. ] (]) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::And, yes, when a user has not yet created a page for themselves, their username is redlinked. It's not an error, just the way the software works. ] (]) 21:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm aware of red links, I believe I had put their name in the wrong field. To be fair I don't come here every day. Is four reverts not edit warring? Synthesis, OR and calc aside they were demanding that American engines display their specifications in a Russian/Chinese format. As this is the English Misplaced Pages I don't think it was unreasonable to say that wasn't possible or desired but they persisted anyway. ] ] 09:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, that last part hadn't been clear until now. Still ... you give only three reverts above, and if I were to infer which edit you meant to be the fourth from the article history it would appear that you are making the entirely too-common mistake of listing the "edit reverted to" as one of the reverts.<p>In fact, they arguably have as strong, if not stronger, a case against ''you'' for violating 3RR as your reverts of their edits do not come under the ] exceptions. I would, seeing as you are as you said not a frequent reporter here, commend your attention to ], written to adddress this sort of situation. ] (]) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Unless I am mistaken I reverted only three times, being very aware of 3RR I stopped and came here. I provided clear rationales in the edit summaries and attempted to converse with the user on the article talk page, it's not accurate to state that I did not try to discuss the problematic edits. I can see this is going nowhere. ] ] 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Nimbus227}} You're not mistaken. You reverted only 3x. {{U|湾岸2024}} reverted 4x but the last revert was outside the 24-hour window. Your biggest "mistake", Nimbus227, was that you didn't prepare this report properly. The reason for the error in the username was because you failed to put it in one of the spots the template asks you to - I fixed that if you look back at the history of this page. The second error, which, unfortunately, is not that uncommon was you listed only 3 reverts instead of 4. In any event, because all of this happened a few days ago, I'm going to decline this as stale.--] (]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked both (reporter for 1 week and reportee for 72 hours)) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Luffaloaf}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
#
# {{diff2|1268346280|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
#
# {{diff2|1268345229|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
#
#
#
#
#
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' None. (User received edit warring block in the last 2 weeks)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] & ], two long talk page discussions.
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's 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)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> I may earn a ] for edit warring myself, however, I believe this report is necessary. Luffaloaf seems to ]. This user has 176 edits total, of which, roughly 80% involve some sort of edit war. On December 7, Luffaloaf got involved in an edit war with 3 other editors (See ) and earned a 24 hour edit warring block. Back in October 2024, when they first joined, they received several talk page warnings for edit warring on the ] article (]. And now, less than 2 weeks after being blocked for edit warring, they have done it again on the ] article (). Another editor {{u|EF5}} that this user also took to Reddit about the edit war. To also help the CIR issue, amid the edit war, actually their after being blocked for edit warring, the added unverified information.
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
During today’s edit war with myself, to help diffuse the situation, I if they would be ok with a larger community discussion starting, to which they were ok with it. As such, I . However, despite being reminded of ], twice, (boldly changing content, being challenged by another editor, and then agreeing to discuss it), in two separate edit warring reversions by myself (), with me both times asking to wait for the RFC consensus to see if the content should change, they continued to edit war. I am ok with a boomerang block for edit warring, as I admit that I got well to engaged in the edit war (), but I also see a clear pattern with Luffaloaf not understanding the concept of ], edit warring, and ], given their numerous notifications on it, their recent edit warring block, and the fact roughly 80% of their total edits on Misplaced Pages are engaging in edit wars. This is a case of ] to edit Misplaced Pages, which, in my opinion, seems to be confirmed with those off-Wiki Reddit posts discovered by {{u|EF5}} linked above. '''The ]''' (] 07:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*I 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) ==
:This amounts to character assassination and trying to “ban a POV you dislike”. I engaged in the behavior you did, regrettably. I also made it clear that you supported IP additions without sources at all, and when I re-established edits because I found ample sources for all of them (in accordance with the ongoing talk page back-and-forth), you continued to revert them and uphold flagrant misinformation. My point in doing so after the initial back-and-forth editing was to update the page with the aggregate of sources I had found in the progress of the talk page dispute. Also, where is the data on “80% of my edits being related to edit-warring” ? Immature editing is upholding unsourced edits in spite of sources, and using Misplaced Pages regulation to gatekeep pages. I abided by my original block, and engaged on talk pages as much as possible. In regards to ] edits, I eventually stopped. Not sure how really any of your examples constitute “not being mature enough” to edit Misplaced Pages. That sounds like you trying to ban someone who challenges any edit of yours or POV you favor, a common behavior among established Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 07:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Statements like that, along with large replies like on a ] I think help confirm maybe ]. I do apologize for engaging in the edit war. My mistakes should not have encouraged you to do the exact same thing you got blocked for 2 weeks ago back on December 7. If anything, that almost seems to indicate you learned nothing from that block, since you went with “Oh, this editor is doing this, I can do it too”. I am not perfect and here I saw my mistake and admitted it. You got a block 10 days ago and clearly did not learn anything from it. Your editing behavior is a clear pattern now on 3 separate articles, which was seen by other editors, not just myself. '''The ]''' (] 08:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::“A good article” = meet Misplaced Pages’s kind of arbitrary editorial standard. The information sourced is poorly represented, and there are massive flaws in the source, yes. Your attempt to uphold an F5 rating and 300 MPH wind speed on the page for that 18th century tornado from the ESSL laughably clashes with your attempt to disregard an EF2 rating for a 2005 tornado, handed down from a structural engineer, previously involved in tons of notable tornado surveys in the US, who undertook an actual damage survey with photo documentation of the damage. It just doesn’t make sense. It indicates to me that you, and maybe others, are trying to exaggerate the intensity of European tornadoes and tornado climatology. You are the malfeasant editor here, regardless of the “Misplaced Pages lawfare” article gatekeeping stuff. You are the only editor who had consistently opposed my edits. ] (]) 08:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\
::::Will note that Luffaloaf has called Misplaced Pages's rules "autistic" and me a "euroretard" on the same Reddit thread (my Reddit username is "LiminalityMusic", I don't care disclosing that. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 12:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Now at ]. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Will note that this is insane to bring into a Misplaced Pages dispute? This has not happened on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*Note: Luffaloaf is with another user, amid this administrator noticeboard discussion. Very clear ] issue with a clear lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages’s ] and ] policies. '''The ]''' (] 19:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:You are continuing to disregard sources to peddle misinformation on multiple pages related to tornadoes in Europe. You can lie all you want, the Birmingham tornado of 2005 was rated an EF2. It’s as plain as day. Why does that upset you so much? ] (]) 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|48 hours}} I see at least 6 reverts each. ] ] 20:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Whether or not I’m supposed to reply here I don’t know. But I would like to ask for some clarification (preferably from @]) on why the comment above says that WeatherWriter was blocked for 48 hours but the talk page says he was blocked for a week. Is there any particular reason for the discrepancy; was there an error or a typo somewhere? ]<sup>]</sup> 20:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@] I was using the script tools when I did this. I then went to block the individuals and, upon reviewing their block logs, found previous edit warring behaviors. Per ], "{{tq|Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur.}}"
*::{{no ping|Luffaloaf}} was blocked by {{U|Favonian}} just the other week for 24 hours for edit warring, so I escalated that to 72 hours. {{no ping|WeatherWriter}} has a rather lengthy block log, and I saw two blocks for edit warring in it. Upon looking again, I see that the second "block" was just an adjustment of the first one which was 72 hours. Regardless, I do not think an escalation from 3 days (72 hours) to 7 days is unreasonable, especially give the other disputative behavior. ] ] 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for the clarification. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned users) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PaleoFile}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editorinstead
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*Both users have been {{AN3|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Those users and {{userlinks|Mei23448}} seems continuing edit wars on '']'' and '']'' articles.
*:1.
*:2.
*:3.
*:4.
*:5.
*:6.
*:In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.
*:Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) ] (]) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Both blocked 48 hours) ==
:{{u|Theonewithreason}}, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sillypickle123}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{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 ] (])"
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1268447335|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
# {{diff2|1268463321|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ,
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff|oldid=1268447335|diff=1268451519|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
Pipera has chosen to add grandchildren and great grandchildren to the Robert de Quincy article. I have stated on the article talk page this is unnecessary and off-topic to Robert de Quincy. They have also misrepresented what a source states, which I have also stated on the article talk page.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
Even while filling out this report Pipera has reverted me twice, choosing to add back an unused 1790 source to the Sources section, and readding Robert's grandchildren and great grandchildren. This after being told by user:Ealdgyth(17 December 2024) that ]. Honestly, I don't think Pipera is here to build a community encyclopedia. --] (]) 23:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hat|content user added to the article.--] (]) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:I have added the followi9ng:
:Robert married Orabilis, daughter of Nes fitz William, Lord of Leuchars. .
:Orabilis was married three times to Morggán, Earl of Mar and Adam of Fife, as stated in the links provided.
:They had:
:Saer de Quincy (died 1219), married Margaret de Beaumont, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester
:Unknown (daughter) de Quincy married de St Andrew
:Sir Saer I de St Andrew of East Haddon married Matilda de Dyve daughter of Hugh Dyve and Agnes they had issue:
:Robert de St Andrew married Albreda
:James de St Andrew (1228)
:Ralph de St Andrew (1228 - 1278)
:William de St Andrew
:Laurence de St Andrew
:Saer II de St Andrew
:John de St Andrew
:Sir Roger de St Andrew (d before 1249)
:Orabilis and Robert divorced.
:Secondly, he married Eve of Galloway, who was previously married to Walter Barclay. .
:it is alright for the children of Saer de Quincy to be placed on his page here, and not for the children of his sis5ter not to be placed here.
:They are also the grandchildren of the said parents and deserve the right to be placed there as well as the marriages of Roberts first wife and her three husbands as well as the second marriage of Robert her husband.
{{hab}}
:I do not think I have broken any rules by adding this to his article supported by the external links provided. ] (]) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have posted to the talk page this is also incorrect. ] (]) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am not in an edit war, I posted new information which is educationally correct and was removed without any academic argument it was gone. no pre talk on the talk page concerning what was supplied by the person deleting the information.
:They firstly need to raise and entry and then talk and resolve, ] (]) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am expanding these articles not rolling them back. I have been editing here since at least the year 2001, I was editing entries for the 9/11 project obituaries for the people that passed in 9/11. ] (]) 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:See
:User talk:Paramandyr: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Paramandyr&diff=prev&oldid=1264014635
:Latest revision as of 23:20, 19 December 2024 edit undo thank
:Paramandyr (talk | contribs)
:removed, stay off my talk page
:Tag: Undo ] (]) 00:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|48 hours}}. ] (]) 00:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale; content removed) ==
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sigma Boy}} <br />
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D}}
# {{diff2|1268688649|01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
# {{diff2|1268687321|01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=1268684554|diff=1268686155|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268685840|01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
## {{diff2|1268686155|01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1268688594|01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "]Created page with '== January 2025 == ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> You didn't read the ] carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
# {{diff2|1268690605|01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268694009|02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268695553|02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
The user was not following the ] correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! ] (]) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. ] (]) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|180.195.212.14}}
The user is edit-warring to insert a list of "supported by" countries into the military conflict infobox.
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
#
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], ]
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's 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 />
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
If the IP reverts one more time, could someone please block them and revert their nonsensical edit? (Okay, maybe it's not "nonsensical", but it's incorrect.) ] (]) 02:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}}; content removed until a consensus is found ] (]) 13:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24hours) ==
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 1 month) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|LindyLi}} <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Discovery Zone}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|73.194.17.8}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />Slow edit war, not 3RR, but editor has shown no effort to engage. -- ] (]) 15:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|1 month}} ] (]) 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dave Upthegrove}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268792658|15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268747259|09:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268721660|05:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1268541485|08:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Was just blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring. Is now edit warring on ]. Two reverts on 10 Jan and 2 on 11 Jan. ] ] 16:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question? ] (]) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*Blocked indefinitely.--] (]) 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::@]
::"This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." Also, "When reporting a user here, own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand ] and the definitions below first." I am not involved, don't complain to me please. Nothing I can do here. ] • ] • ] 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. ] (]) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. ] • ] • ] 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). , for those curious. ] (]) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] ] 06:47, 23 December 2024 (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)
