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.
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude><center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.<br/>]: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.'''<br/> '''Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.''' <br/></center>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
=Violations=
:Please place new reports {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can for it.
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
<!--
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
-->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
{{Article|Chronic fatigue syndrome}}. {{3RRV|Guido den Broeder}}: Time reported: 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
: These are based upon the last 24:28 hours:
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:* <s><small>added later by ], see below. ] (]) 16:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</small></s>
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
*Diff of 3RR warning:
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
The user has continued to edit war at ] and other related articles. He is the subject of numerous disputes at his ], has filed requests at ], filed frivolous requests against disputed editors at ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:* Note: The user has a previous 31h block on 14 December for 5 reverts within 24 hours at the same article, with disruption to talk pages. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:**At the time, I did not understand how 3RR was counted, and did not receive a warning. It was a simple mistake for which I apologized. Note, by the way, that ]'s warning was immediately followed by this report, and therefore constitutes a fake warning. ] (]) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
:] is bandwagoning on a threatening editwar that I have prevented by starting RfC's, which he ignores. I am not the subject of any disputes and do not make frivolous requests. The diffs he mentions above pertain to several different content disputes on a very long article, all of which are presently discussed on the talk page, and do not constitute a 3RR violation (in fact, I am trying to follow 2RR these days). The content issue on ] is unrelated and has already been solved to my satisfaction. ] (]) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
:* = fix where statement is erroneously attributed to author (issue 1)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:* = restoring link to documented outbreaks which user is denying (issue 2 - same section as issue 1, but different change)
:* = issue 2
:* = vandalism fix (reinstation of undisputed misquotation of criteria) (issue 3)
:* = issue 3 (note that user withdrew)
:* = reinstating sourced CDC quote (issue 4)
:* = pov-fix to indicate validity issue with source (issue 5)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:I am requesting that ] reverts his own edit. It is good practice not to make contested edits while an RfC is running. His edit also includes reverting an undisputed edit. ] (]) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
# (31 December 2024)
::Note that the edit marked above as "vandalism fix" is in fact a reversion of a constructive edit by an established editor. ] (]) 15:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
# (6 January 2024)
:::It is not, I undid a '''revert''' of a constructive edit. In his haste to help his friend, user - who did not partake in any discussion - didn't notice that he destroyed an undisputed edit as well. ] (]) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
# (7 January 2025)
:::: You are misinterpreting ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
# (8 January 2025)
:::::Right. Please note ]'s further disruptive behaviour by votestacking and discrediting on ] . ] (]) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::] has just added another diff to his list from which it may look like his report follewed a new diff, instead of what really happened, that he filed his report right after a (therefore) fake warning. This manner of editing is disruptive and misleading. Note that the edit in question is a reparation of damage done by ] who reverted a normal copy-edit as part of a massive revert. ] (]) 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
: Blocked for forty-eight hours, per the evidence above. -- ''']''' 16:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
: Unblocked by ] ('not editwarring'). ] (]) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
===Please review the block/unblock situation===
I'd like to request that another administrator who has not been involved in this dispute or in the ] involving Guido den Broeder review the situation. There is now a discussion going on in my Talk page (]) about whether Guido was edit-warring, and a contention on the part of at least one party that Seicer was executing an agenda against Guido in this 3RR notice. Here is the approximate order of events surrounding this entire issue as I've seen it:
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
* Guido den Broeder filed a Wikiquette Alert against ] claiming abusive behavior and false accusations regarding edits in the ] article. ]
** ] told Guido that the WQA appeared to be frivolous and that the diffs did not appear to support his accusations against Orangemarlin.
** Guido filed a ''second'' WQA against Cheeser1 accusing him of making false accusations and "bad edits". ]
** I gave guidance to Guido letting him know why I felt the situation had gone the way it did. I also advised Orangemarlin that some comments he'd made about Guido were incorrect and unhelpful.
** Cheeser1 closed the Orangemarlin WQA as frivolous. I closed the Cheeser1 WQA as frivolous.
** Upon Cheeser1's request, I took the resulting discussion on the Fibromyalgia content dispute to Guido'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 />
* Guido received a 3RR warning from ] after the WQAs were closed, regarding reverts in ]. By his count, there were 6 reverts within 24 hours and 7 within 25 hours.
** This 3RR notice was posted here shortly afterward. (It does stand to reason that more time may need to have been given between the 3RR warning on Guido's talk page and this noticeboard.)
** ] issued a 48-hour block on Guido for violating ].
** Guido requested a block review, stating he was not edit warring and had done nothing wrong.
** ] said he would consult with the blocking admin.
** I reviewed the diffs in Seicer's warning and the full edit history of the article in question, then declined the unblock request on the grounds that it was a clear violation of 3RR.
** Mangojuice unblocked Guido shortly afterward and went to my user talk page saying that if I felt Guido should be blocked for his behavior on the WQA page, I should block for that, but not for edit-warring. He asserted that Guido had not been edit warring, and that he had initiated two RFCs for the article and was discussing the issues there.
*** Mangojuice also stated that Seicer appeared to have an agenda against Guido ("...because Seicer felt the need, based on the WQA interactions, to try to have Guido blocked (after all, he wasn't editing the article in question)..."), which I also disagreed with and Seicer has denied.
** Tariqabjotu stated that he disagreed with Mangojuice's rationale for unblocking.
** Discussions ensued on my talk page and on ] as to whether Guido had been edit-warring.
** To Mangojuice, I've said that I disagree with his assessment, and that we'll apparently have to agree to disagree on this issue.
** Seicer suggested that we get a third opinion on this matter. I agreed on the ground that it would be good to have a neutral opinion about each admin's handling of the situation.
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should not allow users to engage in rapid reversions of edits that are not obvious vandalism (as is stated in ]), and we should furthermore not allow them to get away with it. I believe that unblocking Guido and defending his actions has sent Guido a message that he can basically do what he wants here on WP and get away with it, and I believe Guido's responses to the discussions following the unblock reflect that attitude. I am not asking for a formal review of Mangojuice, per se, but I would like additional guidance for future occurrences of this type of situation - if we're going to have the policies and be expected to enforce them, we need to do so equally. If we need to consider changes to the policies, we should do so through the appropriate channels of discussion rather than overriding each other's actions.
: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: Blocked one week) ==
Thanks. — ''']''' (]) — 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
: For a short add before I head out for the evening, is this that the user was unblocked on the basis of Tariqabjotu being offline for more than two hours that has me worried. An unblock should be ''carefully'' reviewed, not on the basis of a user being away, but upon the various policies. If the user was away for two hours (probably attending to real life duties), then that is immaterial to the case at hand. That's why we have the unblocking process, which was circumvented based upon the reason given above. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
::For what it's worth, Seicer, I didn't see an issue with that, since Mango's reason for unblocking wasn't that Tariq was away, but rather that he felt the block was unjustified. — ''']''' (]) — 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::: Thanks for the clarification. The unblock still ''circumvented'' the process, however. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::::The above leaves out a lot of essential information and makes several unsubstantiated claims. I get the feeling that ] is trying to find a backdoor and a hanging party in order to deal out some punishment anyway, after a wiser admin explained to him that that is not what policies and blocks are for, and doesn't much mind discrediting me in he process. And that's all I'm going to say, this is a complete waste of time. ] (]) 09:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
# {{diff2|1268002110|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
# {{diff2|1267995715|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1267994453|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:::::Perhaps I wasn't clear, Guido: '''I am seeking the opinion of an uninvolved administrator to review my actions and those of the other admins involved in this case.''' So long as you stop being disruptive, no further action will be taken against you. I really wish you'd stop insinuating that ] - it really doesn't help. — ''']''' (]) — 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
:IMO, if you are going to undo another admins actions without being able to discuss with them, then you probably should discuss it at AN/I first and seek consensus for the unblock. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 10:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
::Spartaz, that's certainly prudent but it isn't always necessary. In this case, I looked carefully through the edit history and made a decision based on policy, common sense, and the facts. If the situation had been a little simpler, I probably wouldn't have even asked Tariq; as it was, I asked if I had missed any information, only because there was a chance Tariq would respond quickly and because the situation was a bit complicated (and because it's courteous). My understanding is that's the way the unblock process works -- the point is to have an independent admin look at the situation and make their own judgement. When you do that you have to accept that admins will view the situation differently, and just because you wouldn't do things exactly the same way doesn't mean you should overturn an action, but only to overturn an action for a good reason. If you take that kind of care, you don't need to go to ] every time. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
::: But you the admin who declined the unblock, KieferSkunk was. You decided that the reason that KieferSkunk and the original blocking admin's from Tariqabjotu wasn't adequate, and circumvented process and unblocked Guado yourself. That's not how the unblock process works; if Guido wanted to dispute KieferSkunk's decline, then he would have added another unblock notice and another independent admin would have come in and decided based upon the policies. Furthermore, you began discussions with Tariqabjotu on unblocking Guido, but decided that after two hours that you would unblock without even a two-way discussion, which circumvents ]. It should have been taken to ANI, if the original blocking admin was not available. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::::I wasn't an unblocking admin - I just declined the unblock. That doesn't automatically mean that the case is closed - I could very well have been wrong to decline the unblock. But with the original blocking admin and myself both of the opinion that the block was justified, we had a sort of mini-consensus already, and unblocking policy does state that you need to have a good reason for unblocking in situations like that. I agree that seeking consensus for an unblock (even if it's as simple as "give the guy another chance" or "the block was too hasty due to RFC discussion") would probably have been a better course of action in this situation, as it ensures that more eyes have viewed the situation and agree with the decision, rather than it being a unilateral decision that opens up discussions like this one.
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::::For the record, I am not trying to discredit anyone, cause extra drama, or seek extra punitive action. I simply want some feedback from an experienced admin (I am relatively new) as to how we all could handle this situation better in the future. Spartaz, thank you for your comment. — ''']''' (]) — 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
::::: Sorry, I mistyped what I wrote last night -- it was worded completely opposite of what I was meaning. It has since been corrected. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation; warned) ==
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*] violation on
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
{{Article|Vladimir Putin}}. {{3RRV|Miyokan}}: Time reported: 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
*:
*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{AN3|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
:That sounds good to me. I’m guessing he will get reverted anyway. If he reverts again, I’ll mention it here. ] (]) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
*Diff of 3RR warning: (Immediately deleted and called nonsense)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
I’m not sure if this technically qualifies for 3RR, but definitely edit warring. Restoring a POV-box would not normally fall under the rule, but when the general consensus is that the box should go, it’s a bit different. None of the edits are exactly the same, but all consist of restoring the POV-box and constantly removing criticism that is very well-sourced. Primarily about criticism from inside Russia and a controversy surrounding the church. Perhaps more of vandalism than 3RR, as deleting sourced content is usually vandalism, but the strong edit warring by the user,(has been going on for almost a week now) makes me post it here. ] (]) 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
*First revert isn't within 24 hours and 5th isn't a revert, so no violation but a strong warning for Miyokan. ] (]) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202556|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202677|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268203165|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204621|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204745|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204943|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268205104|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268208200|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: both blocked 24 hours, will give explanation below) ==
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*] violation on
{{Article|FreeRepublic}}.{{samurai commuter}}: Timereported: 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::::NOTE: "4th" revert is not the same content selected by Eschoir to make the subject of the article look bad, it's differet content selected by Eschoir to make the subject look bad. Don't let him fool you. It's not a 4th revert of the same content. ] (]) 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
#
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<blockquote>
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
The '''three-revert rule''' (often referred to as '''3RR''') is a policy that applies to all ]s, and is intended to prevent ]:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
:An editor '''must not''' perform more than three ], ''in whole or in part'', on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.
I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
</blockquote>
] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
*Diff of 3RR warning:
* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
The return of ], defender of the faith, ] (]) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Malformed'''Pleaseprovide the diffsfor''SamuraiCommuter's'' reverts.Whatyouhavelistedfordiffsareeditsbyyou. ] (]) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
::Metros, Please carefully review any evidence posted here by Eschoir. He's been trying to bait me into an edit war for weeks. You are urged to review evidence of his edit warring at ]. ] (]) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:]
:::Diffs are still screwed up. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 00:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:"""
:] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-delete3 --> ] (]) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ] (]) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:: They're up to it again ] (]) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:""" ] (]) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
: NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ] (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. ] (]) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{re|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
*::::# I notify the user
*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
:::::Eschoir was deleting content that was supported by consensus, deleting the same sourced content three times within one hour. I repeatedly asked him in edit summaries to obtain consensus on the Talk page. The article is on ArbCom probation. Please also review his extensive history of disruptive behavior and his king-size COI problem, as documented in detail at ]. Eschoir was asked five days ago by Newyorkbrad, a member of the Arbitration Committee, to explain his "very troubling editing history" but has ignored that request, choosing instead to continue edit warring against consensus of other editors. For all these reasons, on the 2nd and 3rd diffs, I treated it as vandalism and used the letters "RVV" in my edit summary. Reverted vandalism is a 3RR exception. ] (]) 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: article sprotected<span class="plainlinks"></span> ) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
*] violation on
{{Article|Cardiff}}. {{3RRV|Sonoforion}}: Time reported: 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
# {{diff2|1268272867|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
# {{diff2|1268269093|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268248948|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*1st revert:
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*Diff of 3RR warnings:
: (Sonoforion)
: (81.103.115.49)
:'''Comment:''' I tried had a discussion with the IP editor on their talk page about misunderstandings on the definition on 'environment' which they seemed to come around on. But then they started adding in and edit warring there . Blatant troll ]. ] (]) 02:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe that these are the actions of the same user, using both his logged in username (2 reverts) and the IP shown above (2 reverts), repeatedly entering highly POV commentary into the Transport section of this article. Warning messages have been left on both talk pages by myself and other users. However, these appear to have been ignored and I believe that this user will probably continue this line of editing. <span style="border: 3px double yellow; background: darkgreen;">]]</span> 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
: Article semi-protected. ] <small>]</small> 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
*] violation on
{{lat|Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)}}. {{3RRV|Reginmund}}: Time reported: 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
*Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary as Reginmund has for edit warring in the past.
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Reginmund has continuously added comments to the RFC on this article talk page after it was closed. He argues that he started making the comment before the RFC closed (which closed over 10 hours before he posted the first time). His past history with 4 blocks for edit warring (with the most recent block being a month for edit warring) proves that he should be well aware of the standards of editing. ] (]) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
In my opinion, those edit warring to ''remove'' his comments were just as misguided as those edit warring to put them in. People are allowed to discuss articles on talk pages. Declaring a discussion closed and reverting further input is tricky at best. ] ] 16:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:Well this is a discussion that dragged on for a month after another discussion on the same topic in July. The issue needs to be put to bed and to allow further discussion like that after the close of the RFC is inappropriate and only furthers the issue at hand. By allowing one user to comment after the request for comment has been closed, we're going to have to allow others to respond to his comments made after the closure. There is a clear consensus on the RFC, so the comments made by Reginmund after the closure of the RFC will do nothing to aid the situation. ] (]) 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::I understand, I just wish people had let him say his piece, and then ignored it. ] ] 16:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:::Yeah, but you know Wikipedians. If one user gets to say his piece after a discussion is closed, they're all going to want to say their piece which is only going to drag us on further. ] (]) 16:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Users can comment in an RfC after its closed along as its outside the archived area. I don't think a block is necessary here. At least the edit warring wasn't in an article. ]<small>]</small> 21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::That's exactly what he is doing, trying to add inside the archived area after it was closed. And he just did it again. ] (]) 02:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:Not a violation ) ==
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*] violation on
{{Article|Transcendent Man (film)}}. {{3RRV|Fjnainoa}}: Time reported: 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*Diff of 3RR warning:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Removed COI template 5 times in 7 hours. She is the one with the conflict of interest (see artcle talk, and my talk). Situation explained to her multiple times by 2 editors (me and ]). Actions also probably constitute meatpuppetry in connection with ], another person with a suspected COI (with fairly high confidence). Removed template again today. Overall stubborn, uncooperative edit warring with an agenda — <span style="background:#FEC">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
# {{diff2|1268346280|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
# {{diff2|1268345229|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* Not a current violation; diffs provided happened more than 48 hours ago, and this board is for prevention, not punishment. I'll leave a message on Fjnainoa's user talk page about removing tags and ] of articles, but the COI noticeboard is ]. - ]] 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
**I reported it because she removed the tag again recently, showing that she only intends to continue, and that all the violations over the past few days are '''one big deliberate edit war'''. I'm reporting it for "prevention, not punishment"; I would have more recent violations to show but I didn't keep re-adding the template, beacuse I didn't want to be blocked myself for edit warring even though I wouldn't have restored it more than three times. In the future I'll remember to vindictively report people within the technical timeframe, rather than wait to see if I can fix the situation in a civil manner. Thanks! — <span style="background:#FEC">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
**Ah, well, I see now you made a lengthy comment on her talk page. That's one thing I was at least hoping for; Hopefully, that will be sufficient to stop her, because when mere lowly users repeatedly warned her she didn't seem to take it seriously. So, any outcome that gets the message across to her..... — <span style="background:#FEC">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:no action ) ==
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Tekken 2}}. {{3RRV|88.161.129.43}}: Time reported: 06:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
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)
*1st revert:
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*2nd revert:
*: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)
*3rd revert:
*{{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)
*4th revert:
:{{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)
*Diff of 3RR warning:
::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: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
User appears to be engaged in an edit war over exactly which characters are available from the start and which are unlockable in Tekken 2. ] (]) 06:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
* This happened about 22 hours ago. We're here to stop, not punish. ]] 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
**That is true, a 3RR block needs to be preventative, but this seems to be a static IP that comes back once in a few days just to revert the same page, thus there're chances that editwarring may go on if no intervention is done. There's already a 3RR warning on the talk page, and no edits have been made since then, so we'll see if the anon still persists on warring, if they do, that would warrant a block. - ] (]) 08:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
== ] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours) ==
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*] violation on
#: "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
{{Article|Vaishnavism}}. {{3RRV|B9_hummingbird_hovering}}: Time reported: 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
# "Lady Saso: Reply"
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
# "Lady Saso: Reply"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
*Diff of 3RR warning:
End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think ] might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within after being inactive since based off their ].
Dispute over addition of undiscussed & highly controversial content, which the user seems unwilling to stop and discuss first in a sensible manner. ] (]) 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
*72 hours (given other recent infractions a longer then usual block was appropriate). Gouranga (UK) I considered blocked you as well. I does take 2 to edit war. You can leave material you don't like in an article for a while while you discuss it at the talk page and reach a consensus. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:Fair point. I will try my best. Regards, ] (]) 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected ) ==
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Oxford Round Table}}. {{3RRV|Obscuredata}}: Time reported: 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
#
*3rd revert:
#
*4th revert:
#
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
This user has been engaged in an edit war on this article regarding the section on . The user has been changing the sourced names, identified within , and has broken the ] policy in the process of doing so. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
*Seems like both sides are revert warring. I have protected the article for 48 hours to allow time to reach a consensus on the talk page. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No vio) ==
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Provisional Irish Republican Army}}. {{3RRV|86.158.67.84}}: Time reported: 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previousversionreverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or 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)
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
:{{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}}
This user has been engaged in an edit war on this article regarding the Cat's on the article. This issue has been well discussed on both the talk page and the Cat talk pages. This has been pointed out in edit summarries also. ] (]) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
*Revert#4 isn't the same as the previous 3. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1268583865|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
{{Article|Dominican Republic}}. {{3RRV|BigGabriel555}}: Time reported: 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
# {{diff2|1268447335|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
# {{diff2|1268463321|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
# {{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}}
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
*Diff of 3RR warning: , and
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
User BigGabriel555 edits capriciously and is currently opposed to all changes to the geography section. He first objected to the figure for the country's total area. So his figure was added along with another. But somehow that wasn't enough, as now he says vaguely that the previous version was better and more detailed, even though everything in his version is still the new, but with needed copyediting and reorganization of the text for clarity. I must point out that the geography changes BigGabriel555 opposes were made by a Dominican geographer, ]. ] (]) 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:User has made a within a 24-hour span, even after being warned he is already in violation of 3RR.--]] 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
: The 5th revert introduced some possible vandalism into the mix, as it changed an IPA symbol and many interwiki links. ] (]) 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::Please, some assistance would be appreciated. He is still reverting.--]] 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Page protected, talk it out on the talk page, please. --] (]) 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) ==
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
{{Article|EVE Online}}. {{3RRV|Toxicmango}}: Time reported: 06:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
*He isn't reverting to a specific version--unrelated changes were added to the article between the last time he inserted his text into the article, so while he's reverting the exact same text he's posted before half a dozen times, there is no exact revision of the article that he reverted to.
# {{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)'"
Has never discussed anything on the talk page, constantly talks about "reverting coverups" with absolutely no response to any requests for discussion. Already been blocked once, and has not stopped his edit warring at all regardless of anyone else's actions. Seems to be repeating the actions of the IPs that were trolling the article before the indefinite semi-protect. ] applies.
# {{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:'''
*4th revert:
*3rd revert:
*2nd revert:
*1st revert:
—''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 06:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:Blocked for one week. —''']''' 06:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: no vio) ==
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)
*] violation on
{{Article|The Golden Path (drama)}}.<br>
{{3RRV|Arbiteroftruth}}: Time reported: 07:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
*6th revert
*5th revert
*4th revert
*3rd revert
*2nd revert
*1st revert
{{3RRV|HostileToVandals}}: Time reported: 07:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
*4th revert
*3rd revert
*2nd revert
*1st revert
:HostileToVandals was an abusive sock, therefore Arbiteroftruth was perfectly entitled to revert the edits as vandalism. —''']''' 07:10, 20 January 2008 (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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: both blocked) ==
:THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. ] (]) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Killian Documents}}. {{3RRV|67.168.86.129}}: Time reported: 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
'''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.
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
#
*3rd revert:
#
*4th revert:
#
*5th revert:
#
*Diff of 3RR warning:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
An anonymous IP, ], with a substantially changed the intro to ] without discussion. I felt the edit changes were not exactly in the best interest of the article so I reverted them and posted my reasons for doing so on the IP's Talk page and requested that such changes should be proposed and discussed first. The IP did respond on the article talk page, but basically ignored the discussion to keep reinserting his/her edits back into the article. I belatedly noticed that I had accidentally done a 4th revert to ]'s edits and I apologize for that (I've gotten into trouble over revert wars before), but I did leave alone ]'s last edit insert to stop the edit warring. -BC aka ] (]) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], ]
Actually I just noticed that ]'s edit inserts vary a little bit (I've had a busy Wiki day), and that the last one consists of relatively minor edits, but still, you know.... -BC aka ] (]) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:I agree with this report that the IP is edit warring, but so is Callmebc. This is especially disturbing given that Callmebc returned rather recently from an indefinite block which seems to have been partly as a result of edit warring. I'm blocking the IP for 24 hours and Callmebc for two weeks since this is far from a first offence. I will also report this to ANI so that those who are more familiar with Callmebc can weigh in and determine if we should reconsider his unblock. ] ] 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
==] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours)==
*] violation on
{{Article|Kingdom of Hungary}}. {{3RRV|Tankred}}: Time reported: 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: reverts the previous edit.
*2nd revert: Deletes a portion of text, changes meaning by inserting '''In fact''' "undoing the actions" of others.
*3rd revert: Reverts to version containing '''In fact''' after it got deleted
*4th revert: Again reverts to version containing '''In fact'''
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
*Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR blocks show familiarity with the rule (block log )
A short explanation of the incident. Despite previous clashes with the 3RR rule this editor continues his disruptive style of communication and disruptive editing.
Previous admin action has not stopped his edit warring at all, only on the Kingodm of Hungary article we can see a number reverts other than the ones reported (one . just a few
hours before the ones being reported making for 5 reverts in about 27 hours], and edit warring on other articles is evident as well from contributions (one example is edit warring over multiple Hungarian city articles at the same time, examples,
often with only minutes between edits). It was only five days ago that an admin gave Tankred a second chance writing
as a reason for not blocking him for
3RR. The fact that he used this opportunity to start a massive edit war only a few days later and continue beyond 3RR means that the situation is highly unlikely to improve without a warning type block. ] (]) 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:Blocked 31 hours. --] (]) 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: not blocked) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Guyver}}. {{3RRV|Doktor Wilhelm}}: Time reported: 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
The user keeps changing the page without any concensus. I have tried to retain hte integrity of teh article and to acquire a third party view on hte incident but the user keeps reverting. I have tried to follow wikipedia policy and take it into hte discussion page but the user has change the page anyway. ] (]) 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:Not blocked. You seem to not understand what a disambiguation page is. Adding a link to ] when that article doesn't exist and you provide no context for creating such an article is unhelpful. Disambiguation pages should almost never contain redlinks and if they do, it should only be temporary (ie, you're in the middle of typing up the new page).--] (]) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale, not blocked) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|MV Steve Irwin}}. {{3RRV|59.190.130.200}}: Time reported: 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert
*Diff of 3RR warning:
User is repeatedly inserting the word "illegal" as an unqualified characterisation of the boarding of the whaling ship, despite a consensus against that on the ]. User is not discussing their edits, and is similarly active on the ] page. ] (]) 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:Stale, please discuss it with the user and re-present if the unconstructive behaviors resume. --] (]) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Corticopia 2 weeks, Ed Fitzgerald warned) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Continental United States}}. {{3RRV|Corticopia}}: Time reported: 03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
The article in question had been heavily copy-edited by me on December 30th. The article as it existed was repetitive, badly organized and confusing in details, and I attempted to fix these problems. The article has existed more or less without change, until today, when ], without attempting to fix whatever flaws existed in the re-written article, instead reverted to the previous version without discussion. Invited to talk, he continued to revert wholesale without discussing the merits of the edited version, or dealing with what specific problems he found. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:The copyedits, on the whole, have resulted in an inferior article, with numerous details more unclear than previously (e.g., distinction between continental/contiguous US, ]). This editor's initial <s>deletions of content</s>copyedits were not justified sufficiently through edit summaries, so I restored the content which prevailed for ''months'' beforehand. The numerous flaws were pointed out both through edit summaries and on the talk page -- please consult -- regarding these recent edits. And, despite pointing these out and citing BRD, this editor has not yielded one iota, saying merely I am "wrong" and reverting just as well. Of course, I would not be surprised if this editor were to await a potential 3RR block of me and the passage of 24 hr before restoring his substandard content. So, if I am blocked, so should he for also engaging in edit warring. ] (]) 03:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::I am '''''always''''' willing to discuss '''''any''''' edit I've made -- I have done so extensively in the past, and have tried to justify my changes. Sometimes I prevail, sometimes I don't. But I'm not willing to do so "under the gun" of continued reversion. All Corticopa had to do was stop reverting when I posting a warning that 3RR was approaching, and discuss specifics, and we probably would have been able to arrive at a compromise -- but I see from a perusal of the user's edit history and his block log, that this is not the way this user has operated in the past, when "my way or the highway" seems to have been the usual ''modus operandi''. I would be happy with a revert to the previous version of the article, and a slap on both of our wrists and being told to play nice, if it will provoke some kind of cooperation from this user. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think so, as Corticopia's history shows pretty clearly that slaps on the wrist do not work. I've blocked him for two weeks. As Ed Fitzgerald doesn't have a similar history, I'm going to stick with a warning not to edit war in the future. ] ] 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Please remember to put the result in the header so that other admins patrolling the noticeboard will see you have already handled the issue. Thanks. --] (]) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Eschoir and Samurai Commuter blocked 24 hours) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Free Republic}}. {{3RRV|Eschoir}}: Time reported: 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
Note that the 3rd and 4th reversions are slightly different because they include a strange edit where the words "Free Republic" are turned into one word - I believe this was done in order to throw off reviewers from noticing the 3RR violation that focuses on the removal of cited information. ] (]) 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:Good work, Veritas. You barely beat me to it. I put a 3RR warning on his Talk page just a day or two ago, and then he almost nailed me for a 3RR violation cleaning up after him, and he quoted chapter and verse about "in whole or in part" and "whether involving the same or different material." Furthermore, he's an experienced editor with nearly a year at Misplaced Pages and thousands of edits. He is fully familiar with the 3RR rule. No warning was necessary. Admins, please do your duty.
:When contemplating the length of his block, please review the compiled evidence (diffs) of his extensive and, to Arbitrator Newyorkbrad, "troubling" pattern of disruptive edits as provided at ]. I recommend two weeks. ] (]) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm blocking Eschoir and Samurai Commuter both 24 hours. You guys have been going at it revert warring with each other for a week. Stop it and take it to the talk page. As you are both aware from your ] discussion, this article is ]. If you are disruptive, you can and will be blocked or can be banned from editing the article. --] (]) 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:::B, SC has repeatedly tried that and his edit summaries have repeatedly asked Eschoir to take it to the Talk page. He views the Talk page as an opportunity to bait people. ] (]) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Leaving an invitation to discuss in a reversion is not an exemption from 3RR. It's somewhat of an unhelpful gesture if you think about it - "please discuss, but leave the page on my version while you do" isn't a good way to go about resolving a dispute. --] (]) 06:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Did you consider reading this? ] ] (]) 07:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I read it but it's mostly irrelevant to this question. Both sides violated 3RR. Neither side was committing blatant vandalism or anything that could be construed as allowing an exemption from revert limitations. --] (]) 07:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Have you thought about page protection? ] (]) 07:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: protected) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|University of South Carolina steroid scandal}}. {{3RRV|ViperNerd}}: Time reported: 07:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: Multiple versions reverted to, has been edit warring this article for several hours today. <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning: See explanation.
This account is a sock of multiple IPs blocked 3 times over the last month or so. The other sock IPs are:
], ], ], ], ], ], ], and possibly ]
One of the reverts above is using one of the socks. The behavior is clearly disruptive. Much effort to game the system. Constant, disruptive edit warring and reverting of well cited material for POV purposes. I will also submit the necessary sock request for all of these. Request made at ] to protect article, which has been done. 24 hour block will not be enough, user recently returned from 7 day block as ] and jumped right back at it. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|pp}} by {{User|Philippe}}. Please seek ] with your fellow editors on the page. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 07:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|2006 Asian Games}}. {{3RRV|Carl.bunderson}}: Time reported: 08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
He is reverting something that not cause an issues, he censored out the section that have notability (but link dead) and claim is not notability. Where got this kind of policy in Misplaced Pages? ]] 08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:Please note that he is in violation as well. And looking at the talk page, he has refused to address my concerns, and now has declared an intention of ignoring the suggestion he was given in response to his report of me. ] (]) 09:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::I could block both of you but seems like it'd be pretty punitive at this point so I've protected the page. ] 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:No action ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|Strontium chloride}}. {{3RRV|ScienceApologist}}: Time reported: 13:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: see details below; initial action was not reversion but deletion of text, followed by three reverts.
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning: Considered unnecessary, given that the editor has plenty of experience and has even been through arbitration before.
First removed--without discussion--a sentence about the homeopathic uses of strontium chloride that had been in the article for a long time (first added by {{user|Physchim62}} on 2005 ), and then engaged on a revert war with {{user|Travisthurston}} and {{user|Neparis}} over it. ] (]) 13:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:No action for now, you're all guilty of edit warring (i.e. blockable) so I suggest taking it to the talk page and if that doesn't work, ask for page protection. ] 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::This is stale anyway and ScienceApologist has already been blocked as a part of arbcom enforcement. --] (]) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::Are you talking to me? I have never even edited this article. The extent of my involvement was posting a couple of comments on ], an article which I haven't edited either except to fix typos and such. It was during that discussion that I learned of the editing war going on at ]. --] (]) 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
= Example =
<pre>
<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
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)
18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267996553 by Hipal (talk) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: he removed my warning for whatever reason
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
Comment: This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined Garudam, who is aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has said he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 8 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 edited Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#How to avoid an edit war. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
WP:AVOIDEDITWAR This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. NotQualified (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They have been warned before about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024 (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of Reform UK abuse scandal, amongst other things. James McMurdock#Assault conviction
Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE."
Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with NotQualified (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment NotQualified (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@NotQualified: Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
I add templates to an article with faults
The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
I notify the user
I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis NotQualified (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."
It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. MrOllie (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article 'heritability of IQ' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user 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)
04:26 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
04:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
04:43 9 January 2025 (UTC): "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
Comments:
Taken from the ANI report i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
Ger2024 has been Misplaced Pages:Edit warring and violated WP:3RR (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly WP:NPOV despite my direct requests asking them to not engage in an edit war and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think WP:SPA might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within 38 minutes after being inactive since May 18th, 2024 based off their user contributions history.
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.
Blocked – for a period of 3 years The range 5.187.0.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) by Ahect Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 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)
Declined Garudam, who is aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has said he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at Huddersfield sex abuse ring, you may be blocked from editing. FoxtAl (talk) 14:58, 5 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)
