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: No violation) ==
=Violations=
:Please place new reports {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can for it.
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
<!--
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
-->
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
*] violation on
{{Article|Chronic fatigue syndrome}}. {{3RRV|Guido den Broeder}}: Time reported: 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!--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.-->
<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 />
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
: These are based upon the last 24:28 hours:
: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)
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:* <s><small>added later by ], see below. ] (]) 16:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)</small></s>
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
*Diff of 3RR warning:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
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)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
:] 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)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:* = fix where statement is erroneously attributed to author (issue 1)
:* = 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)
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
::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)
# {{diff2|1268346280|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
:::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)
# {{diff2|1268345229|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
:::: You are misinterpreting ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::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)
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
: 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:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article 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.
* 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.
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
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.
Thanks. —''']''' (]) — 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
: 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)
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, Seicer,Ididn'tseeanissuewiththat,sinceMango'sreasonforunblockingwasn'tthatTariqwasaway,but rather that he felt the block was unjustified. — ''']''' (]) — 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{u|Shecose}}, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ] (]) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
::: Thanks for the clarification. The unblock still ''circumvented'' the process, however. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
::::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)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:::::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)
: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)
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::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)
#
#
#
::: 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)
::::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.
::::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:'''
::::: 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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation; warned) ==
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Vladimir Putin}}. {{3RRV|Miyokan}}: Time reported: 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
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)
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
:{{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)
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
<!-- 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|Sillypickle123}}
*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:'''
# {{diff2|1268583865|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268451301|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268450870|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268449472|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268448980|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{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:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: both blocked 24 hours, will give explanation below) ==
# {{diff|oldid=1268447335|diff=1268451519|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*] violation on
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Article|Free Republic}}. {{samurai commuter}}: Time reported: 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
<!--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.-->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*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)
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
# {{diff2|1268688649|01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
# {{diff2|1268687321|01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=1268684554|diff=1268686155|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268685840|01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
## {{diff2|1268686155|01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<blockquote>
# {{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)'"
The '''three-revert rule''' (often referred to as '''3RR''') is a policy that applies to all ]s, and is intended to prevent ]:
# {{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:'''
: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.
</blockquote>
] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
*Diff of 3RR warning:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
The return of ], defender of the faith, ] (]) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The user was not following the ] correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Malformed''' Please provide the diffs for ''Samurai Commuter's'' reverts. What you have listed for diffs are edits by you. ] (]) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::Metros,PleasecarefullyreviewanyevidencepostedherebyEschoir.He'sbeentryingtobaitmeintoaneditwarforweeks.Youareurgedtoreviewevidenceofhiseditwarringat]. ] (]) 17:17, 18 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)
:THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. ] (]) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
:::Diffs are still screwed up. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 00:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|180.195.212.14}}
The user is edit-warring to insert a list of "supported by" countries into the military conflict infobox.
:::::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)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: article sprotected<span class="plainlinks"></span> ) ==
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
#
{{Article|Cardiff}}. {{3RRV|Sonoforion}}: Time reported: 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
#
#
#
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!--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.-->
'''Diff 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. -->
*1strevert:
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*Diff of 3RR warnings:
: (Sonoforion)
: (81.103.115.49)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
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)
: Articlesemi-protected. ] <small>]</small>22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 1 month) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Discovery Zone}} <br />
*] violation on
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|73.194.17.8}}
{{lat|Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)}}. {{3RRV|Reginmund}}: Time reported: 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
#
*3rd revert:
#
*4th revert:
#
#
*Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary as Reginmund has for edit warring in the past.
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)
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)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::I understand, I just wish people had let him say his piece, and then ignored it. ] ] 16:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::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)
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result:Not a violation ) ==
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Transcendent Man (film)}}. {{3RRV|Fjnainoa}}: Time reported: 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />Slow edit war, not 3RR, but editor has shown no effort to engage. -- ] (]) 15:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
*{{AN3|b|1 month}} ] (]) 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
<!--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|Dave Upthegrove}}
<!-- 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|ChasePlowman2014}}
*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|1268792658|15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268747259|09:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268721660|05:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1268541485|08:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* 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.-->
Was just blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring. Is now edit warring on ]. Two reverts on 10 Jan and 2 on 11 Jan. ] ] 16:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*Blocked indefinitely.--] (]) 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
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)
* This happened about 22 hours ago. We're here to stop, not punish. ]] 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
**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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Vaishnavism}}. {{3RRV|B9_hummingbird_hovering}}: Time reported: 13:45, 19 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:
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)
:Fair point. I will try my best. Regards, ] (]) 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected ) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Oxford Round Table}}. {{3RRV|Obscuredata}}: Time reported: 18:46, 19 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:
*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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No vio) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Provisional Irish Republican Army}}. {{3RRV|86.158.67.84}}: Time reported: 19:31, 19 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:
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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Dominican Republic}}. {{3RRV|BigGabriel555}}: Time reported: 02:23, 20 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:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning: , and
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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|EVE Online}}. {{3RRV|Toxicmango}}: Time reported: 06:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
*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.
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.
*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)
== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: no vio) ==
*] 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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: both blocked) ==
*] 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. -->
<!--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:
*Diff of 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)
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)
==] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours)==
*] violation on
{{Article|Kingdom of Hungary}}. {{3RRV|Tankred}}: Time reported: 20:58, 20 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: 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)
:::Note that he is not blocked anymore and the arbcom enforcement issue was unrelated (civility, as opposed to edit warring). As for staleness, how "fresh" does a violation need to be when it is reported? This one was just one day old. --] (]) 16:14, 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)
This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user CNMall41 has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. Shecose (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I realize the policy states, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, right? This is three, not more than three. It shows the desperation. Shecose (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Shecose, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "←Created page with '== January 2025 == Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You didn't read the MOS:TVCAST carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user was not following the MOS:TVCAST correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Update this page
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely Jauerback/dude. 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
