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}}
{{moveprotected|small=yes}}
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<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>
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
<!-- 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:'''
== Edit war on ] by ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Users asked to cease edit war.) ==
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
*] violation on {{Article|Plovdiv}}. {{3RRV|Avidius}} and {{3RRV|ILike2BeAnonymous}}: Time reported: 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: ,
*Diff of 3RRwarning: ,
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
Edit war involving the link on ].
Attempts have been made to discuss the issue on the , yet the reverting still goes on.
Avidius insists the link is unnecessarily biased.
ILike2BeAnonymous insists the link should remain because it presents an alternative view.
Most of the to ] are Avidius and ILike2BeAnonymous (and a few others) reverting between the version with the link, and the version without. ] (]) 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Couldn't find a technical violation but the edit war is way out of hand. Users asked to cease disruptive edit war: and . Page will be watched. ] (]) 12:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{AN3|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:User blocked 48hours ) ==
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
*] violation on
{{Article|List of Death Note characters}}. {{3RRV|156.110.42.10}}: Time reported: 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
*Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning: - Warned after #5.
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
*8th revert:
*9th revert:
*10th revert:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
This user continues to insert a list of facts about the characters (height, weight, etc.) which other users have insisted is unnecessary. The page has also been protected because of it. — ] (] | ]) 01:00, 4 February 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."
:User has been blocked 48 hours, thanks for not violating 3RR yourself. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 24h ) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Russian Apartment Bombings}}. {{3RRV|Miyokan}}: Time reported: 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*Previous version reverted to:
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
This user keeps inserting information that I and other users find irrelevant. '''The information is from years before and after the actual event the page is about'''. I've tried to explain him on the talk page but it doesn't seem to help. He reverted both my and another users effort. User complains of vandalism and warns us instead. - ] (]) 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Reverting vandalism doesn't count, which I gave 2 warnings to this user for. See reporting of this user below. He vandalizes content which he doesn't find agreeable. The only other user who removed this content as well is someone who has admitted that he is a believer of the FSB theory, so these users are removing the counterargument. If user wants to say that this information is irrelevant then how does he explain the "other user who finds it irrelevant"'s reversion which reinserted these entries to the chronology which have nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings - ''"July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President."''--] (]) 12:04, 4 February 2008 (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)
The information that I added is no more "irrelevant" than a lot of the other information on the chronology.--] (]) 12:28, 4 February 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)
:{{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)
*Both parties blocked for 24 hours. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:41, 4 February 2008 (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: blocked 24h ) ==
== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
*] violation on
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
{{Article|Russian apartment bombings}}. {{3RRV|Pietervhuis}}: Time reported: 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
'''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.-->
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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:
*Last warning:
This user keep removing content which he doesn't like while including the other "irrelevant" information in the article along with another user who has admitted that he believes the FSB theory.] (]) 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:I didn't add any other information like you're claiming. Your information is irrelevant as its from years before and after the event which the page is about. The other user is allowed to have his personal opinion. - ] (]) 12:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
If user wants to claim that this information is irrelevant then how does he explain the "other user who finds it irrelevant"'s reversion which reinserted these entries to the chronology which have nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings - "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President."--] (]) 12:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:What reversion? I didn't reinsert any of those entries. Also this dispute is about your entries, not these entries. - ] (]) 12:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
::I was referring to ] who is the only "other users" that you invoked as part of your argument. This report is about your violation of 3RR, you do not have a right to violate 3RR to remove what you claim is "irrelevant content".--] (]) 12:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Why don't you just ask him or discuss it with him? - ] (]) 12:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:{{u|Theonewithreason}}, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sillypickle123}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: already blocked ) ==
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1268583865|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
]. {{3RRV|82.6.15.4}}: Time reported: 18:10, 4 February 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:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
*Diff of 3RR warning: (sole entry on user's talk page, won't let me use a "diff")
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
A short explanation of the incident:
User has added a flag that is generally regarded as not accurate; however, the other editors to the page are willing to be convinced if proof is available. Other editors have removed this user's edits for various reasons such as positioning of edit and reliability of content, user reverts without explanation.
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Since this, user has placed several edits that would appear to be in bad faith as a result of the other reversions. Changing "village" to "city", changing the Scottish clans associated with the place, removing pronounciations, removing Gaidhlig equivalents. Normally, this behaviour would result in a vandalism warning.
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::He's continuing to vandalise, I don't see any constructive edits in his edit history. ] (] '''·''' ])</span> 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
:::There have been several subsequent reversions that would take too long to add.] (]) 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268688649|01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
::::User has now progressed to article ]. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
# {{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:'''
{{AN3|ab}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
# {{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)'"
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked, for 12 hours) ==
# {{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:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Maria Sharapova}}. {{3RRV|Musiclover565}}: Time reported: 19:43, 4 February 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.-->
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)
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
: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)
*1st revert:
: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)
*2nd revert:
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning (1st):
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning (2nd):
*7th revert:
*8th revert:
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
] rewrote the article, after proposing his changes on the talk page (the previous version was widely seen as unencyclopedic). ] then reverted ]'s edits altogether (the new version was apparently too long for his liking. The user has been approached by four established editors. I have also left the user two 3RR warnings, both were ignored, cheers. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|12 hours}} ] 19:52, 4 February 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.
*] violation on
{{Article|Las Vegas (TV series)}}. {{3RRV|Bleek25}}: Time reported: 21:30, 4 February 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
#
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. -->
*1strevert:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], ]
*Diff of 3RR warning:
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
User insists on removing information from episodes and leaving it his way and no others' even after discussion took place on article talk page. ] (]) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:S/he's been reverting to his/her version all weekend even though there are two discussions going on on the talk page. I fixed this notice with the times for the reverts, there are more but they are over the entire weekend not just the past 24 hours. I also tried to discuss it on his page and just got told I hadn't watched the episode. ] (]) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::He reverted again this morning. He's determined to remove content others have put in several times. ] (]) 13:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No violation; must have four edits in a twenty-four hour period to violate ]. · ] <sup>]</sup> 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::How is it that you don't see 5 edits? He had 5 between 23:04 on the 3rd and 21:21 on the 4th. How is that not a violation? Please explain so I understand because I was going to report him for his reverts. ] (]) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Right you are, sorry. <sup>I think I need to sleep more, it's really getting to me...</sup> · ] <sup>]</sup> 02:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:24 hours) ==
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*] violation on
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Article|Oddworld}}. {{82.5.133.228}}: Time reported: 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 1 month) ==
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Discovery Zone}} <br />
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|73.194.17.8}}
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:
Continued adding of links even after disagreement by editors. A discussion is on the talk page. <font style="color:Blue;">'' ''']'''<sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> ''</font> 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:*Blocked 24 hours. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: no vio) ==
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Las Vegas (TV series)}}. {{3RRV|IrishLass0128}}: Time reported: 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
'''Diff 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
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />Slow edit war, not 3RR, but editor has shown no effort to engage. -- ] (]) 15:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*
*{{AN3|b|1 month}} ] (]) 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*
*
*
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dave Upthegrove}}
User has been deleting and putting there own information on the page.] (]) 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:'''Reply''' - only two of three of those are direct reverts. The first and second are a rewrite of what happened and actually could be considered one edit if I hadn't hit save page too quickly before reading exactly what I wrote, and, may I point out, there's no revision in between #1 and #2, therefore #2 cannot be a separate revert. I have not surpassed 3RR but am dangerously close. Regardless, it is obvious this report is out of spite over the fact that Bleek25 has over 6 reverts to the page, has received the appropriate warnings, been requested to discuss the matter, and still continues to revert twice now after the warning. An investigation will show, I have followed all guidelines while Bleek25 chooses to ignore them. ] (]) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}
*{{AN3|nve}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: already blocked) ==
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1268792658|15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
{{Article|Claymore_%28manga%29}}. {{3RRV|70.54.1.78}}: Time reported: 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
*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. -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*Diff of 3RR warning:
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)
User insists on having it his way. The publishers description of the manga/comic says it's shonen(instead of seinen), but user disagrees, saying: "Slipknot calls themself metal. It doesn't make them metal though, does it? Fuck." as seen at ] (]) 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
*Blocked indefinitely.--] (]) 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Fully protected for one day) ==
*{{AN3|ab}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ebrahim Raisi}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indef) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Taha Danesh}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|Wonder Boys (film)}}. {{3RRV|Arsonist's Daughter}}: Time reported: 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*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:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Even if this isn't today, a violation is a violation. <font style="color:Blue;">'' ''']'''<sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> ''</font> 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
*{{AN3|b|indefinite end}} - spam account/] as well. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The latter four reverts were made within a two hour period and therefore a clear violation of the three revert rule. In each of these reverts they were restoring "several" as an estimate despite it being completely unsourced. In their reverts they claimed that the sources cited such as Amnesty International and NBC news are "clearly biased and politically motivated". They further claimed that "thousands" which I added from the sources was unsourced even though I quoted the relevant text from Amnesty. They were warned four days before for edit warring over this exact issue on the related ]. User:HistoryofIran and told them to go talk. They also warned them for edit warring but Taha Danesh quickly . A couple days later Taha Danesh resumed edit warring this time on Ebrahim Raisi.
This user has been abusing a couple of times.
*Fully protected by another administrator.--] (]) 23:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked, 36 hours) ==
*1st revert:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Shaggy (musician)}}
*2nd revert:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2A02:85F:F0DC:1CBA:E06E:9D08:A856:D9F6}}
*3rd revert:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*4th revert:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Another Abuse was deleting evidence in a sockpuppetry case.
# {{diff2|1268885591|01:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268882978|01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268882249|00:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268878341|00:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268832934|19:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*1st revert:
# {{diff2|1268885720|01:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1268886077|01:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* User:2A02:85F:F0DC:1CBA:E06E:9D08:A856:D9F6 */ new section"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*3rd revert:
* {{AN3|b|36 hours}} —''']''' (]) 02:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
Please solve this situation as efficiently as possible. Best regards--]] 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:As for the new case of sockpuppets against Durzatwink, see . The older version that he posted is deprecated, and I already got warned for that. ]]] 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::I have blocked Styrofoam for 48 hours for various reasons, and Durza indefinitely as a sockpuppet of ] per the checkuser. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler}}. {{3RRV|Rerom1}}: Time reported: 12:16, 5 February 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. -->
* at 14:44, 4 February 2008,
* at 22:04, 4 February 2008,
* at 2:21, 5 February 2008
* at 11:32, 5 February 2008
* at 2:30, 5 February 2008 by ]
There had been one of this kind before.
A single purpose account is trying to change article content against the opinion of other users. ] (]) 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: no vio ) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns}}. {{3RRV|76.87.47.110}}: Time reported: 12:58, 5 February 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:
*8th revert:
*9th revert:
*10th revert:
This editor drops into this article everyday and does a wholesale revert of one of the lead paragraphs. He/she’s been doing it for some time. BTW, does this constitute longterm vandalism? ] (]) 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nve}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week ) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Russian apartment bombings}}. {{3RRV| Pietervhuis }}: Time reported: 15:08, 5 February 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:
Edit warring. User just came off a 24 hour block for edit warring no less than a couple of hours ago. ] (]) 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|1 week}} — Apparently he wasted no time in getting back to reverting people. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Rush (band)}}. {{3RRV|Navnløs}}: Time reported: 23:22, 5 February 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 is about an heated, endless and inconclusive debate about whether line breaks or commas should be used to delimit genres in infoboxes (see ). In this case, editor is enforcing his preferred version rather harshly. Multiple reverts since middle of January. ~ <span style="color:#FF0000;font-weight:bold;">| <small>]</small> | <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> |</span> ~ 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Although I partly agree with Twsx (about the inconclusive issue) he has no right to report me. First of all yes, I was reverting someone on the Rush page because they were violating an armistice. I warned them about 3RR and edit warring ''first'' only to then be warned myself that I was violating both (utterly ridiculous since I'm only keeping up an agreed armistce to stop edit warring). Twsx also has no right to report me as he has been warned many times and is a known edit warrer who, until a couple days ago, has continued to edit war on at least two pages only to be reverted by me and others. I ''would'' like a definitive answer to the genre delimiter issue, but since one is not forthcoming, I protect pages and make sure that they stay in their form (whether its comma breaks or line breaks) so this: "editor is enforcing his preferred version rather harshly" is ridiculous. I ''do'' prefer line breaks but I try to keep ''all''pages they way they are (whether that be line breaks or comma breaks). I should not even have to defend myself against these claims but I have no choice as I have reported users like Twsx in the past only to be laughed at (since the editors thought the genre delimiter deabte trivial). I reall don't know what else to say. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::I should add that ] has many many times over broken 3RR and that the 156-multiple-IP-user who I am having this issue with on Rush has also broken 3RR. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
* {{AN3|b|24 hours}} – Multiple editors seemed to have a problem with the formatting changes, yet this user was the only one reverting them (presumably against consensus). For the record, an article won't get demoted from ] over such a minor formatting issue (honestly, I've seen both formatting methods on various pages), but it is more likely to get demoted for constant edit warring and instability. I also would, in the future, avoid using the term "armistice," since this encyclopedia is ], so there aren't any treaties. We work on ] and the ]— not military treaties set in stone. Consider using the talk page in the future. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:No violation ) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Zoey 101}}. {{3RRV|NrDg}}: Time reported: 00:20, 6 February 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 is a feud between, if Sean Flynn, is the part of the main cast (]) or not, which he isn't, because he is not suppose to be in anymore episodes of Season 4, till the end. And, NrDg keeps telling me that (s)he's getting info from ], which IMDB is not a reliable source, and theres no SOURCE. Also I warned the user, but that didn't seem to do anything and he reverted once again.
:No violation; NrDg has only reverted 3 times. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Douglas J. Feith}}. {{3RRV|Bueller}}: Time reported: 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
**(Note - there were some intermediate changes by an anon ip, but the material that Bueller keeps deleting is contained in ).
<!--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: (sequence of several edits)
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
I think the user should be blocked if he fails to heed the 3RR warning. If he self-reverts I do not think he should be blocked. But that is my opinion; I don't know what the usual practice is; he's been a user for 2 years and appears familiar enough with the rules. The fact that he has edited for two years as basically a single-purpose account may be relevant (he has mostly edited this article alone). ] (]) 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:The edit war seems to have stopped and Bueller has not touched the page since the warning. It's customary to warn someone ''before'' reporting them. Closing with no action for now. ] (]) 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::So 4 reverts is OK then? Shouldn't bueller have self-reverted? Is it ok for me to revert him now (which would be my fourth revert)? Can an admin at least explain to bueller that he has violated the rule and that such action normally would lead to a block? The only reason he stopped reverting is because his last revert is the last change on the page. ] (]) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC) PS I did warn Bueller before reporting him. ] (]) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Explanation given.
:::The intention given is that a warning should be given and ignored (i.e. a further revert made afterwards) before a relatively new user is reported and blocked. ] (]) 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Is two years still considered relatively new around here? I didn't even think a warning was necessary given the user seemed familiar with the rules but I gave one anyway just because I didn't want to seem punitive about it. Anyway I appreciate you commenting on his talk page; a warning from the person he's edit warring with is not nearly as likely to be heeded as a warning from an uninvolved admin. ] (]) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:24h block) ==
*] violation on {{Article|AC/DC}}. {{3RRV|74.77.222.188}}: Time reported: 11:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
'''Comment''' IP user has been edit warring across several articles over the past few weeks. Has a previous history of warnings and blocks.() Editor has also ignored ] and ] on both article talk pages and user talk pages. ] (]) 11:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
{{Article|Hedvig Malina}}. {{3RRV|Svetovid}}: Time reported: 15:01, 6 February 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: , although he had already made a report himself.
This user broke 3RR. These are his main reverts, but actually he deleted others' contributions many times during the day. Among others he is deleting text from the article and the references supporting them. He made controversial changes without discussion first.<br>
On the 17th/18th of January he already broke 3RR at the article Trenčín without being reported, but this time he doesn't seem to stop. He called my 3RR warning 'inflammatory, rude' and a 'personal attack'. ] (]) 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:Is the third revert a real revert? It seems more like expansion and the "fourth" revert is the real revert to this new version. That would make only three reverts in 24 hours. The edit war between Svetovid, Hobartimus, and Squash Racket appears to be over now anyway because the article is now listed in ] and users are engaged in a discussion on the article's talk page. But I might be too optimistic, of course. ] (]) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::The third revert is just like the others and in fact he made way more disruptive edits in 24 hours than just four. ] (]) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Svetovid has engaged in disruptive behaviour, and it cannot be permitted to continue: the user is {{AN3|blocked|12 hours}} Additionally, I have issued a warning to Squash Racket, who was also engaging in edit warring, although admittedly to less a degree than that to which Svet. was. Hopefully all the parties can move on, and engage in meaningful discussion, with the aim of working towards a compromise, rather than disrupting the article.<br>] 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: semi-protected) ==
*] violation on
]. {{3RRV|Momento}}: Time reported: 19:38, 6 February 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:
Despite requests on user's talk page has not discussed issue and instead has performed multiple reverts. ] (]) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::I repeatedly deleted ] inclusion of this article ]. as a violation of BLP. It has since been deleted on 21:20, 6 February 2008 by David D. (Talk | contribs) (52,115 bytes) (→Media: this has nothing to do with the subject) (undo). Thanks.] (]) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Observation from the sidelines: Both editors appear to be acting in good faith, although I am disturbed at the apparent bias displayed by Momento in zealously eliminating all traces of sourced and notable criticism of the subject. The criticism exists, it comes from notable sources such as ex-members of the organization, and respectable publications (books and newspapers) are available to back it up. Citing ] as a catch-all excuse for deleting criticism doesn't seem proper. If the criticism is valid (and it appears to be) then it should be included, with sources, and improved rather than deleted repeatedly. If it were me, I'd block both editors for a week so that others can make positive contributions to the article. =] (]) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:Ex-members and tabloid newspapers are not suitable sources for a BLP when there are many noted sociologists and religious scholars to use. In this case The Register article is completely innappropriate.] (]) 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::Speaking as someone with no involvement in this article: On the contrary, ex-members (especially an organized group of them) have a perspective and experience that sociologists and religious scholars sorely lack. When it comes to criticism, Momento appears to have a double standard regarding sources; is telling. Verifiability and reliability are sufficient; academic credentials aren't a requirement. Ex-members ''are'' verifiable and reliable sources for their own criticisms.
::I see no need to continue this conversation further. I stand by my comment that both editors should be banned for a week, for violating 3RR. =] (]) 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::As the article has been semi-protected, apparently due to vandalism concerns, there's probably no block necessary, but I'll leave this up for a bit in case another admin disagrees. ] ] 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:24 hours) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Shadow people}}. {{3RRV|24.30.38.213}}: Time reported: 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
*1st revert:
*2nt revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
User received several warnings about adding unsourced editorial comments on ]. User doesn't appreciate warnings, and doesn't respond except to blank his talk page each time he receives a new warning. The reverts are somewhat under the radar for 4 reverts in 24 hours, but he's consistently reverting about 3 times per day. (Well, if you count his talk page blankings, he's reversion rate is above 4 per day.)
"Last version reverted to" is dated later than 1st revert because of improvements people are attempting to make to the article while the reversion war continues. ] (]) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:Although the first revert is different from the others, the anon is clearly edit warring. 24 hours. ] ] 02:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:no block) ==
*] violation on
. {{3RRV|GeeAlice}}: Time reported: 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
I've had to supply a url because the page in question is for an image, not an article. User is aware of 3RR because it's almost definitely a sockpuppet of banned , but also because I found a post where she mentions it . User:Jeeny had a history of disruption on Egypt-related articles, so it was only a matter of time before this was going to happen. I plan to file an RFCU. — ] 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:RFCU ]. — ] 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This person is retaliating over a tag I placed for an image rename ] to Egyptian collage.jpg. I first had Egyptian people collage, but shortened it because of his revert, and rude edit summary. No communication from him, except for short rude comments. In fact, he is the one who kept reverting after I tried to explain the reason, and broke the 3RR rule. It is NOT an article, it is a tag to leave to the admin to decide if it is better to name it to the new, more DESCRIPTIVE name. That's all. ←]♥] 01:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not willing to block because both users are edit warring. Of course, if it turns out that GeeAlice is an abusive sock, it will be fine to revert him/her again, but in the meantime, please don't edit war here. I'll be watching the page to make sure no one does. Thanks. ] ] 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:3 weeks) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|European Union}}. {{3RRV|Lear 21}}: Time reported: 01:39, 7 February 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:
User Lear 21 has persistently edited this page agressively including violations of 3RR whenever the page is not to his liking. The page has twice been locked from editing over content disputes where Lear was the major party on one side of the dispute, and he engaged in multiple violation reverts. It is no more likely that locking the page for a third time will discourage lear from continuing this behaviour in the future than it has been thus far. Last time this happened I checked and noted policy that locking a page for a content dispute is discouraged. Perhaps some other action can be taken this time? ] (]) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:User Lear 21 has not violated 3RR according to Misplaced Pages policies. The user has reestablished a consensus layout/section-heading already existing for more than half a year and is supported by several editors. User Lear 21 has argued for this consensus version at the talk page this time and is still supported by a majority. The accusing User Sandpiper and another user have instead developed a long history of disruptive editing vandalizing majority consensus at the EU article. Without gaining support of their proposals at the discussion forum. The listed 5 reverts are different edits and indicate no violation of any suggested policy. ] (]) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::Quite the contrary. There is no requirement that all edits be the same in order for them to qualify: any four reverts, in whole or in part, count. More importantly, Lear is very clearly edit warring. This is to say, he is essentially attempting to force his version (the one saying "Economy") through by repeatedly reverting. Because of the rather long history he has with edit warring, I have blocked for three weeks. ] has also been edit warring, and therefore I have blocked for 24 hours (this being a first offence). ] ] 03:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What policy justifies a 3 week block? All edits are clearly different, are backed at the talk page by the majority of editors and have argued in detail by myself !!!! I am merely upholding a consensus layout. There is clearly no violation. Please reconsider the decision. Lear 21<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I've answered you on my talk. I've also already told you how to contest your block. Now, please stop using IPs to get around the block. ] ] 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] and reported by ] (Result: Warning) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Dominion}}. {{3RRV|Quizimodo}}: Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 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:
A short explanation of the incident. ] (]) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Removal of various POV tags that identify passages and sources currently being verified and discussed on talk page.
:This report is not unexpected, rather limited in scope, and of course one-sided. This disruptive editor has been placing 'dubious' and 'neutrality' tags on various assertions in 'Dominion' that said editor disagrees with despite the sources fully conforming with Misplaced Pages policies (some accompanied by quotes) and with little justification, doing so without good faith or salient reason, and with misleading commentaries on the talk page. In essence, this editor is unable to compel through argument and/or sourcing, with similar behaviour going back to related edits on 'Canada' in Sep./Oct., and said placement of tags on selected notions herein is a ]. This editor has also initiated an ], without making salient attempts to seek mediation despite claims -- again, a hyper-reaction. As per my request on the RfA page and as a result of said editor's continual dickery, I hereby request the 'Dominion' article be locked until further notice. Moreover, since it takes two to tango, any administrative actions taken against me (and I may have violated 3RR) should be exacted upon Soulscanner too. I contend this report is arguably an attempt to quell opposition. In any event, I hereby pledge to refrain from edit warring on this article, and to not be drawn into additional edit wars with this editor. ] (]) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:It's customary to warn people and give them a final chance before reporting them here. As Quizimodo was not warned and has agreed to stop edit warring, I am not going to block on this occasion. Soulscanner did not violate 3RR, stopping before the fourth revert. ] (]) 10:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] and reported by ] (Result: See above) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Dominion}}. {{3RRV|Quizimodo}}: Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 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:
A short explanation of the incident. A brief inspection of ] and ] talk page histories, and patterns of reverts above show that two cited editors are colluding to remove neutrality tags placed by me on that page. I've already pointed them to Wiki's policy that if there is a dispute about neutrality tags on an article, there probably is a neutrality issue. ]'s pledge above seems somewhat disingenuous given this context. Again, tags in question identify pertinent claims and sources currently being debated by various editors at ]. ] (]) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:Quizimodo hasn't contacted me for months. Since he did yesterday, I've taken one look at ], and offered a comment at talk. That's hardly collusion; perhaps you need to tone down the conspiracy theories? Regardless, I believe you've violated 3RR, in the process of an antagonistic edit war, no less. But, we shall let more experienced people be the judge. --] (]) 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:Folded into the above report. ] (]) 10:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] and reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Canada}}. {{3RRV|G2bambino}}: Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 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:
A short explanation of the incident. The pattern here is clear. In this old edit war the editors in question replaced a number of descriptors for Canada (federation, federal state, etc.) with words containing the word Dominion. ] would continue the edit war stopped by ] when informed of violating 3RR rule. This is over the same content issue as the current ] article, and the same pattern is employed. I do not wish to be drawn into a similar edit war in the case above, but I do not want relevant neutrality tags removed in the case above either. I did not put this 3RR violation here before because it was the first time I'd seen it, and made a request to pp-dispute lock on the page, which was granted and made the 3RR report unnecessary. Please see link to . ] (]) 08:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:Multiple users edit warring - page protected for a week. ] (]) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
==]==
] has degenerated into an editwar and requires an admin to step in. Various parties have abused the 3R rule. FWIW ] (]) 07:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC).
:Please use the report template at the bottom of this page to make reports. ] (]) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Kawasaki KLR650}}. {{3RRV|Guest2610}}: Time reported: 08:54, 7 February 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:
User keeps adding links that do not meet ] and are ], including discussion forums and multiple links to the same websites. ] (]) 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:Users only edits are to that one page; blocking for 48 hours with a strong warning. ] (]) 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
===User EBDCM===
Multiple reverts. Report by ] (]) 10:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:Please use the report template at the bottom of the page if you would like your report acted on. ] (]) 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:For the record EBDCM has made several edits in a row, some of which are reverts. This is not edit-warring and the sequence of edits counts as one revert for 3RR purposes. ] (]) 10:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
= Example =
<pre>
<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
] has degenerated into an editwar and requires an admin to step in. Various parties have abused the 3R rule. FWIW ] (]) 07:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC).
== ] 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. -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
</pre>
== See also ==
* ]
* – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.
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)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
The latter four reverts were made within a two hour period and therefore a clear violation of the three revert rule. In each of these reverts they were restoring "several" as an estimate despite it being completely unsourced. In their reverts they claimed that the sources cited such as Amnesty International and NBC news are "clearly biased and politically motivated". They further claimed that "thousands" which I added from the sources was unsourced even though I quoted the relevant text from Amnesty. They were warned four days before for edit warring over this exact issue on the related Ruhollah Khomeini. User:HistoryofIran reverted them and told them to go talk. They also warned them for edit warring but Taha Danesh quickly deleted the notice. A couple days later Taha Danesh resumed edit warring this time on Ebrahim Raisi.
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)
