Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Students for Justice in Palestine}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sepsis II}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)
Previousversionrevertedto:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts: (page subject to 1RR)
#
#
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
: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)
All pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine conflict are subject to a 1RR limitation. Sepsis is well aware of this, having been repeatedly warned about it, and blocked twice for previous violations:
::{{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)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASepsis_II&diff=523516608&oldid=523505411 - this one is a finding by an administrator of a previous 1RR violation
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
Ya, this is a sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim, or perhaps NoCal, I've already gone ahead and made the SPI - ]. These two sockpuppeters have been hounding me for a long time now, I asked Sandstein for advice in dealing with them, he said reverting these extremely obvious sockpuppets of banned users falls under ] - ]. Anyone who reads the history of the article will see multiple sockpuppets recently editing it, Jennifer Worth , Firkin Flying Fox, GoGoTob2, Scarletfire2112/Soosim.... I will wait to revert these socks edits on the many pages they have attacked until they are confirmed/blocked. Thanks, ] (]) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
'''Comment''' - I don't think AndresHerutJaim would bother filing an edit warring report. Firkin Flying Fox is probably the same obvious sockpuppet that filed ]. Isarig/NoCal is the kind of person who is capable of exploiting rules to target perceived opponents, while simultaneously breaking the rules themselves. They have done it many times over the years. So this looks much more like NoCal than AHJ to me, for what it's worth. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
:Thank you for providing link to previous report, Sean. It appears Sepsis II was already and aware of RR rules, thus escalating block appears appropriate. ] (]) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
::Agada will join any discussion going on, always in support of the pro-Israel extremists, even those who are banned sockmasters, six time indef blocked editors, etc. He should be ignored, perhaps his ban from joining in such discussions should be put back into force again. ] (]) 23:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::Agada, I can see that might look appropriate if the objective is to unethically exploit a charity to wage a pointless and disruptive ethno-nationalist information war and to facilitate and reward sockpuppetry. To me, that approach looks more like throwing fuel on the fire rather than trying to put it out. Protecting the article seems like a better approach. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 02:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:::I'm sorry guys, this sounds like ]. Editors should be reminded about ]. Sepsis II broke the rules and no doubt she/he was aware of it. Rules are rules and should be applied equally. ] (]) 05:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
# {{diff2|1268346280|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
# {{diff2|1268345229|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::::Sepsis II can simply self-revert, but curiously no one has asked him, so this is obviously not about the rules, it's about gaming to target a perceived enemy in a conflict that has nothing to do with this charity. It should be about minimizing the disruptive impact of manipulative and dishonest people on the project. It's profoundly dumb and counterproductive to reward those people for their lack of ethics and the enormous amount of disruption and conflict they cause. This has nothing whatsoever to do with POV. It's about using judgement, not allowing procedures to be contaminated and exploited by people fighting an information war and trying to stem the negative effects of sockpuppetry. I haven't even looked at what these guys are fighting about, I'm not interested. I've never even read the article. What is obvious is that almost every recent edit is by a sockpuppet, sockpuppets on both sides of the conflict. Sepsis II also has an outstanding issue regarding former accounts that is, no doubt, feeding the flames, that I described ]. Either way, block evading socks are not allowed to be here and they are not allowed to do anything at all. This is not a difficult concept to understand and yet, astonishingly, time and time again, people facilitate and encourage block evasion despite the enormous cost to the project. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 08:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::No, Sean. This '''is''' about rules and proper procedures. An editor can not revert edits he/she ''thinks'' were made by sock. If sock suspicion arises, ] is the proper venue and an investigation should be initiated. After the suspicion is confirmed, then, the ''known'' sock edits are to be reverted. Let's examine Sepisis II actions:
::::: * Adds the identical content three times
::::: * Does not take part in discussion of talk page
::::: * Does not even consider to self revert
:::::This noticeboard is about edit-warring I did not look into content dispute in hand. I am concerned about proper procedures to avoid yonder disruption. And after two blocks for identical reason '1RR violation' I don't see what is the alternative here. ] (]) 02:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}} ] (]) 04:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 36 hours) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Soylent Green}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Johnny Squeaky}}
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
First version reverted to:
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)
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
*: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)
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
::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)
Second version reverted to:
*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) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
# and calling my good-faith revert "vandalism". ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 01:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
#
#
#
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Johnny hasn't violated 3RR, but his edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. The first set of edits related to a section which he regarded as trivia and wanted to label as such. The to facilitate discussion, which ended up being quite comprehensive. Some of us felt he had a point and that the section violated ], and there was a suggestion to delete the section and simply add a link to the "See also" section. This proposal received consensus at ] including support from Johnny. However, once it was enacted he reneged on the agreement and started removing the link from "See also" (the second set of edits). If he genuninely objected to this proposal he should have spoken up, rather than supporting it so the discussion was closed under the impression that all parties were satisfied. ] (]) 07:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. I don't have time to evaluate this now. As Betty said above, I locked the article at the end of September. That was based on a previous report here. For the benefit of other admins, I wanted to add (before I go to my real work) that I warned Johnny at the time. That warning, which Johnny removed (he pretty much removes everything from his talk page), is .--] (]) 12:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I would add that after Johnny location that he felt the external link wasn't pertinent to the article even after discussion had run its course and a consensus had been reached, that consensus had been reached on the options, that he could have added his idea as one of the options, and that he was welcome to open a new discussion if he wished to do so. ] (]) 13:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:Overuse of the "minor edit" marking doesn't help. - ] (]) 23:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|36 hours}} - edit warring against a multitude of users. ] (]<small> • </small>]) 10:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Temporary semi-protection/IPs blocked) ==
#
#
#
;Page: {{pagelinks|Espresso}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|92.145.77.139}}
;Sock: {{userlinks|92.145.197.216}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|576599790|15:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576471024 by Yworo (talk) wow, this is fun. looking for another block then?" Through sock IP 92.145.197.216
# {{diff2|576457263|16:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)}} "(1) discussed ad nauseum on Talk (I was one of those engaged in the discussion over a year ago); (2) reasoning explained countless times; (3) consult any dictionary"
# {{diff2|576189237|20:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)}} "if you want to have a discussion, i'm all ears. otherwise, cease."
# {{diff2|576187718|19:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576187287 by ] (]) see Talk, you're in the minority. And please stop posting me personal messages. thanks."
# {{diff2|576185909|19:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)}} "NOT a misspelling - appears in numerous dictionaries - see discussion page for enormous amount of sources (like the Oxford English Dictionary)"
# {{diff2|576183463|19:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)}} "see talk"
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
* due to edit-warring on the same article. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Please note: This is not a 3RR violation technically. Rather this is a continuation of the edit-war this IP was blocked for a few days ago. Right after their block expired, the IP started the same edit-war they got blocked for in the first place. The IP refuses to engage on talk and instead reverts insinuating in their edit summaries that other editors don't understand linguistics etc.. Another admin has already warned the IP for starting the edit-war again: I think that the IP should be blocked to prevent further disruption. Thank you. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:23, 9 October 2013 (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)
*I am also concerned about the cavalier attitude of the IP. : {{xt|rough day at the office? don't worry, we've all been there. have a camomile tea (not an eXpresso!) and watch some of your favorite soaps.}} Please note how they capitalised "X" in "Expresso", the main object of their edit-warring. That kind of sarcastic, battleground mentality doesn't bode well for the future, imo. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:*AstheIPisdynamic,Ihavesemi-protectedthearticletemporarily.Bishonenhasblocked the IPs. ] (]) 16:27, 10 October2013 (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)
::*Yeah, I was also just going to report here. Both IPs blocked for 72 hours. Not sure what good it'll do, but the range is unfortunately too big to block. (The IPs are supposed to be static, per whatismyipaddress.com, but it don't look much like it, does it?) ] | ] 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC).
:::*By the end of this, the IP was just trolling and socking. Thank you very much DrKiernan, Bishonen. Best regards. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48hours ) ==
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
;User being reported: {{userlinks|175.143.208.159}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sillypickle123}}
;Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=576217641|diff=576219123|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC) to 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|576218613|00:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|576219123|00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|576217193|00:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)}} ""
;Diffs of editwarring/ 3RR warning:
'''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:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff|oldid=1268447335|diff=1268451519|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
;<u>Comments:</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
Frequent attempts to add an unsourced section to this page, all consistently rejected by editors and reviewers. User has been warned. {<sub>]</sub> <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;">]</span><sup>]</sup>} 02:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Six-star rank}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Pdfpdf}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{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 ].
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# 1st revert (reverts )
# 2nd revert
# 3rd revert with an unwarranted and insupportable accusation of vandalism.
# 1st revert
# 2nd revert
# 3rd revert
'''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)'"
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff2|1268690605|01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1268694009|02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|1268695553|02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , ], ]
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
This is nonsense. I have made <u>repeated</u> requests to this admin to collaborate - he refuses. I have made <u>repeated</u> requests to this admin to discuss the issues - he refuses. I have made <u>repeated</u> requests to this admin to communicate - he refuses. I have made <u>repeated</u> requests to this admin for his opinions - he has not replied. I have made <u>repeated</u> requests to this admin to explain certain matters - he has not replied.<br>
Occasionally he replies, "I have replied", but when I ask where he has replied, he does not respond.<br>
This appears to be an example of an admin throwing his weight around and misusing his position. He is equally guilty of anything he's accusing me of.<br>
Further, I continue to draw to his attention 3 years of discussion and consensus, which he continues to dismiss as irrelevant.<br>
How can you communicate with someone who pays no attention to any POV than his own? ] (]) 11:33, 10 October 2013 (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)
By-the-way:
* ''Warn the user if you have not already done so.'' - He hasn't.
* ''You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you?'' - No, he hasn't. He refuses to discuss the matter.
* "So put a link to the discussion here.'' - No discussion, so there can not be / is not any link.
* ''If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too'' - Yes, that's all he's done, but I don't want him blocked. I've made numerous attempts to get him to collaborate - clearly, he has skills and experience I don't have (And I have skills and experience he doesn't have). Collaboration would be a far superior outcome for Misplaced Pages.] (]) 11:41, 10 October 2013 (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)
::The claims in the response are obviously untrue, as demonstrated by the links in the report. ] (]) 13:23, 10 October 2013 (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)
:::This matter has already been discussed at ], where it seems that ] has not found support for his views. His continued reverts at ] appear to be edit warring. He may be able to avoid sanctions if he will respond here and agree to wait for consensus before editing the article again. ] (]) 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Having reviewed the page history, discussion history at the various pages, and the editor's block log, my suggestion is a block of at least 48 hours absent a material commitment to avoid edit warring (and ideally, to accept a form of dispute resolution such as DRN.) —] (]) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
::::I've just received some aggressive comments ] after ] of ]'s conduct during the resolution of this issue. Apart from anything else, they demonstrate that ] still doesn't understand either why his edit warring was wrong or how to behave in resolving a dispute. ] (]) 16:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Warned. Since the dispute has been running it qualifies as a case of long-term edit warring. Pdfpdf is warned that any further revert on the topic of the six-star rank may lead to an immediate block if he doesn't get consensus first. ] (]) 17:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|180.195.212.14}}
The user is edit-warring to insert a list of "supported by" countries into the military conflict infobox.
;Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|576567006|10:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)}} "inadequate reverts"
# {{diff2|576564472|09:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)}} "who does not like grammar and commas - fix it, do not remove useful information"
# {{diff2|576561894|09:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)}} "restored useful information after vandalism"
# {{diff2|576454302|15:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)}} "unreasonable revert Undid revision 576452613 by ] (])"
;Diffs of editwarring/ 3RR warning:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
# {{diff2|576452711|15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)}} "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style). (])"
#
# {{diff2|576597978|15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
#
#
;<u>Comments:</u>
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Constantly re-introduces a version which unnecessarily adds uncited model numbers, changes certain sentences to grammatically incorrect versions, adds a spammy looking ref, and edit wars his version back in by asserting that the reversions are vandalism and that we shouldn't care about the grammar if its "useful information" <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 15:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], ]
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ''']]''' 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==
<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
Previous version reverted to:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Discovery Zone}} <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|73.194.17.8}}
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
#
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
#
#
#
<u>Comments:</u> Ok... this is going to be a long story I hope to make short. Ultimately this is the same instance that was reported by another user . The editor in question, Ben0kto, has been warned about edit warring over Acid Rap. He was blocked for a short period of time due to edit warring. After his block was up, he continued to edit war and he continued to try to move the album to another article so he could create an article on the music genre of acid rap. He has been warned several times and he claims that he has not been completely warned about everything that is happening, but the problem is that I don't know how much more explicit we can get over everything. I've also reported this to ANI, but I'm reporting this here as well. I have to say that at this point I don't see inexperience as an excuse since he's well aware that his edits are controversial and people have tried to explain things to him. ]] 16:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC) <br />
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
<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:
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dave Upthegrove}}
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: See AN/I report at
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Note the AN/I report linked above, and : '''" You can block me if you want to, because I will continue to delete my comments."'''. ] (])
:Blocked 31 hours by GB fan. ] (]) 02:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{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:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Hyderabad State}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Devanampriya}}
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=576300078|diff=576664880|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC) to 01:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|576663453|00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "restored sourced information that was deleted without explanation. npov required for articles"
## {{diff2|576664880|01:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Restored neutral language to paragraph. Important for readers to understand context of allegations."
# {{diff2|576666638|01:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "RV - Neil N unexplained section blanking is vandalism. My edits are NPOV. Restoring version prior to AJillani's unexplained section blanking. Please discuss issues on Talk page."
# {{diff2|576668245|01:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "restored original title prior to sectional blanker's pov edit. This will head off inevitable "annexation" vs "liberation" edit war. more than 80% of native population wanted merger w/India."
# {{diff2|576681651|04:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "in line with talk discussion, reworded original text from "countless" to "unknown number". This is reword edit responding to other opinions."
# {{diff2|576686639|06:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Abecedare, please speak the truth. My edit was not a revert so no 3RR violation. I clearly reworded and proposed new text. Propose changes, don't dictate. Here is new proposed text. Pls respond with modification and explain issues on talk pg"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|576668197|01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Notice: Misidentifying edits as vandalism on ]. using ]"
# {{diff2|576668391|01:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. using ]"
# {{diff2|576682478|04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */ cmt"
# {{diff2|576684302|05:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|576668587|01:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */"
# {{diff2|576671600|02:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */"
# {{diff2|576674274|02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */ note"
# {{diff2|576680359|04:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */"
# {{diff2|576682478|04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */ cmt"
# {{diff2|576684302|05:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */"
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)
;<u>Comments:</u>
Edit warring to add POV text. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
User, NeilN refused to discuss content in detail and merely reverted my sourced edits. What he calls a 3RR violation was actually my proposed reword of my own text in response to another user's concern on the talk page. His one line responses to my repeated requests for detailed discussion are seen . This request is an attempt to distract from an edit war that he (NeilN) himself started. ] (]) 04:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:I and another editor told you exactly what the problems were. Instead of using the talk page, you continue to add the '''same''' problematic text to the article. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::No, you have to suggest changes. You can't just lay down a subjective standard of what's wrong without explaining the changes you would like to see. Have you even done any research on the topic? Do you even know anything about it? How can you critique my edits without properly understanding the content?
:::Also, what you said is completely false. I have clearly "reworded" my edited (which you wrongly call 3RR vio) responding to another users concerns. Second, it was I who created the talk section while you insisted on edit warring, and . Abecedare gave some explantion, you just gave a glib one liner speaking in vague terms and issuing threats. Responsible and scholarly editing means proposing a counter-version inclusive of new content. You knee jerked deleted new content from reliable sources. This is blanking.
:::Admin involvement is requested so as to encourage all involved editors to contribute content or '''at least propose an inclusive revision''' rather than holding text hostage. ] (]) 05:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Anyone can see the identical text in the diffs I provided. The same text I '''first''' raised with you on your talk page (which you ''then'' copied to the article talk page). The same text I gave suggestions on how to change, multiple times. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::Nope--speak the truth. You yourself just said this on the talk page:
::::::So you yourself admitted I modified my own text instead of knee jerk reverting--which you've been doing from the beginning. I have made good faith modification to my own researched contributions, but neither you nor Abecedare have provided anything. Do you even have any understanding of the Article topic? The BRD policy stipulates you have to make your own modification so as to not WP: DICTATE. If you are interested in improving the article, modify rather than make false 3RR violation complaints you yourself have contradicted. ] (]) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Update:''' After the 3RR had been formally breached by Devanampriya I had left on the article talk page noting the breach and mentioning that I didn't intend to report it unless the edit-warring it continued. Given that Devanampriya has ignored that message and repeated requests to propose text on the article talk page to gain consensus; ; and used the article for his non-neutrally worded edits, I think a block and a 1RR restriction is required to prevent article-space disruption. ] (]) 06:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::'''There was no formal breach, you are mischaracterizing it.''' NeilN has plainly admitted that I made a '''modification''' to the text--which is not a revert. In contrast, both you and NeilN have been knee jerk reverting without making modifications to the text. Merely proposing vague "overhauling" is not collaborating--it is dictating. And insisting on talk page versions first contravenes wikipedia's own policy for BRD.
:::::::''What have you contributed to the text?'' Article talk has clearly shown only I have been researching and making suggestions. You are attempting to hold the collaboration process hostage to your own vague whims. If you have anything to contribute, ''refine the text or add your own content''--you have done neither and are trying to hide by a trumped up 3RR report and desired block so you keep out content you dislike. ] (]) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::From ]: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." - You added "The Muslim militia and Hyderabad state police brutally put down the armed revolts by Communists and the peasantry and committed horrendous atrocities on the Hindu population, and even eliminated patriotic Hyderabadi Muslims such as Shoebullah Khan who advocated merger with India." four times. Changing something else does not get you out of 3RR. And your continued haste to insert problematic material without waiting for discussion shows you are ''still'' edit warring. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::No, you are purposefully miscounting, you yourself admitted here: . I modified the specific text you guys had issues with, the word Abecedare specifically called out "countless". This is refinement, not reverting, keeping me within 3 rv, since I specifically addressed one of your concerns. '''Instead of being evasive, why don't you answer the question?''' ''What have you added?''. .
:::::::::::::::Also you clearly missed that I removed "brutally" in "brutally put down"--so no it wasn't four times, since . ''You specifically requested that I change this--and I did''--but now you try to lie and count that against 3RR. If you spent more time reading and understanding my posts instead of thinking of ways to defend your false 3RR complaint, you would have seen that I specifically brought it to your attention--but neither of you responded or acknowledged this on talk (because you want to hold the text hostage and prevent it from being posted in the first place). This is bad faith. Even now, you don't collaborate, merely drone on about "3RR" and "problematic material". You call the material "problematic" but don't explain why? I directly posted a quotation rather than add my own words in response to your specific request on talk. ''Have you given details on why this is problematic quotation?'' BRD puts the '''onus on you''' to contribute your own refined edits that react to mine (not to edit war) and to provide content where necessary--'''have you done this?''' ] (]) 09:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::. Why haven't you guys contributed anything in response to my requests? This is a two way street. You have to contribute and collaborate not dictate] (]) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|36 hours}}.--] (]) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==
'''Page:''' ] <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{user|Smauritius}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->I have only added legit links to prove my edit.But the other user seems to be a fanatic and doesn't want to agree with me. She is even making unfounded accusations that I have many user accounts to disprove my claim. I request a third party opinion to verify me edits and make them permanent or give full protection for the page to stop any more edit warring. - ] (]) 04:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:Smauritius has not been warned for edit warning. Another admin has fully protected the article in question for a week, so I don't see where any sanctions are necessary for edit warring. —''']''' (]) 04:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:To amend my statement above, an edit summary in the edit war in question is not a sufficient warning of 3RR violation. —''']''' (]) 05:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::Actually, Smauritius did get a back on 26 September. Still, the article protection does mean there's no point in blocking now. ] ] 05:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The link I submitted confirming Shraddha kapoor's birthdate is the contentious issue here. Smauritius is not from India and hence doesn't know about the CINTAA. I request someone who is from India and has knowledge about the film and telly industry located in India to arbitrate and vet my link. I think it is unfair to castigate and write down my link as unreliable when none of you are from my country, India. Some things which are taken for granted here may be new to others abroad. The article has only been protected till 18th OCtober. After that, again the issue will resurface. This must be stopped. Please verify my link and permanently lock the personal details box so that no further changes are made to it. Further I want to bring to your notice here that the user is a fan of shradhha and no edit she makes on the page is unbiased. Please glance through the whole article and notice the discrepancies in language. The whole article reeks of immature editing and bad grammar and wrong lexicon usage. All this has been a result of 's contributions. I request the admins to verify my link and lock the personal details box permanently. Also please ask a proper editor to clean up the article or if I am allowed even I can do the job. Once it is done satisfactorily, it can be permanently protected so that no mroe edit wars happen when fanatics like take issue with the details linked. -] (]) 07:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm providing the following links to substantiate the reliability of the link(http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/4524) I provided on the page os ]. ] doesn't want the age of the actress to be revealed and hence is doing her best to make it seem as though my link is unreliable whereas it is the most legit link any actor can have. Please go through her talk page where other users have also corroborated my information but ] has fought verbally with all of them.
Please take note of the following:
CINTAA(http://www.cintaa.net/home) is an association of cine and telly artists in bollywood and membership in it is compulsory for every actor.Read how this actor was reprimanded because he did not have a CINTAA membership-->(http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/ragesh-b-asthanaa-cintaas-hit-list). Also read how CINTAA has the power to pass legislations regarding the Cine industry-->(http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-16/tv/36373471_1_new-rule-cintaa-joint-secretary). Anil Kapoor the actor inaugrated CINTAA's website -->(http://in.movies.yahoo.com/video/anil-launches-website-cintaa-053000873.html).
All that I've said above can be verified by a knowledgeable third party editor from India.
] (]) 07:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|pe}} Article locked by Geniac. ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
==] reported by ] (Result: Locked)==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Template:Syrian civil war detailed map}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|AOnline}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff 1 <br>
Diff 2 <br>
Diff 3 <br>
Diff 4 <br>
Diff 5
Diff of warning (another user had warning before I even noticed the reverts)
This article is under 1 revert rule restriction, so just two reverts would have been enough. ] (]) 13:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:I did the changings for save the map from your classical attemts of vandalism. ] (]) 14:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::What are you talking about? Those diffs show me adding material, not reverting. I don't see how it constitutes as vandalism either. ] (]) 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Adding material? Then could you please explain me where is the name of the villages(which you added to the map) on the source? You have been warned numbers of times, it's not your first attempt. Looking over is enough to understend your real purpose. ] (]) 14:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::The source specifically is a bbc map of the conflict. The names of the villages are in the second source I give, which show where they are relative to the map of territory control. ] (]) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Thats not the point anyway, the point is you made 5 reverts on a 1 revert rule page. ] (]) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::Stop acting like you don't know the rules. You can't just simply show a map and make changings referring to that. You have to show a certain source for every single village/town. ]'s statement was very clear and i think you are aware of that. As i said, my act was normal reflection for protection of the map. Nevertheless, i will respect the decision of decision-maker. ] (]) 15:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::I gave a map showing the area's control, then provided a source for the exact location and name of the town. So I did follow the standard process. But as I said that's not the point. ] (]) 15:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}. I locked the template for three days. Just to be clear, both users in this report breached ]. If they had been the only two, I would have blocked them both. However, there were others who also breached 1RR, and I didn't wish to impose more than two blocks. Those other editors, as well as AOnline, will be formally warned, even though warnings aren't required to impose sanctions.--] (]) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::As the last (warned) party of this apparently, I share similar opinion as AOnline above. I tried with a minimal number of edits to revert the map from deleted and un-referenced vandalism, instead of changing content. My preceding comments were always discussed prior to editing in the Talk page. I have made the administration aware since yesterday. Anyhow, I will respect the decision of administrator including me.] (]) 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected; warned) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|John M. Phillips}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PrestonHornsby}} <br />
'''IPs involved:''' ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
#
and many more...
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
#
#
#
# (IP)
# (IP)
# (IP)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
About seven IPs (very likely all the same person) are involved in this edit war that has been going on for '''over a month'''. I've warned ] but he doesn't seem to talk much, nor the IPs. See ].
How to deal with PresentHornsby I don't know, as I actually feel his contribution was constructive. I do however recommend semi-protection of the article to prevent further disruption from IP hoppers. — ] ] 15:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}
:*{{AN3|w}}. I have semi-protected the article for a week. I've warned Preston that if he continues to add material that is even in part a ] violation, he will be blocked. {{reply|MusikAnimal}} I know you're acting in good faith, but please be ''very'' careful about restoring any material the IPs have removed (that Preston originally added). In looking at some of them, they are violations of ] and cannot remain in the article as crafted. For example, in one of them, the material itself was not supported by the source. The article discussed Phillips and a video, but it didn't say what Preston wrote. Anytime we add negative material to a BLP, we have to be extra careful that it complies with all aspects of BLP policy.--] (]) 20:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::* Guess I didn't read the source carefully enough... being quite familiar with BLP policy I find that a bit embarrassing. Apologies, and thanks for your help! — ] ] 20:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Libido}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Ed beerman}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|576758331|18:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576756387 by ] (])testosterone ,dopamine, oxytocin and prolactin leveles are responsible for sex drive as wikipedia also suggests"
# {{diff2|576756212|18:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576755783 by ] (]) hormonal changes during abstinence lead to increased libido."
# {{diff2|576755535|18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576745151 by ] (]) the content removed had valid reference"
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
;<u>Comments:</u>
Warned in edit summary about RS and 3RR. The same user added the content before creating an account, which makes 4 reverts. ]<sup>x</sup>] 18:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 04:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Adam and Eve}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Jimjilin}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|576686682|06:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|576752667|18:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "It is an element of Judaism."
# {{diff2|576794062|00:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)}} "The arrticle on Original Sin which you refer to states: Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity."
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
None, but edit summaries were used.
;<u>Comments:</u>
Long history of warnings and blocks for edit warring. If I'd come across this editor doing this on an article where I hadn't been one of the ones reverting, I'd have blocked him. ] (]) 08:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not "warring" I am only pointing out that the article referred to points out that original sin is a controversial concept within both Judaism and Christianity. ] (]) 17:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:If Jimjilin is basing his reverts on the current content of the ] article, he seems to be misstating its conclusions regarding Judaism and the concept of inherited sin. In my opinion Jimjilin has been edit warring here, but he may be able to avoid sanctions if he will agree to get consensus before changing the article again. ] (]) 19:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Rstafursky}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Editor has persistently reverted additions to the article. The only vaguely legitimate reason given is that the material is " focused on unreferenced material". however all material is fully referenced to reputable journal articles and texts. The editor refuses to ente rinto discussion on why precisely they think that the material is unreferenced. The only other reason given for the persistent reversions is that the user believes that my intentions are not suitable. ] (]) 22:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
* Both of you are edit warring, even though neither of you technically violated 3RR. {{User-c|Mark Marathon}}, you should know better especially since you have a block history for similar behavior. Because of your history and the constant reversions at ], I have blocked you for 36 hours. {{User-c|Rstafursky}}, since I do not see any previous history of edit warring, I'm willing to waive a similar block if you commit to avoiding future edit warring and bringing issues to discussion or dispute resolution sooner in the future. —] (]) 23:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|71.71.5.101}}
The edit warring is obvious if you look at the editor's history. He or she has been warned and asked to participate in discussion in the article's Talk page to no avail. ] (]) 01:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Nuremberg Laws}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Herzlicheboy}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
# <small>added by —] (]) 12:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
User:Herzlicheboy is being disruptive at the article ] (among other problems with other edits, but I am here for this article specifically). He's accusing me of not checking the sources (I did check them), he's rejecting perfectly clearly sources (which are accessible to all) and trying to delete a paragraph in the article. Besides that, he's accusing me of using a bot to revert his edits (which I didn't), to have spent some seconds to do that (which I didn't, it took two hours until his edit was reverted by me), and suggesting me to stick editing Pokemon articles (which I don't). ] (]) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Firstly, the user "2 bits" made no attempt to resolve this issue on the talk page. The only attempt made to resolve this issue on the talk page was mine. See this please: ], and the user "2 bits" has not made the slightest attempt on the talk page to justify why he thinks the sources support the statement he wants to keep in the article. My position is that the sources don't support the statement, ergo they are false sources, or not apposite sources for the assertion made. Furthermore, I did not revert the article any unreasonable number of times. ] (]) 01:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
: If I hadn't edited this article several times in the past I would block Herzlicheboy for personal attacks. This is not a matter of who is right about the sources, but Herzlicheboy's unacceptable approach to the problem. It is not OK to call another editor a "Huggle bot type", accusing him/her of "no thought or research at all", or claiming to prove another editor didn't look at a book because he (Herzlicheboy) couldn't see it on Google books. (These are all at ].) ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{User-c|Herzlicheboy}} is {{AN3|b|24 hours}} for violating 3RR and for the ] (bordering on ]) shown on the article's talk page and on ]. Further, when considering this editor's prior history of unhelpful edits, , I am concerned that he may not ]. {{User-c|My-2-bits}}, your behavior could also easily be interpreted as edit warring, but given that you have certainly handled this issue with more civility than Herzlicheboy and have no prior history of edit warring, I don't see a need for a block regarding this incident. —] (]) 11:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:* I realized if I say he broke 3RR, I ought to provide the 4th diff, which I have listed above. —] (]) 12:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Editor Riessgo has a history of edit-warring his personal theories into articles concerning Fractional reserve banking and Full reserve banking. He is joined from time to time by various single purpose accounts. Despite a recent warning, he continues to EW this article. Although he waited to do the most recent revert until the 24 hour period had expired, the pattern and intention of edit warring is clear and the longstanding disruption of this article needs to be stopped. ]] 13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*I see three edits on October 11 and one edit on October 13, so this is not a brightline violation of 3RR. The case must be made that Reissgo is disruptive, that long-term edit warring is involved. ] (]) 14:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. This may not be a 3RR violation, but it's definitely edit warring - the case is made by the page history. Considering that, plus the user has a prior block history for edit warring on an article in the same topic, it's an edit-warring DUCK to me. —] (]) 17:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|State of Palestine}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Lanlan lanwan}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
* at 2013-10-13T08:14:41 is a revert of the edit at .
* at 2013-10-13T13:00:58 is a revert of the edit at 2013-10-13T10:03:23.
The article is within scope of ] and covered by 1RR. The 2 reverts above are a 1RR violation. I warned the editor at ] and gave them an opportunity to self-revert. Their edit was reverted by another user.
* They decided to at 2013-10-13T14:37:22, self-reverted shortly afterwards and opened although, like all of the edits, it's based on reasoning inconsistent with ].
* They then made at 2013-10-13T16:19:31.
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See ].
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See ] and ]
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
The account appears to only be used intermittently and the editor doesn't seem to be familiar with policy. Nevertheless, could an admin please either give them a stern warning to stop edit warring and use the talk page or a short break from the article. They are going to start fires in the topic area if they carry on like this. I don't think they are ready to edit in the ] personally but I'm happy to be proved wrong. They should probably also receive an official ARBPIA notification too. I'm opposed to those being issued by non-admins so I haven't done that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 17:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}}. User received sufficient warnings from other editors; an "official" warning wasn't needed.--] (]) 19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Both warned) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saib Tabrizi}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Urməvi}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well, i did not do that, but i have already tried to do it in the history page, and told him that he couldn't do such edits without sources in his own talk page. He has been blocked before because of this.
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
{{AN3|w}} Both editors have been issued formal warnings of enforcement under ], and notified that further edit warring will lead to sanctions being imposed. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|United States v. Manning}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|IrishStephen}}
;Previous version reverted to:
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|577018211|17:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 577007320 by ] (]) An administrator's decision trumps your opinion."
# {{diff2|577006611|16:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Correcting the article again. Several editors seem to be living in a fantasy land."
# {{diff2|576999984|15:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): I would ask that you read ] . (])"
# {{diff2|576998680|15:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576940777 by ] (]) The discussion at ] sets the new standard which should be upheld across Misplaced Pages."
# {{diff2|576874959|16:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Edited the opening sentence of the article to mirror the consensus reached over renaming the ] article."
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|577007771|16:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|577000275|15:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Changing mentions of Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning */ Comment"
# {{diff2|577005187|16:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Changing mentions of Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning */ Comment"
;<u>Comments:</u>
The 3RR warning above was the second one added. I did so not realizing that user Hot Stop had posted one moments before. User IrishStephen did the last change after the warnings had been posted. – ] (]) 18:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I made my edits to mirror the decision undertaking by administrators to rename the Bradley Manning article to ] ]. I believe this decision requires us to reflect this change on other pages relating to Manning. I stand by my edits and await any further decision by administrators. Regards ] (]) 19:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|pe}} ] (]) 19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tourism in Poland}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|WKS Śląsk Wrocław}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# (reverting while logged out, going on for a couple of years)
# (logged in)
# (logged in)
# (logged in)
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User WKS Śląsk Wrocław is a notorious revert warrior with a hidden agenda and long-term history of ignoring WP policy/guidelines. He's been warned by SPI clerk against logging in and out to cicumvent 3RR report like this, please see: ]. Thanks, ] ] 00:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
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)
