Bharatpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Revision history

Bharatwiki Socrates at 06:19, 4 November 2026

2026-11-04T06:19:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:49, 4 November 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:
	# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example_Article&diff=prev&oldid=1001 Diff 1] – ExampleUser reverts formatting change (12:00, 21 September 2026)		# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example_Article&diff=prev&oldid=1001 Diff 1] – ExampleUser reverts formatting change (12:00, 21 September 2026)
	# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example_Article&diff=prev&oldid=1002 Diff 2] – ExampleUser reverts second time without talk page discussion (13:15, 21 September 2026)		# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example_Article&diff=prev&oldid=1002 Diff 2] – ExampleUser reverts second time without talk page discussion (13:15, 21 September 2026)
	* '''User notification(s):''' [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ExampleUser&oldid=1003 ~~Warning~~ posted] on user talk page at 13:30, 21 September 2026.		* '''User notification(s):''' [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ExampleUser&oldid=1003 Edit warring warn posted] on user talk page at 13:30, 21 September 2026.
	* '''Brief statement of issue:''' The user has repeatedly reverted content additions regarding historical dates without engaging on the talk page, violating the 3RR principle. [[User:ReportingUser]] 11:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)		* '''Brief statement of issue:''' The user has repeatedly reverted content additions regarding historical dates without engaging on the talk page, violating the 3RR principle. [[User:ReportingUser]] 11:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
	* '''Result:''' Blocked user [[User:ExampleUser]] for 24 hours due to repeated 3RR violations and failure to heed talk page warnings. Please utilize talk page consensus moving forward. [[User:AdminUsername\|AdminUsername]] ([[User talk:AdminUsername\|talk]]) 14:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)</div>		* '''Result:''' Blocked user [[User:ExampleUser]] for 24 hours due to repeated 3RR violations and failure to heed talk page warnings. Please utilize talk page consensus moving forward. [[User:AdminUsername\|AdminUsername]] ([[User talk:AdminUsername\|talk]]) 14:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)</div>
Line 66:		Line 66:
	# [DIFF_URL] – Description of revert 1		# [DIFF_URL] – Description of revert 1
	# [DIFF_URL] – Description of revert 2		# [DIFF_URL] – Description of revert 2
	* '''User notification(s):''' [TALK_DIFF_URL] – ~~Warning~~ given to user talk page.		* '''User notification(s):''' [TALK_DIFF_URL] – Edit warring warn given to user talk page.
	* '''Brief statement of issue:''' <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki>		* '''Brief statement of issue:''' <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki>
	* '''Result:'''		* '''Result:'''

Bharatwiki Socrates: Undo revision 739228 by Bharatwiki Socrates (talk)

2026-11-04T06:16:46Z

Undo revision 739228 by Bharatwiki Socrates (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:46, 4 November 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:


			=== Report against [[User:Editorial Oversight]]===
			<div class="boilerplate anew-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
			:''The following report is an archived record of an [[Bharatpedia:Edit warring\|edit warring]] case. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> If the same behaviour happens again, please file a new report instead of reopening this one. No further edits should be made to this section.''

			The result of this case was '''Both editors cautioned, no blocks'''.

			* '''Involved user(s):''' [[user:dokania]], [[User:Bharatwiki Socrates]]
			* '''Article(s) involved:''' [[Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres]], [[Ladia]], [[User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests]]
			* '''Diffs (reverts):'''
			# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Deshabhimani_Theatres&oldid=738927 Removing G2 tag] – This is the consecutive second revert without any edit summary, even after I asked him to provide edit summary. He's not designated to remove G2. Even if it's incorrectly placed it should be determined by admin.
			# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates&oldid=739162\|Calling Oversmart again] – Reverting my separation of separate topics and calling me oversmart in edit summary.
			# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatpedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=739169 Calling me Headache] – The user again refers to me as headache.
			# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests&oldid=739121\|Crossing 3 reverts rule] – The user has reverted my edits 4 times in a row without any solid reason. I added it for rescanning as there were new refs. If it was already complete bot would have skipped it. It made no sense to revert my requests.
			* '''User notification(s):'''
			# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Editorial_Oversight&oldid=739201\| Edit war notification] : Issued a single-issue edit war warning as suggested by [[User:Bharatwiki Socrates]]
			# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:Editorial%20Oversight&oldid=739164 2nd Warning for personal attack] – 2nd Warning given to user talk page for calling me oversmart again. The warnings were reverted.
			# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Editorial_Oversight&oldid=739194 3rd and Final Warning]: Final warning (level 4) issued to the user even after being reported here as the user repeated the behaviour in [[Talk:Ladia]]. It was again reverted. The user may be under the impression that his talk page is his personal space where he can do whatever he want. The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and continue to label me as oversmart in [[User_talk:Dokania#c-Editorial_Oversight-20261104043400-Why_you_offend?\|my talk page.]]
			* '''Brief statement of issue:''' The user reverts my edits without any edit summary, calls me oversmart and headache, reverts warnings in his talkpage and reverts my requests made to bots. [[User:Dokania\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#FB8C00">Dokania😎</span>]][[User talk:Dokania\|<span style="color:#208C00;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 09:44, 4 November 2026 (IST)
			:You have not issued any warning for edit warring, so this report does not belong at this venue for now. The user must cite the edit-warring warning they issued on the user's talk page. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 10:00, 4 November 2026 (IST)
			::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)
			:::As clearly visible, The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and choice of words. [[User:Dokania\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#FB8C00">Dokania😎</span>]][[User talk:Dokania\|<span style="color:#208C00;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 4 November 2026 (IST)
			*'''Comment''' : I have checked the complete history of every page named in this report before commenting, because most of what is listed here is not edit warring, and the one part that does involve reverts is two-sided. My findings are as follows.<br>'''The three-revert rule itself.''' The rule is counted per page: more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Reverts on different pages are not added together, and comments, warnings and remarks, however objectionable, are not reverts at all. Measured against that standard:<br>'''Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres: no violation.''' Editorial Oversight reverted Dokania twice on this page on 3 November ([[Special:Diff/738901]], [[Special:Diff/738927]]). Two reverts do not break the rule. Whether the draft deserved the G2 tag Dokania placed on it is a separate question, which any administrator can decide on the merits; it did not need a revert cycle from either side.<br>'''User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests: the line was crossed, by both sides.''' On this page Editorial Oversight reverted four times in about 13 hours: [[Special:Diff/738938]] (3 November, 19:31 IST), [[Special:Diff/738972]] (4 November, 06:50 IST), [[Special:Diff/739003]] (08:04 IST) and [[Special:Diff/739121]] (08:42 IST). Four reverts in 24 hours is over the three-revert line, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the context decides the response. The bot had already processed this request on 3 November and it was already listed in the completed section. Dokania kept re-adding it, and himself reverted three times on the same page ([[Special:Diff/738968]], [[Special:Diff/738990]], [[Special:Diff/739009]]), standing exactly on the line. Editorial Oversight's edit summaries did give reasons ("Already mentioned in complete section", "This has already been handled automatically"), so the claim that the reverts were made without any reason is not correct. This was a two-sided revert cycle over queue housekeeping, not a one-sided content dispute. Blocking either editor for it, or both, would be out of proportion and would help nobody. Instead, both are formally cautioned. Dokania: once a request is processed and the reason for removing it has been explained, do not add it again, and do not undo an explained removal; if you disagree, ask on the talk page. Editorial Oversight: your first three removals were understandable, the fourth revert was not the way to end it. After the third removal, the correct step was to report the re-adding here and let an administrator deal with it.<br>'''The remaining diffs are civility issues, not edit warring.''' [[Special:Diff/739162]] is an edit on my own talk page whose summary reads "Dont make.over smart", and [[Special:Diff/739169]] contains the remark "We have a new headache to deal with", tagging Dokania. Whatever the provocation, personal remarks of this kind are not acceptable, least of all from an editor of Editorial Oversight's experience, who is expected to set the standard for others. Comment on edits, not on editors. I am recording this caution here itself rather than sending Dokania to file a second report elsewhere, but if such remarks are repeated, the matter can be taken up at the administrators' noticeboard and dealt with there.<br>'''Two procedural points.''' First, the edit-warring warning cited in this report ([[Special:Diff/739201]]) was issued at 10:13 IST, after this report was filed at 09:44 IST. Reports here are expected to cite a warning given before filing; please keep that order in future. Second, removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed on Bharatpedia and is treated as the editor having read them. It is not an offence and it is not edit warring, so it should not be reported as one. Dokania is also advised that warnings lose their meaning when a general note, a warning, a final warning and a caution are all issued within about a day; a final warning is meant for repeated or serious cases, after earlier warnings have had a chance to work. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
			* '''Result:''' No blocks are issued to either party, and the report is closed with cautions to both sides. On Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres there was no violation of the three-revert rule. On User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, Editorial Oversight's four reverts crossed the three-revert line, but Dokania's three reverts and repeated re-adding of an already processed request make it a two-sided case, so cautions are the proportionate response. Editorial Oversight is additionally cautioned for the personal remarks noted in the comment above. Both editors are directed to disengage from each other completely: no reverting each other's edits and no comments about each other, on any page. If either side resumes reverting or personal remarks, a fresh report may lead to blocks without further warning. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
			{{clear}}
			:''The above report is preserved as an archive of the case. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> If the same behaviour happens again, please file a new report instead of reopening this one.''</div>

	== Reporting template (Copy for new reports) ==		== Reporting template (Copy for new reports) ==

Bharatwiki Socrates: Archive the closed report against Editorial Oversight to Archive 1

2026-11-04T06:12:03Z

Archive the closed report against Editorial Oversight to Archive 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 4 November 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:


	~~=== Report against [[User:Editorial Oversight]]===~~
	~~<div class="boilerplate anew-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">~~
	:''The following report is an archived record of an [[Bharatpedia:Edit warring\|edit warring]] case. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> If the same behaviour happens again, please file a new report instead of reopening this one. No further edits should be made to this section.''

	~~The result of this case was '''Both editors cautioned, no blocks'''.~~

	* '''Involved user(s):''' [[user:dokania]], [[User:Bharatwiki Socrates]]
	* '''Article(s) involved:''' [[Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres]], [[Ladia]], [[User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests]]
	* '''Diffs (reverts):'''
	# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Deshabhimani_Theatres&oldid=738927 Removing G2 tag] – This is the consecutive second revert without any edit summary, even after I asked him to provide edit summary. He's not designated to remove G2. Even if it's incorrectly placed it should be determined by admin.
	# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates&oldid=739162\|Calling Oversmart again] – Reverting my separation of separate topics and calling me oversmart in edit summary.
	~~# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatpedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=739169 Calling me Headache] – The user again refers to me as headache.~~
	# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests&oldid=739121\|Crossing 3 reverts rule] – The user has reverted my edits 4 times in a row without any solid reason. I added it for rescanning as there were new refs. If it was already complete bot would have skipped it. It made no sense to revert my requests.
	* '''User notification(s):'''
	~~# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Editorial_Oversight&oldid=739201\| Edit war notification] : Issued a single-issue edit war warning as suggested by [[User:Bharatwiki Socrates]]~~
	# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:Editorial%20Oversight&oldid=739164 2nd Warning for personal attack] – 2nd Warning given to user talk page for calling me oversmart again. The warnings were reverted.
	# [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Editorial_Oversight&oldid=739194 3rd and Final Warning]: Final warning (level 4) issued to the user even after being reported here as the user repeated the behaviour in [[Talk:Ladia]]. It was again reverted. The user may be under the impression that his talk page is his personal space where he can do whatever he want. The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and continue to label me as oversmart in [[User_talk:Dokania#c-Editorial_Oversight-20261104043400-Why_you_offend?\|my talk page.]]
	* '''Brief statement of issue:''' The user reverts my edits without any edit summary, calls me oversmart and headache, reverts warnings in his talkpage and reverts my requests made to bots. [[User:Dokania\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#FB8C00">Dokania😎</span>]][[User talk:Dokania\|<span style="color:#208C00;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 09:44, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	:You have not issued any warning for edit warring, so this report does not belong at this venue for now. The user must cite the edit-warring warning they issued on the user's talk page. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 10:00, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	:::As clearly visible, The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and choice of words. [[User:Dokania\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#FB8C00">Dokania😎</span>]][[User talk:Dokania\|<span style="color:#208C00;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 4 November 2026 (IST)
	*'''Comment''' : I have checked the complete history of every page named in this report before commenting, because most of what is listed here is not edit warring, and the one part that does involve reverts is two-sided. My findings are as follows.<br>'''The three-revert rule itself.''' The rule is counted per page: more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Reverts on different pages are not added together, and comments, warnings and remarks, however objectionable, are not reverts at all. Measured against that standard:<br>'''Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres: no violation.''' Editorial Oversight reverted Dokania twice on this page on 3 November ([[Special:Diff/738901]], [[Special:Diff/738927]]). Two reverts do not break the rule. Whether the draft deserved the G2 tag Dokania placed on it is a separate question, which any administrator can decide on the merits; it did not need a revert cycle from either side.<br>'''User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests: the line was crossed, by both sides.''' On this page Editorial Oversight reverted four times in about 13 hours: [[Special:Diff/738938]] (3 November, 19:31 IST), [[Special:Diff/738972]] (4 November, 06:50 IST), [[Special:Diff/739003]] (08:04 IST) and [[Special:Diff/739121]] (08:42 IST). Four reverts in 24 hours is over the three-revert line, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the context decides the response. The bot had already processed this request on 3 November and it was already listed in the completed section. Dokania kept re-adding it, and himself reverted three times on the same page ([[Special:Diff/738968]], [[Special:Diff/738990]], [[Special:Diff/739009]]), standing exactly on the line. Editorial Oversight's edit summaries did give reasons ("Already mentioned in complete section", "This has already been handled automatically"), so the claim that the reverts were made without any reason is not correct. This was a two-sided revert cycle over queue housekeeping, not a one-sided content dispute. Blocking either editor for it, or both, would be out of proportion and would help nobody. Instead, both are formally cautioned. Dokania: once a request is processed and the reason for removing it has been explained, do not add it again, and do not undo an explained removal; if you disagree, ask on the talk page. Editorial Oversight: your first three removals were understandable, the fourth revert was not the way to end it. After the third removal, the correct step was to report the re-adding here and let an administrator deal with it.<br>'''The remaining diffs are civility issues, not edit warring.''' [[Special:Diff/739162]] is an edit on my own talk page whose summary reads "Dont make.over smart", and [[Special:Diff/739169]] contains the remark "We have a new headache to deal with", tagging Dokania. Whatever the provocation, personal remarks of this kind are not acceptable, least of all from an editor of Editorial Oversight's experience, who is expected to set the standard for others. Comment on edits, not on editors. I am recording this caution here itself rather than sending Dokania to file a second report elsewhere, but if such remarks are repeated, the matter can be taken up at the administrators' noticeboard and dealt with there.<br>'''Two procedural points.''' First, the edit-warring warning cited in this report ([[Special:Diff/739201]]) was issued at 10:13 IST, after this report was filed at 09:44 IST. Reports here are expected to cite a warning given before filing; please keep that order in future. Second, removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed on Bharatpedia and is treated as the editor having read them. It is not an offence and it is not edit warring, so it should not be reported as one. Dokania is also advised that warnings lose their meaning when a general note, a warning, a final warning and a caution are all issued within about a day; a final warning is meant for repeated or serious cases, after earlier warnings have had a chance to work. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	* '''Result:''' No blocks are issued to either party, and the report is closed with cautions to both sides. On Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres there was no violation of the three-revert rule. On User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, Editorial Oversight's four reverts crossed the three-revert line, but Dokania's three reverts and repeated re-adding of an already processed request make it a two-sided case, so cautions are the proportionate response. Editorial Oversight is additionally cautioned for the personal remarks noted in the comment above. Both editors are directed to disengage from each other completely: no reverting each other's edits and no comments about each other, on any page. If either side resumes reverting or personal remarks, a fresh report may lead to blocks without further warning. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	~~{{clear}}~~
	:''The above report is preserved as an archive of the case. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> If the same behaviour happens again, please file a new report instead of reopening this one.''</div>

	== Reporting template (Copy for new reports) ==		== Reporting template (Copy for new reports) ==

Bharatwiki Socrates: Close the report against Editorial Oversight

2026-11-04T06:09:37Z

Close the report against Editorial Oversight

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 4 November 2026
Line 33:		Line 33:

	=== Report against [[User:Editorial Oversight]]===		=== Report against [[User:Editorial Oversight]]===
			<div class="boilerplate anew-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
			:''The following report is an archived record of an [[Bharatpedia:Edit warring\|edit warring]] case. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> If the same behaviour happens again, please file a new report instead of reopening this one. No further edits should be made to this section.''

			The result of this case was '''Both editors cautioned, no blocks'''.

	* '''Involved user(s):''' [[user:dokania]], [[User:Bharatwiki Socrates]]		* '''Involved user(s):''' [[user:dokania]], [[User:Bharatwiki Socrates]]
	* '''Article(s) involved:''' [[Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres]], [[Ladia]], [[User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests]]		* '''Article(s) involved:''' [[Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres]], [[Ladia]], [[User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests]]
Line 50:		Line 55:
	*'''Comment''' : I have checked the complete history of every page named in this report before commenting, because most of what is listed here is not edit warring, and the one part that does involve reverts is two-sided. My findings are as follows.<br>'''The three-revert rule itself.''' The rule is counted per page: more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Reverts on different pages are not added together, and comments, warnings and remarks, however objectionable, are not reverts at all. Measured against that standard:<br>'''Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres: no violation.''' Editorial Oversight reverted Dokania twice on this page on 3 November ([[Special:Diff/738901]], [[Special:Diff/738927]]). Two reverts do not break the rule. Whether the draft deserved the G2 tag Dokania placed on it is a separate question, which any administrator can decide on the merits; it did not need a revert cycle from either side.<br>'''User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests: the line was crossed, by both sides.''' On this page Editorial Oversight reverted four times in about 13 hours: [[Special:Diff/738938]] (3 November, 19:31 IST), [[Special:Diff/738972]] (4 November, 06:50 IST), [[Special:Diff/739003]] (08:04 IST) and [[Special:Diff/739121]] (08:42 IST). Four reverts in 24 hours is over the three-revert line, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the context decides the response. The bot had already processed this request on 3 November and it was already listed in the completed section. Dokania kept re-adding it, and himself reverted three times on the same page ([[Special:Diff/738968]], [[Special:Diff/738990]], [[Special:Diff/739009]]), standing exactly on the line. Editorial Oversight's edit summaries did give reasons ("Already mentioned in complete section", "This has already been handled automatically"), so the claim that the reverts were made without any reason is not correct. This was a two-sided revert cycle over queue housekeeping, not a one-sided content dispute. Blocking either editor for it, or both, would be out of proportion and would help nobody. Instead, both are formally cautioned. Dokania: once a request is processed and the reason for removing it has been explained, do not add it again, and do not undo an explained removal; if you disagree, ask on the talk page. Editorial Oversight: your first three removals were understandable, the fourth revert was not the way to end it. After the third removal, the correct step was to report the re-adding here and let an administrator deal with it.<br>'''The remaining diffs are civility issues, not edit warring.''' [[Special:Diff/739162]] is an edit on my own talk page whose summary reads "Dont make.over smart", and [[Special:Diff/739169]] contains the remark "We have a new headache to deal with", tagging Dokania. Whatever the provocation, personal remarks of this kind are not acceptable, least of all from an editor of Editorial Oversight's experience, who is expected to set the standard for others. Comment on edits, not on editors. I am recording this caution here itself rather than sending Dokania to file a second report elsewhere, but if such remarks are repeated, the matter can be taken up at the administrators' noticeboard and dealt with there.<br>'''Two procedural points.''' First, the edit-warring warning cited in this report ([[Special:Diff/739201]]) was issued at 10:13 IST, after this report was filed at 09:44 IST. Reports here are expected to cite a warning given before filing; please keep that order in future. Second, removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed on Bharatpedia and is treated as the editor having read them. It is not an offence and it is not edit warring, so it should not be reported as one. Dokania is also advised that warnings lose their meaning when a general note, a warning, a final warning and a caution are all issued within about a day; a final warning is meant for repeated or serious cases, after earlier warnings have had a chance to work. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)		*'''Comment''' : I have checked the complete history of every page named in this report before commenting, because most of what is listed here is not edit warring, and the one part that does involve reverts is two-sided. My findings are as follows.<br>'''The three-revert rule itself.''' The rule is counted per page: more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Reverts on different pages are not added together, and comments, warnings and remarks, however objectionable, are not reverts at all. Measured against that standard:<br>'''Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres: no violation.''' Editorial Oversight reverted Dokania twice on this page on 3 November ([[Special:Diff/738901]], [[Special:Diff/738927]]). Two reverts do not break the rule. Whether the draft deserved the G2 tag Dokania placed on it is a separate question, which any administrator can decide on the merits; it did not need a revert cycle from either side.<br>'''User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests: the line was crossed, by both sides.''' On this page Editorial Oversight reverted four times in about 13 hours: [[Special:Diff/738938]] (3 November, 19:31 IST), [[Special:Diff/738972]] (4 November, 06:50 IST), [[Special:Diff/739003]] (08:04 IST) and [[Special:Diff/739121]] (08:42 IST). Four reverts in 24 hours is over the three-revert line, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the context decides the response. The bot had already processed this request on 3 November and it was already listed in the completed section. Dokania kept re-adding it, and himself reverted three times on the same page ([[Special:Diff/738968]], [[Special:Diff/738990]], [[Special:Diff/739009]]), standing exactly on the line. Editorial Oversight's edit summaries did give reasons ("Already mentioned in complete section", "This has already been handled automatically"), so the claim that the reverts were made without any reason is not correct. This was a two-sided revert cycle over queue housekeeping, not a one-sided content dispute. Blocking either editor for it, or both, would be out of proportion and would help nobody. Instead, both are formally cautioned. Dokania: once a request is processed and the reason for removing it has been explained, do not add it again, and do not undo an explained removal; if you disagree, ask on the talk page. Editorial Oversight: your first three removals were understandable, the fourth revert was not the way to end it. After the third removal, the correct step was to report the re-adding here and let an administrator deal with it.<br>'''The remaining diffs are civility issues, not edit warring.''' [[Special:Diff/739162]] is an edit on my own talk page whose summary reads "Dont make.over smart", and [[Special:Diff/739169]] contains the remark "We have a new headache to deal with", tagging Dokania. Whatever the provocation, personal remarks of this kind are not acceptable, least of all from an editor of Editorial Oversight's experience, who is expected to set the standard for others. Comment on edits, not on editors. I am recording this caution here itself rather than sending Dokania to file a second report elsewhere, but if such remarks are repeated, the matter can be taken up at the administrators' noticeboard and dealt with there.<br>'''Two procedural points.''' First, the edit-warring warning cited in this report ([[Special:Diff/739201]]) was issued at 10:13 IST, after this report was filed at 09:44 IST. Reports here are expected to cite a warning given before filing; please keep that order in future. Second, removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed on Bharatpedia and is treated as the editor having read them. It is not an offence and it is not edit warring, so it should not be reported as one. Dokania is also advised that warnings lose their meaning when a general note, a warning, a final warning and a caution are all issued within about a day; a final warning is meant for repeated or serious cases, after earlier warnings have had a chance to work. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	* '''Result:''' No blocks are issued to either party, and the report is closed with cautions to both sides. On Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres there was no violation of the three-revert rule. On User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, Editorial Oversight's four reverts crossed the three-revert line, but Dokania's three reverts and repeated re-adding of an already processed request make it a two-sided case, so cautions are the proportionate response. Editorial Oversight is additionally cautioned for the personal remarks noted in the comment above. Both editors are directed to disengage from each other completely: no reverting each other's edits and no comments about each other, on any page. If either side resumes reverting or personal remarks, a fresh report may lead to blocks without further warning. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)		* '''Result:''' No blocks are issued to either party, and the report is closed with cautions to both sides. On Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres there was no violation of the three-revert rule. On User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, Editorial Oversight's four reverts crossed the three-revert line, but Dokania's three reverts and repeated re-adding of an already processed request make it a two-sided case, so cautions are the proportionate response. Editorial Oversight is additionally cautioned for the personal remarks noted in the comment above. Both editors are directed to disengage from each other completely: no reverting each other's edits and no comments about each other, on any page. If either side resumes reverting or personal remarks, a fresh report may lead to blocks without further warning. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
			{{clear}}
			:''The above report is preserved as an archive of the case. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> If the same behaviour happens again, please file a new report instead of reopening this one.''</div>

	== Reporting template (Copy for new reports) ==		== Reporting template (Copy for new reports) ==

Bharatwiki Socrates: user sig

2026-11-04T06:03:09Z

user sig

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 4 November 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:
	:You have not issued any warning for edit warring, so this report does not belong at this venue for now. The user must cite the edit-warring warning they issued on the user's talk page. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 10:00, 4 November 2026 (IST)		:You have not issued any warning for edit warring, so this report does not belong at this venue for now. The user must cite the edit-warring warning they issued on the user's talk page. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 10:00, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)		::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	:::As clearly visible, The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and choice of words.		:::As clearly visible, The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and choice of words. [[User:Dokania\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#FB8C00">Dokania😎</span>]][[User talk:Dokania\|<span style="color:#208C00;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 4 November 2026 (IST)
	*'''Comment''' : I have checked the complete history of every page named in this report before commenting, because most of what is listed here is not edit warring, and the one part that does involve reverts is two-sided. My findings are as follows.<br>'''The three-revert rule itself.''' The rule is counted per page: more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Reverts on different pages are not added together, and comments, warnings and remarks, however objectionable, are not reverts at all. Measured against that standard:<br>'''Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres: no violation.''' Editorial Oversight reverted Dokania twice on this page on 3 November ([[Special:Diff/738901]], [[Special:Diff/738927]]). Two reverts do not break the rule. Whether the draft deserved the G2 tag Dokania placed on it is a separate question, which any administrator can decide on the merits; it did not need a revert cycle from either side.<br>'''User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests: the line was crossed, by both sides.''' On this page Editorial Oversight reverted four times in about 13 hours: [[Special:Diff/738938]] (3 November, 19:31 IST), [[Special:Diff/738972]] (4 November, 06:50 IST), [[Special:Diff/739003]] (08:04 IST) and [[Special:Diff/739121]] (08:42 IST). Four reverts in 24 hours is over the three-revert line, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the context decides the response. The bot had already processed this request on 3 November and it was already listed in the completed section. Dokania kept re-adding it, and himself reverted three times on the same page ([[Special:Diff/738968]], [[Special:Diff/738990]], [[Special:Diff/739009]]), standing exactly on the line. Editorial Oversight's edit summaries did give reasons ("Already mentioned in complete section", "This has already been handled automatically"), so the claim that the reverts were made without any reason is not correct. This was a two-sided revert cycle over queue housekeeping, not a one-sided content dispute. Blocking either editor for it, or both, would be out of proportion and would help nobody. Instead, both are formally cautioned. Dokania: once a request is processed and the reason for removing it has been explained, do not add it again, and do not undo an explained removal; if you disagree, ask on the talk page. Editorial Oversight: your first three removals were understandable, the fourth revert was not the way to end it. After the third removal, the correct step was to report the re-adding here and let an administrator deal with it.<br>'''The remaining diffs are civility issues, not edit warring.''' [[Special:Diff/739162]] is an edit on my own talk page whose summary reads "Dont make.over smart", and [[Special:Diff/739169]] contains the remark "We have a new headache to deal with", tagging Dokania. Whatever the provocation, personal remarks of this kind are not acceptable, least of all from an editor of Editorial Oversight's experience, who is expected to set the standard for others. Comment on edits, not on editors. I am recording this caution here itself rather than sending Dokania to file a second report elsewhere, but if such remarks are repeated, the matter can be taken up at the administrators' noticeboard and dealt with there.<br>'''Two procedural points.''' First, the edit-warring warning cited in this report ([[Special:Diff/739201]]) was issued at 10:13 IST, after this report was filed at 09:44 IST. Reports here are expected to cite a warning given before filing; please keep that order in future. Second, removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed on Bharatpedia and is treated as the editor having read them. It is not an offence and it is not edit warring, so it should not be reported as one. Dokania is also advised that warnings lose their meaning when a general note, a warning, a final warning and a caution are all issued within about a day; a final warning is meant for repeated or serious cases, after earlier warnings have had a chance to work. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)		*'''Comment''' : I have checked the complete history of every page named in this report before commenting, because most of what is listed here is not edit warring, and the one part that does involve reverts is two-sided. My findings are as follows.<br>'''The three-revert rule itself.''' The rule is counted per page: more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Reverts on different pages are not added together, and comments, warnings and remarks, however objectionable, are not reverts at all. Measured against that standard:<br>'''Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres: no violation.''' Editorial Oversight reverted Dokania twice on this page on 3 November ([[Special:Diff/738901]], [[Special:Diff/738927]]). Two reverts do not break the rule. Whether the draft deserved the G2 tag Dokania placed on it is a separate question, which any administrator can decide on the merits; it did not need a revert cycle from either side.<br>'''User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests: the line was crossed, by both sides.''' On this page Editorial Oversight reverted four times in about 13 hours: [[Special:Diff/738938]] (3 November, 19:31 IST), [[Special:Diff/738972]] (4 November, 06:50 IST), [[Special:Diff/739003]] (08:04 IST) and [[Special:Diff/739121]] (08:42 IST). Four reverts in 24 hours is over the three-revert line, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the context decides the response. The bot had already processed this request on 3 November and it was already listed in the completed section. Dokania kept re-adding it, and himself reverted three times on the same page ([[Special:Diff/738968]], [[Special:Diff/738990]], [[Special:Diff/739009]]), standing exactly on the line. Editorial Oversight's edit summaries did give reasons ("Already mentioned in complete section", "This has already been handled automatically"), so the claim that the reverts were made without any reason is not correct. This was a two-sided revert cycle over queue housekeeping, not a one-sided content dispute. Blocking either editor for it, or both, would be out of proportion and would help nobody. Instead, both are formally cautioned. Dokania: once a request is processed and the reason for removing it has been explained, do not add it again, and do not undo an explained removal; if you disagree, ask on the talk page. Editorial Oversight: your first three removals were understandable, the fourth revert was not the way to end it. After the third removal, the correct step was to report the re-adding here and let an administrator deal with it.<br>'''The remaining diffs are civility issues, not edit warring.''' [[Special:Diff/739162]] is an edit on my own talk page whose summary reads "Dont make.over smart", and [[Special:Diff/739169]] contains the remark "We have a new headache to deal with", tagging Dokania. Whatever the provocation, personal remarks of this kind are not acceptable, least of all from an editor of Editorial Oversight's experience, who is expected to set the standard for others. Comment on edits, not on editors. I am recording this caution here itself rather than sending Dokania to file a second report elsewhere, but if such remarks are repeated, the matter can be taken up at the administrators' noticeboard and dealt with there.<br>'''Two procedural points.''' First, the edit-warring warning cited in this report ([[Special:Diff/739201]]) was issued at 10:13 IST, after this report was filed at 09:44 IST. Reports here are expected to cite a warning given before filing; please keep that order in future. Second, removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed on Bharatpedia and is treated as the editor having read them. It is not an offence and it is not edit warring, so it should not be reported as one. Dokania is also advised that warnings lose their meaning when a general note, a warning, a final warning and a caution are all issued within about a day; a final warning is meant for repeated or serious cases, after earlier warnings have had a chance to work. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	* '''Result:''' No blocks are issued to either party, and the report is closed with cautions to both sides. On Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres there was no violation of the three-revert rule. On User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, Editorial Oversight's four reverts crossed the three-revert line, but Dokania's three reverts and repeated re-adding of an already processed request make it a two-sided case, so cautions are the proportionate response. Editorial Oversight is additionally cautioned for the personal remarks noted in the comment above. Both editors are directed to disengage from each other completely: no reverting each other's edits and no comments about each other, on any page. If either side resumes reverting or personal remarks, a fresh report may lead to blocks without further warning. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)		* '''Result:''' No blocks are issued to either party, and the report is closed with cautions to both sides. On Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres there was no violation of the three-revert rule. On User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, Editorial Oversight's four reverts crossed the three-revert line, but Dokania's three reverts and repeated re-adding of an already processed request make it a two-sided case, so cautions are the proportionate response. Editorial Oversight is additionally cautioned for the personal remarks noted in the comment above. Both editors are directed to disengage from each other completely: no reverting each other's edits and no comments about each other, on any page. If either side resumes reverting or personal remarks, a fresh report may lead to blocks without further warning. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)

Bharatwiki Socrates at 05:43, 4 November 2026

2026-11-04T05:43:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:13, 4 November 2026
Line 28:		Line 28:
	* '''User notification(s):''' [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ExampleUser&oldid=1003 Warning posted] on user talk page at 13:30, 21 September 2026.		* '''User notification(s):''' [https://en.bharatpedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ExampleUser&oldid=1003 Warning posted] on user talk page at 13:30, 21 September 2026.
	* '''Brief statement of issue:''' The user has repeatedly reverted content additions regarding historical dates without engaging on the talk page, violating the 3RR principle. [[User:ReportingUser]] 11:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)		* '''Brief statement of issue:''' The user has repeatedly reverted content additions regarding historical dates without engaging on the talk page, violating the 3RR principle. [[User:ReportingUser]] 11:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
	* '''~~Awaiting administrative action~~:''' Blocked user [[User:ExampleUser]] for 24 hours due to repeated 3RR violations and failure to heed talk page warnings. Please utilize talk page consensus moving forward. [[User:AdminUsername\|AdminUsername]] ([[User talk:AdminUsername\|talk]]) 14:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)</div>		* '''Result:''' Blocked user [[User:ExampleUser]] for 24 hours due to repeated 3RR violations and failure to heed talk page warnings. Please utilize talk page consensus moving forward. [[User:AdminUsername\|AdminUsername]] ([[User talk:AdminUsername\|talk]]) 14:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)</div>
	\|}		\|}

Line 61:		Line 61:
	* '''User notification(s):''' [TALK_DIFF_URL] – Warning given to user talk page.		* '''User notification(s):''' [TALK_DIFF_URL] – Warning given to user talk page.
	* '''Brief statement of issue:''' <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki>		* '''Brief statement of issue:''' <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki>
	* '''~~Awaiting administrative action~~:'''		* '''Result:'''
	</pre>		</pre>

Bharatwiki Socrates at 05:41, 4 November 2026

2026-11-04T05:41:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:11, 4 November 2026
Line 48:		Line 48:
	::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)		::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	:::As clearly visible, The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and choice of words.		:::As clearly visible, The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and choice of words.
	*'''Comment''' : I have checked the complete history of every page named in this report before commenting, because most of what is listed here is not edit warring, and the one part that does involve reverts is two-sided. My findings are as follows.		*'''Comment''' : I have checked the complete history of every page named in this report before commenting, because most of what is listed here is not edit warring, and the one part that does involve reverts is two-sided. My findings are as follows.<br>'''The three-revert rule itself.''' The rule is counted per page: more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Reverts on different pages are not added together, and comments, warnings and remarks, however objectionable, are not reverts at all. Measured against that standard:<br>'''Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres: no violation.''' Editorial Oversight reverted Dokania twice on this page on 3 November ([[Special:Diff/738901]], [[Special:Diff/738927]]). Two reverts do not break the rule. Whether the draft deserved the G2 tag Dokania placed on it is a separate question, which any administrator can decide on the merits; it did not need a revert cycle from either side.<br>'''User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests: the line was crossed, by both sides.''' On this page Editorial Oversight reverted four times in about 13 hours: [[Special:Diff/738938]] (3 November, 19:31 IST), [[Special:Diff/738972]] (4 November, 06:50 IST), [[Special:Diff/739003]] (08:04 IST) and [[Special:Diff/739121]] (08:42 IST). Four reverts in 24 hours is over the three-revert line, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the context decides the response. The bot had already processed this request on 3 November and it was already listed in the completed section. Dokania kept re-adding it, and himself reverted three times on the same page ([[Special:Diff/738968]], [[Special:Diff/738990]], [[Special:Diff/739009]]), standing exactly on the line. Editorial Oversight's edit summaries did give reasons ("Already mentioned in complete section", "This has already been handled automatically"), so the claim that the reverts were made without any reason is not correct. This was a two-sided revert cycle over queue housekeeping, not a one-sided content dispute. Blocking either editor for it, or both, would be out of proportion and would help nobody. Instead, both are formally cautioned. Dokania: once a request is processed and the reason for removing it has been explained, do not add it again, and do not undo an explained removal; if you disagree, ask on the talk page. Editorial Oversight: your first three removals were understandable, the fourth revert was not the way to end it. After the third removal, the correct step was to report the re-adding here and let an administrator deal with it.<br>'''The remaining diffs are civility issues, not edit warring.''' [[Special:Diff/739162]] is an edit on my own talk page whose summary reads "Dont make.over smart", and [[Special:Diff/739169]] contains the remark "We have a new headache to deal with", tagging Dokania. Whatever the provocation, personal remarks of this kind are not acceptable, least of all from an editor of Editorial Oversight's experience, who is expected to set the standard for others. Comment on edits, not on editors. I am recording this caution here itself rather than sending Dokania to file a second report elsewhere, but if such remarks are repeated, the matter can be taken up at the administrators' noticeboard and dealt with there.<br>'''Two procedural points.''' First, the edit-warring warning cited in this report ([[Special:Diff/739201]]) was issued at 10:13 IST, after this report was filed at 09:44 IST. Reports here are expected to cite a warning given before filing; please keep that order in future. Second, removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed on Bharatpedia and is treated as the editor having read them. It is not an offence and it is not edit warring, so it should not be reported as one. Dokania is also advised that warnings lose their meaning when a general note, a warning, a final warning and a caution are all issued within about a day; a final warning is meant for repeated or serious cases, after earlier warnings have had a chance to work. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
			* '''Result:''' No blocks are issued to either party, and the report is closed with cautions to both sides. On Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres there was no violation of the three-revert rule. On User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, Editorial Oversight's four reverts crossed the three-revert line, but Dokania's three reverts and repeated re-adding of an already processed request make it a two-sided case, so cautions are the proportionate response. Editorial Oversight is additionally cautioned for the personal remarks noted in the comment above. Both editors are directed to disengage from each other completely: no reverting each other's edits and no comments about each other, on any page. If either side resumes reverting or personal remarks, a fresh report may lead to blocks without further warning. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	'''The three-revert rule itself.''' The rule is counted per page: more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Reverts on different pages are not added together, and comments, warnings and remarks, however objectionable, are not reverts at all. Measured against that standard:

	'''Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres: no violation.''' Editorial Oversight reverted Dokania twice on this page on 3 November ([[Special:Diff/738901]], [[Special:Diff/738927]]). Two reverts do not break the rule. Whether the draft deserved the G2 tag Dokania placed on it is a separate question, which any administrator can decide on the merits; it did not need a revert cycle from either side.

	'''User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests: the line was crossed, by both sides.''' On this page Editorial Oversight reverted four times in about 13 hours: [[Special:Diff/738938]] (3 November, 19:31 IST), [[Special:Diff/738972]] (4 November, 06:50 IST), [[Special:Diff/739003]] (08:04 IST) and [[Special:Diff/739121]] (08:42 IST). Four reverts in 24 hours is over the three-revert line, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the context decides the response. The bot had already processed this request on 3 November and it was already listed in the completed section. Dokania kept re-adding it, and himself reverted three times on the same page ([[Special:Diff/738968]], [[Special:Diff/738990]], [[Special:Diff/739009]]), standing exactly on the line. Editorial Oversight's edit summaries did give reasons ("Already mentioned in complete section", "This has already been handled automatically"), so the claim that the reverts were made without any reason is not correct. This was a two-sided revert cycle over queue housekeeping, not a one-sided content dispute. Blocking either editor for it, or both, would be out of proportion and would help nobody. Instead, both are formally cautioned. Dokania: once a request is processed and the reason for removing it has been explained, do not add it again, and do not undo an explained removal; if you disagree, ask on the talk page. Editorial Oversight: your first three removals were understandable, the fourth revert was not the way to end it. After the third removal, the correct step was to report the re-adding here and let an administrator deal with it.

	'''The remaining diffs are civility issues, not edit warring.''' [[Special:Diff/739162]] is an edit on my own talk page whose summary reads "Dont make.over smart", and [[Special:Diff/739169]] contains the remark "We have a new headache to deal with", tagging Dokania. Whatever the provocation, personal remarks of this kind are not acceptable, least of all from an editor of Editorial Oversight's experience, who is expected to set the standard for others. Comment on edits, not on editors. I am recording this caution here itself rather than sending Dokania to file a second report elsewhere, but if such remarks are repeated, the matter can be taken up at the administrators' noticeboard and dealt with there.

	'''Two procedural points.''' First, the edit-warring warning cited in this report ([[Special:Diff/739201]]) was issued at 10:13 IST, after this report was filed at 09:44 IST. Reports here are expected to cite a warning given before filing; please keep that order in future. Second, removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed on Bharatpedia and is treated as the editor having read them. It is not an offence and it is not edit warring, so it should not be reported as one. Dokania is also advised that warnings lose their meaning when a general note, a warning, a final warning and a caution are all issued within about a day; a final warning is meant for repeated or serious cases, after earlier warnings have had a chance to work. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	* ~~'''Awaiting administrative action:'''~~ '''Result:''' No blocks are issued to either party, and the report is closed with cautions to both sides. On Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres there was no violation of the three-revert rule. On User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, Editorial Oversight's four reverts crossed the three-revert line, but Dokania's three reverts and repeated re-adding of an already processed request make it a two-sided case, so cautions are the proportionate response. Editorial Oversight is additionally cautioned for the personal remarks noted in the comment above. Both editors are directed to disengage from each other completely: no reverting each other's edits and no comments about each other, on any page. If either side resumes reverting or personal remarks, a fresh report may lead to blocks without further warning. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)

	== Reporting template (Copy for new reports) ==		== Reporting template (Copy for new reports) ==

Bharatwiki Socrates: Comment and result on the report against Editorial Oversight: no blocks, both sides cautioned, report closed

2026-11-04T05:37:44Z

Comment and result on the report against Editorial Oversight: no blocks, both sides cautioned, report closed

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:07, 4 November 2026
Line 48:		Line 48:
	::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)		::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	:::As clearly visible, The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and choice of words.		:::As clearly visible, The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and choice of words.
	* '''Awaiting administrative action:'''		*'''Comment''' : I have checked the complete history of every page named in this report before commenting, because most of what is listed here is not edit warring, and the one part that does involve reverts is two-sided. My findings are as follows.

			'''The three-revert rule itself.''' The rule is counted per page: more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Reverts on different pages are not added together, and comments, warnings and remarks, however objectionable, are not reverts at all. Measured against that standard:

			'''Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres: no violation.''' Editorial Oversight reverted Dokania twice on this page on 3 November ([[Special:Diff/738901]], [[Special:Diff/738927]]). Two reverts do not break the rule. Whether the draft deserved the G2 tag Dokania placed on it is a separate question, which any administrator can decide on the merits; it did not need a revert cycle from either side.

			'''User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests: the line was crossed, by both sides.''' On this page Editorial Oversight reverted four times in about 13 hours: [[Special:Diff/738938]] (3 November, 19:31 IST), [[Special:Diff/738972]] (4 November, 06:50 IST), [[Special:Diff/739003]] (08:04 IST) and [[Special:Diff/739121]] (08:42 IST). Four reverts in 24 hours is over the three-revert line, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the context decides the response. The bot had already processed this request on 3 November and it was already listed in the completed section. Dokania kept re-adding it, and himself reverted three times on the same page ([[Special:Diff/738968]], [[Special:Diff/738990]], [[Special:Diff/739009]]), standing exactly on the line. Editorial Oversight's edit summaries did give reasons ("Already mentioned in complete section", "This has already been handled automatically"), so the claim that the reverts were made without any reason is not correct. This was a two-sided revert cycle over queue housekeeping, not a one-sided content dispute. Blocking either editor for it, or both, would be out of proportion and would help nobody. Instead, both are formally cautioned. Dokania: once a request is processed and the reason for removing it has been explained, do not add it again, and do not undo an explained removal; if you disagree, ask on the talk page. Editorial Oversight: your first three removals were understandable, the fourth revert was not the way to end it. After the third removal, the correct step was to report the re-adding here and let an administrator deal with it.

			'''The remaining diffs are civility issues, not edit warring.''' [[Special:Diff/739162]] is an edit on my own talk page whose summary reads "Dont make.over smart", and [[Special:Diff/739169]] contains the remark "We have a new headache to deal with", tagging Dokania. Whatever the provocation, personal remarks of this kind are not acceptable, least of all from an editor of Editorial Oversight's experience, who is expected to set the standard for others. Comment on edits, not on editors. I am recording this caution here itself rather than sending Dokania to file a second report elsewhere, but if such remarks are repeated, the matter can be taken up at the administrators' noticeboard and dealt with there.

			'''Two procedural points.''' First, the edit-warring warning cited in this report ([[Special:Diff/739201]]) was issued at 10:13 IST, after this report was filed at 09:44 IST. Reports here are expected to cite a warning given before filing; please keep that order in future. Second, removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed on Bharatpedia and is treated as the editor having read them. It is not an offence and it is not edit warring, so it should not be reported as one. Dokania is also advised that warnings lose their meaning when a general note, a warning, a final warning and a caution are all issued within about a day; a final warning is meant for repeated or serious cases, after earlier warnings have had a chance to work. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
			* '''Awaiting administrative action:''' '''Result:''' No blocks are issued to either party, and the report is closed with cautions to both sides. On Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres there was no violation of the three-revert rule. On User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, Editorial Oversight's four reverts crossed the three-revert line, but Dokania's three reverts and repeated re-adding of an already processed request make it a two-sided case, so cautions are the proportionate response. Editorial Oversight is additionally cautioned for the personal remarks noted in the comment above. Both editors are directed to disengage from each other completely: no reverting each other's edits and no comments about each other, on any page. If either side resumes reverting or personal remarks, a fresh report may lead to blocks without further warning. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)

	== Reporting template (Copy for new reports) ==		== Reporting template (Copy for new reports) ==

Dokania at 04:52, 4 November 2026

2026-11-04T04:52:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:22, 4 November 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:
	:You have not issued any warning for edit warring, so this report does not belong at this venue for now. The user must cite the edit-warring warning they issued on the user's talk page. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 10:00, 4 November 2026 (IST)		:You have not issued any warning for edit warring, so this report does not belong at this venue for now. The user must cite the edit-warring warning they issued on the user's talk page. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 10:00, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)		::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)
			:::As clearly visible, The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and choice of words.
	* '''Awaiting administrative action:'''		* '''Awaiting administrative action:'''

Editorial Oversight: /* Report against User:Editorial Oversight */Replay

2026-11-04T04:48:20Z

Report against User:Editorial Oversight: Replay

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, 4 November 2026
Line 46:		Line 46:
	* '''Brief statement of issue:''' The user reverts my edits without any edit summary, calls me oversmart and headache, reverts warnings in his talkpage and reverts my requests made to bots. [[User:Dokania\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#FB8C00">Dokania😎</span>]][[User talk:Dokania\|<span style="color:#208C00;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 09:44, 4 November 2026 (IST)		* '''Brief statement of issue:''' The user reverts my edits without any edit summary, calls me oversmart and headache, reverts warnings in his talkpage and reverts my requests made to bots. [[User:Dokania\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#FB8C00">Dokania😎</span>]][[User talk:Dokania\|<span style="color:#208C00;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 09:44, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	:You have not issued any warning for edit warring, so this report does not belong at this venue for now. The user must cite the edit-warring warning they issued on the user's talk page. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 10:00, 4 November 2026 (IST)		:You have not issued any warning for edit warring, so this report does not belong at this venue for now. The user must cite the edit-warring warning they issued on the user's talk page. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 10:00, 4 November 2026 (IST)
			::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	* '''Awaiting administrative action:'''		* '''Awaiting administrative action:'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 4 November 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:
	:You have not issued any warning for edit warring, so this report does not belong at this venue for now. The user must cite the edit-warring warning they issued on the user's talk page. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 10:00, 4 November 2026 (IST)		:You have not issued any warning for edit warring, so this report does not belong at this venue for now. The user must cite the edit-warring warning they issued on the user's talk page. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 10:00, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)		::Dokania still need time to understand Bharatpedia's interface, editing workflow and guidelines. For now, I suggest you focus on creating your own articles rather than getting involved in other editors' articles and editing disputes. Once you become familiar with the policies and procedures, you can participate in wider editorial discussions. Please avoid interfering in areas you do not yet fully understand.[[User:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:#996600">Editorial Oversight</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Editorial Oversight\|<span style="color:brown">(Talk with me)</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	:::As clearly visible, The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and choice of words.		:::As clearly visible, The user is unapologetic of his behaviour and choice of words. [[User:Dokania\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#FB8C00">Dokania😎</span>]][[User talk:Dokania\|<span style="color:#208C00;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 4 November 2026 (IST)
	*'''Comment''' : I have checked the complete history of every page named in this report before commenting, because most of what is listed here is not edit warring, and the one part that does involve reverts is two-sided. My findings are as follows.<br>'''The three-revert rule itself.''' The rule is counted per page: more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Reverts on different pages are not added together, and comments, warnings and remarks, however objectionable, are not reverts at all. Measured against that standard:<br>'''Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres: no violation.''' Editorial Oversight reverted Dokania twice on this page on 3 November ([[Special:Diff/738901]], [[Special:Diff/738927]]). Two reverts do not break the rule. Whether the draft deserved the G2 tag Dokania placed on it is a separate question, which any administrator can decide on the merits; it did not need a revert cycle from either side.<br>'''User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests: the line was crossed, by both sides.''' On this page Editorial Oversight reverted four times in about 13 hours: [[Special:Diff/738938]] (3 November, 19:31 IST), [[Special:Diff/738972]] (4 November, 06:50 IST), [[Special:Diff/739003]] (08:04 IST) and [[Special:Diff/739121]] (08:42 IST). Four reverts in 24 hours is over the three-revert line, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the context decides the response. The bot had already processed this request on 3 November and it was already listed in the completed section. Dokania kept re-adding it, and himself reverted three times on the same page ([[Special:Diff/738968]], [[Special:Diff/738990]], [[Special:Diff/739009]]), standing exactly on the line. Editorial Oversight's edit summaries did give reasons ("Already mentioned in complete section", "This has already been handled automatically"), so the claim that the reverts were made without any reason is not correct. This was a two-sided revert cycle over queue housekeeping, not a one-sided content dispute. Blocking either editor for it, or both, would be out of proportion and would help nobody. Instead, both are formally cautioned. Dokania: once a request is processed and the reason for removing it has been explained, do not add it again, and do not undo an explained removal; if you disagree, ask on the talk page. Editorial Oversight: your first three removals were understandable, the fourth revert was not the way to end it. After the third removal, the correct step was to report the re-adding here and let an administrator deal with it.<br>'''The remaining diffs are civility issues, not edit warring.''' [[Special:Diff/739162]] is an edit on my own talk page whose summary reads "Dont make.over smart", and [[Special:Diff/739169]] contains the remark "We have a new headache to deal with", tagging Dokania. Whatever the provocation, personal remarks of this kind are not acceptable, least of all from an editor of Editorial Oversight's experience, who is expected to set the standard for others. Comment on edits, not on editors. I am recording this caution here itself rather than sending Dokania to file a second report elsewhere, but if such remarks are repeated, the matter can be taken up at the administrators' noticeboard and dealt with there.<br>'''Two procedural points.''' First, the edit-warring warning cited in this report ([[Special:Diff/739201]]) was issued at 10:13 IST, after this report was filed at 09:44 IST. Reports here are expected to cite a warning given before filing; please keep that order in future. Second, removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed on Bharatpedia and is treated as the editor having read them. It is not an offence and it is not edit warring, so it should not be reported as one. Dokania is also advised that warnings lose their meaning when a general note, a warning, a final warning and a caution are all issued within about a day; a final warning is meant for repeated or serious cases, after earlier warnings have had a chance to work. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)		*'''Comment''' : I have checked the complete history of every page named in this report before commenting, because most of what is listed here is not edit warring, and the one part that does involve reverts is two-sided. My findings are as follows.<br>'''The three-revert rule itself.''' The rule is counted per page: more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Reverts on different pages are not added together, and comments, warnings and remarks, however objectionable, are not reverts at all. Measured against that standard:<br>'''Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres: no violation.''' Editorial Oversight reverted Dokania twice on this page on 3 November ([[Special:Diff/738901]], [[Special:Diff/738927]]). Two reverts do not break the rule. Whether the draft deserved the G2 tag Dokania placed on it is a separate question, which any administrator can decide on the merits; it did not need a revert cycle from either side.<br>'''User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests: the line was crossed, by both sides.''' On this page Editorial Oversight reverted four times in about 13 hours: [[Special:Diff/738938]] (3 November, 19:31 IST), [[Special:Diff/738972]] (4 November, 06:50 IST), [[Special:Diff/739003]] (08:04 IST) and [[Special:Diff/739121]] (08:42 IST). Four reverts in 24 hours is over the three-revert line, and I will not pretend otherwise. But the context decides the response. The bot had already processed this request on 3 November and it was already listed in the completed section. Dokania kept re-adding it, and himself reverted three times on the same page ([[Special:Diff/738968]], [[Special:Diff/738990]], [[Special:Diff/739009]]), standing exactly on the line. Editorial Oversight's edit summaries did give reasons ("Already mentioned in complete section", "This has already been handled automatically"), so the claim that the reverts were made without any reason is not correct. This was a two-sided revert cycle over queue housekeeping, not a one-sided content dispute. Blocking either editor for it, or both, would be out of proportion and would help nobody. Instead, both are formally cautioned. Dokania: once a request is processed and the reason for removing it has been explained, do not add it again, and do not undo an explained removal; if you disagree, ask on the talk page. Editorial Oversight: your first three removals were understandable, the fourth revert was not the way to end it. After the third removal, the correct step was to report the re-adding here and let an administrator deal with it.<br>'''The remaining diffs are civility issues, not edit warring.''' [[Special:Diff/739162]] is an edit on my own talk page whose summary reads "Dont make.over smart", and [[Special:Diff/739169]] contains the remark "We have a new headache to deal with", tagging Dokania. Whatever the provocation, personal remarks of this kind are not acceptable, least of all from an editor of Editorial Oversight's experience, who is expected to set the standard for others. Comment on edits, not on editors. I am recording this caution here itself rather than sending Dokania to file a second report elsewhere, but if such remarks are repeated, the matter can be taken up at the administrators' noticeboard and dealt with there.<br>'''Two procedural points.''' First, the edit-warring warning cited in this report ([[Special:Diff/739201]]) was issued at 10:13 IST, after this report was filed at 09:44 IST. Reports here are expected to cite a warning given before filing; please keep that order in future. Second, removing warnings from one's own talk page is allowed on Bharatpedia and is treated as the editor having read them. It is not an offence and it is not edit warring, so it should not be reported as one. Dokania is also advised that warnings lose their meaning when a general note, a warning, a final warning and a caution are all issued within about a day; a final warning is meant for repeated or serious cases, after earlier warnings have had a chance to work. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)
	* '''Result:''' No blocks are issued to either party, and the report is closed with cautions to both sides. On Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres there was no violation of the three-revert rule. On User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, Editorial Oversight's four reverts crossed the three-revert line, but Dokania's three reverts and repeated re-adding of an already processed request make it a two-sided case, so cautions are the proportionate response. Editorial Oversight is additionally cautioned for the personal remarks noted in the comment above. Both editors are directed to disengage from each other completely: no reverting each other's edits and no comments about each other, on any page. If either side resumes reverting or personal remarks, a fresh report may lead to blocks without further warning. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)		* '''Result:''' No blocks are issued to either party, and the report is closed with cautions to both sides. On Draft:Deshabhimani Theatres there was no violation of the three-revert rule. On User:BharatwikiArchiveBot/Requests, Editorial Oversight's four reverts crossed the three-revert line, but Dokania's three reverts and repeated re-adding of an already processed request make it a two-sided case, so cautions are the proportionate response. Editorial Oversight is additionally cautioned for the personal remarks noted in the comment above. Both editors are directed to disengage from each other completely: no reverting each other's edits and no comments about each other, on any page. If either side resumes reverting or personal remarks, a fresh report may lead to blocks without further warning. [[User:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#1f618d;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #3498db;">🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁</span>]][[User talk:Bharatwiki_Socrates\|<span style="color:#FF9933;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 2px #1f618d;">(📩)</span>]] 11:07, 4 November 2026 (IST)