update |
TigerShark (talk | contribs) →User:Piotrus reported by User:M.K (Result: ): Blocked for 24 hours |
||
Line 580: | Line 580: | ||
:{{AN3|noex}} Article has been reverted to the original form of English (American) and editor has been warned about changing it. —[[User:TravisTX|<font face="Georgia" color="#2F335F">Travis</font>]][[User_talk:TravisTX|<font color="#888888" size="-1"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
:{{AN3|noex}} Article has been reverted to the original form of English (American) and editor has been warned about changing it. —[[User:TravisTX|<font face="Georgia" color="#2F335F">Travis</font>]][[User_talk:TravisTX|<font color="#888888" size="-1"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Piotrus]] reported by [[User:M.K]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Piotrus]] reported by [[User:M.K]] (Result: 24 hours) == |
||
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Republic of Central Lithuania}}.{{3RRV|Piotrus}}: Time reported: 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Republic of Central Lithuania}}.{{3RRV|Piotrus}}: Time reported: 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 596: | Line 596: | ||
This is really disrupting. Another contributor involved in edit warring, that is most troubling in this case that particular contributor not even changing article version which is contested, but also trying to distort cited publications consistently; despite many pleas to stop. [[User:M.K|M.K.]] ([[User talk:M.K|talk]]) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
This is really disrupting. Another contributor involved in edit warring, that is most troubling in this case that particular contributor not even changing article version which is contested, but also trying to distort cited publications consistently; despite many pleas to stop. [[User:M.K|M.K.]] ([[User talk:M.K|talk]]) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:'''Update''' another article is affected [[Simonas Daukantas]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simonas_Daukantas&curid=4746042&action=history]. Wondering how long this edit warring by particular contributor will lasts? [[User:M.K|M.K.]] ([[User talk:M.K|talk]]) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
:'''Update''' another article is affected [[Simonas Daukantas]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simonas_Daukantas&curid=4746042&action=history]. Wondering how long this edit warring by particular contributor will lasts? [[User:M.K|M.K.]] ([[User talk:M.K|talk]]) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
'''Decision:''' Blocked for 24 hours. [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] ([[User talk:TigerShark|talk]]) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Tortugadillo]] reported by [[User:Redrocket]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Tortugadillo]] reported by [[User:Redrocket]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 23:07, 12 March 2008
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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.
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.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Violations
- Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.
User:WilliamHanrahan reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 72 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Border Campaign (IRA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WilliamHanrahan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 01:32, 8 March 2008
- 1st revert: 03:40, 8 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 02:19, 9 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 03:09, 9 March 2008
- 4th revert: 03:17, 9 March 2008
- 5th revert 03:30, 9 March 2008
- 6th revert 04:13, 9 March 2008
Editor has recently been blocked for edit warring, yet continues. One Night In Hackney303 03:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Otto4711 reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: already blocked)
- Three-revert rule violation on Dante's Cove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Otto4711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 04:13, 8 March 2008
- 1st revert: 03:23, 9 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 03:29, 9 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 03:38, 9 March 2008
- 4th revert: 04:06, 9 March 2008
- 5th revert: 04:13, 9 March 2008
Edit waring after warning; persists in restoring non-free images in a manner prohibited by WP:NONFREE. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Lazyguythewerewolf reported by User:Strongsauce (Result: 48 hrs)
- Three-revert rule violation on Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lazyguythewerewolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 14:58, 9 March 2008
- 1st revert: 18:49, 8 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 23:20, 8 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 11:14, 9 March 2008
- 4th revert: 14:58, 9 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 14:36, 9 March 2008
Edit warring with other users. Ignoring WP:CRYSTAL, or WP:OR Strongsauce (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note that the user has made a fifth revert just now [1], though at 20:21, this is more than 24 hours after the first revert. He has still made 4 reverts in the past 24 hours. Dreaded Walrus t c 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, due to previous disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Sia34 reported by User:Arcayne (Result: Article protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sia34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 15:00, March 9, 2008
- The user is an established editor who is well aware of 3RR
Pretty much reverting out those edits from multiple users he doesn't agree with. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- article protected by User:Khoikhoi ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Er, this was a 3RR complaint, not a RfP. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Page protection is a common result of 3RR reports. Sia34 did not violate 3RR (consecutive edits do not count as reverts), so the alternative was to protect the page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong. Consecutive edits that undo other's specific edits DO constitute reverts. Maybe you missed that? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Er, this was a 3RR complaint, not a RfP. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
User:67.188.208.203 reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 24 hrs)
- Three-revert rule violation on State terrorism and the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.188.208.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 05:29, 9 March 2008
- 1st revert: 22:36, 9 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 01:22, 10 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 01:24, 10 March 2008
- 4th revert: 01:37, 10 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 01:26, 10 March 2008
IP but probably experienced WP editor due to familiarity with WP as seen in his comments. Best solution would be to semi-protect the article. There has been many sockpuppets editing this article recently, see [7].Ultramarine (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that one of the reverts was to undo a false positive from bot. Does that count?!Giovanni33 (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not a listed exception. Hardly a false positive.Ultramarine (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was not vandalism and thus is a false positive. Last time I checked bots were not editors. Undoing a false positive from a bot is not undoing an the work of another editor (which is the definition of a reversion).Giovanni33 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mass deletion. No exception for Bots. He was warned and continued.Ultramarine (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was not vandalism and thus is a false positive. Last time I checked bots were not editors. Undoing a false positive from a bot is not undoing an the work of another editor (which is the definition of a reversion).Giovanni33 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not a listed exception. Hardly a false positive.Ultramarine (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Mospyt reported by User:Cloudz679 (Result: Indef blocked)
- Three-revert rule violation on Hashim Thaçi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mospyt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 11:21
- Diff of 3RR warning: 11:37
Repeated addition of disputed material ignoring warnings and attempts at dispute resolution. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Request to reporter: In future, please report diffs instead of former versions. That makes it a lot easier to follow.
Examination: This 3RR report is directly related to the one below, also reported by Cloudz679. User:Mospyt is a very new user that has only worked on this article. The only changes made by this user are this series of blankings and changes. These changes are also made by 79.77.181.111 (talk · contribs) shortly before Mospyt starts on the article, so it is incredibly likely that Mospyt and this IP are the same person, and also possible that Mospyt is a WP:SPA but it is possibly too early to say anything about that (AGF).
The below reported reverts by User:Cometstyles are reversions of the above blankings/changes by Mospyt. Apart from these reversions, Cometstyles appears to have had no other involvment in this article. The restoration by Cometstyles of information deleted by Mospyt is more a reversion of vandalism than anything else.
Mospyt has just been blocked indefinitely (not by me, though) - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Cometstyles reported by User:Cloudz679 (Result: no action)
- Three-revert rule violation on Hashim Thaçi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cometstyles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 11:17
- 1st revert: 11:22
- 2nd revert: 11:24
- 3rd revert: 11:26
- 4th revert: 11:27
- 5th revert: 11:30
- 6th revert: 12:05
- Diff of 3RR warning: 11:37
Repeated reverts beyond acceptable practices; edit warring. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- See previous 3RR report
- This user was simply reverting the deletions made by the above now indef-blocked user. Potential bad faith nomination. - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Dbachmann reported by User:Camptown (Result:Make love, not war)
- Three-revert rule violation on Template:Kosovo-stub (edit | [[Talk:Template:Kosovo-stub|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Template:Kosovo-stub (edit | [[Talk:Template:Kosovo-stub|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- Diff of 3RR warning: [11]
and:
- Diff of 3RR warning: [15]
This is just two examples of edit wars the user:Dbachmann is involved in. When being notified about this, he instantly deletes the legitimate warning from his own talk page.
and this is a typical example of user:Dbachmann's communication left on my talk page:
[19].
--Camptown (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- This report should be removed since Dbachmann has clearly not breached the 3rr in any of these cases. You need to make *more* than three reverts during a 24h period in a single article.--Berig (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Camptown is in need of some coaching. He pushes a nationalist pov with no remorse, and now is trolling my talkpage with his 3rr warnings, besides forum-shopping with bogus 3rr reports. The diff he posts as "typical" of our interaction follows me wasting my breath talking sense to him while he limited himself to post warning templates to my talkpage. I do recommend a short cool-down block for this user. dab (𒁳) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The warnings are indeed legitimate and not "bogus", Dbachmann is repeatedly ignoring invitations to a constructive dialogue about sensitive matters regarding articles related to the Republic of Kosovo, but he resorts to quick revisions (usually without explanation on the related talk pages). Only hours after the much needed protection of Kosovo was lifted, he split the article for - I guess - the third time. It should be pointed out that the original split - suggested and executed by Dbachmann on his own initiative - was turned down in a vote, unfortunately, that vote was also ignored by Dbachmann. --Camptown (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The isn't the first time that Dab has done this. You should see how many times he has gotten away with 3RR on Assyrian people. This isn't the first time dab ingoring voting results. Despite twice being voted on down on moving the Assyrian people page, he continues with the idea of moving without taking into concent the rest of Wiki's community. Actually, if you look at the history, you will see mostly him editing the page, because other have quite since he reverts anything he doesn't agree with and his version of the page is always final .He sometimes disrespects others, including recently Chaldean, do you speak English? At all? [[20]] - is that how a mod is to communicate with others? You know, its stuff like this that gets other disgouraged from continuing to work on wiki. I am still suprised his authority has not been challanged. He continues to make drastic edits and moves that is far from the explantion of reality on multiple topics. Chaldean (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Deplorable, to say the least.... Dab seems to shop for a quite a few articles he can "safely" revert three times within the stipulated 24 hours. But, doesn't the 3RR-rule actually restrict an editor from that kind of borderline behavior? --Camptown (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- He didn't technically violate 3RR in any cases; however, 3RR should not be seen as an endorsement to revert someone as much as policy allows. From now on, can you two not revert each other? If one of you makes a change the other doesn't like, please bring it up on each others' talk pages and come to an agreement. In fact, I think I'll step you guys down to 2RR. Instead of the customary 3 edits, you can only make two before it is considered warring.
- Comment – 2 revert rule instituted. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- this isn't what this board is for. replied to Master of Puppet's talkpage. You want to administrate Wikipedia beyond vandal-blocking and revert-counting? You'll have to become involved with questions of actualcontent. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment – Master of Puppets, WP:AN3 is not the place to institute permanent editing restrictions [you've not indicated any length of time] and individual administrators have not been empowered to do this anyway. Dbachmann and Camptown are not on any permanent 2rr restrictions, but obviously should still do their best to refrain from edit-warring. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- this isn't what this board is for. replied to Master of Puppet's talkpage. You want to administrate Wikipedia beyond vandal-blocking and revert-counting? You'll have to become involved with questions of actualcontent. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Deplorable, to say the least.... Dab seems to shop for a quite a few articles he can "safely" revert three times within the stipulated 24 hours. But, doesn't the 3RR-rule actually restrict an editor from that kind of borderline behavior? --Camptown (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The isn't the first time that Dab has done this. You should see how many times he has gotten away with 3RR on Assyrian people. This isn't the first time dab ingoring voting results. Despite twice being voted on down on moving the Assyrian people page, he continues with the idea of moving without taking into concent the rest of Wiki's community. Actually, if you look at the history, you will see mostly him editing the page, because other have quite since he reverts anything he doesn't agree with and his version of the page is always final .He sometimes disrespects others, including recently Chaldean, do you speak English? At all? [[20]] - is that how a mod is to communicate with others? You know, its stuff like this that gets other disgouraged from continuing to work on wiki. I am still suprised his authority has not been challanged. He continues to make drastic edits and moves that is far from the explantion of reality on multiple topics. Chaldean (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Mythdon reported by User:Legotech(Result:No action taken)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Jungle Fury Power Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 21:56, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Created page")
- 22:17, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Why not? People can build it up later.")
- 22:51, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Thats no reason in this case")
- 23:00, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Give the article time to build up")
- Diff of warning: here
He appears to be trying to make this article about the specific rangers...however there doesn't appear to be enough material to actually make a new article yet.
—Legotech·(t)·(c) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is more good faith, so I'm reluctant to block. He is right that if there is information it should be included; however, for the time being, the article can exist as a redirect. If sufficient information emerges, we can always undo the redirect. Also, you may like to suggest the possibility of working on the article in his userspace (eg. User:Mythdon/Jungle Fury Power Rangers) as a compromise; when he gets enough information there, he can move it to article space. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Bless sins reported by User:Yahel Guhan (Result:Page protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5 (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bless sins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: 11:22, 9 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 21:32, 9 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 23:23, 9 March 2008
- 4th revert: 00:00, 10 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: unnecessary. Bless sins has been blocked for a 3rr before. Bless sins has reverted 4 times the inclusion of the Mecca image. Yahel Guhan 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not going to hand out blocks yet, as you're both established and you're both edit warring; blocking you both would be counterproductive. Please use this opportunity, while the page is protected, to come to an agreement on the talk page; if you cannot, please do not edit the article. Thank you. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl reported by User:Para (Result:No action taken)
- Three-revert rule violation on Procida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 14 November 2007
- 1st revert: 01:09, 10 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 15:51, 10 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 01:11, 11 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: As an administrator, obviously knows the letter of the policy, but 2 minutes difference is not in its spirit.
BrownHairedGirl is involved in a dispute on WP:EL, where she is failing to get support for her personal opinion. For some reason she targets my edits only, and none of the others. The last time she lost control, she abused admin tools and mass-reverted all my work done after the consensus on WP:GEO in the course of several months without complaints, and her actions were reported to WP:AN/I. She seems to again be starting to do the same [21], and I'm afraid to soon find all my work reverted again by this POV revert warrior. --Para (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the 4th revert? Yahel Guhan 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Declined I only see three reverts; that's within 3RR, if pushing it. Also, please consider taking this up with the admin in question, and abstaining from editing the articles in question until you've reached a compromise, so that you have some consensus to help with editing. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Small Text
- More nonsense from Para, who didn't even have the courtesy to notify me of this complaint.
- Para has been mass-removing links on the basis of changes which Para would like to see made to WP:EL, but for which he has failed to achieve a consensus. Para has been falsely claiming in his edit summaries that he is removing the links "per WT:EL", but despite barraging the page for over a month with his claims that no objection are valid, there is no consensus for his desire changes. After mass-reverting Para's earlier attempt to enforce a guideline which didn't exist, I mass reverted; since then, I have simply been watching out for whatever pops up on my watchlist, and stopped after 3 reverts on this article, even though Para's practice of knowingly making of false claims about being supported by a guideline amounts to disrutive and tendentious editing.
The fundmental problem here is that Para says that I am "failing to get support for her personal opinion". That's back-to-front: it's up to Para to get support for a consensus for any change to the guidelines, but despite not achieving that consensus he ploughs on as if the guideline had been changed in the way he wants, and accuses anyone who objects of "disruption". Simply breathtaking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dear administrator, may I please remind you to reread the top of this page and not continue disputes here. Unfortunately I miscounted your disruptive reverts for this report, but luckily they did not lead to yet another reversion spree from your part, despite the tell-tale signs of an out-of-control user, with edit summaries full of typos. I and dozens of others have been happily working on removing redundant external links from Wikipedia articles for months now, and the only users to complain about it have been you and a friend of yours who won't participate in any discussion. You failed to get support for your objections on current practices, and any revert warring isn't helping your case. Everything that can be said about this topic has already been said on WT:EL. Please try to find another venue for your lost cause. --Para (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Para, you filed a 3RR report which was mistaken, and didn't bother to have to courtesy to notify the person about whom you complained. Now, stop telling lies about the lack of consensus for your hobbyhorse, and try to build a consenus around the points where there is agreement, rather than simply trying to grind down anyone who disagrees that black is white. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dear administrator, may I please remind you to reread the top of this page and not continue disputes here. Unfortunately I miscounted your disruptive reverts for this report, but luckily they did not lead to yet another reversion spree from your part, despite the tell-tale signs of an out-of-control user, with edit summaries full of typos. I and dozens of others have been happily working on removing redundant external links from Wikipedia articles for months now, and the only users to complain about it have been you and a friend of yours who won't participate in any discussion. You failed to get support for your objections on current practices, and any revert warring isn't helping your case. Everything that can be said about this topic has already been said on WT:EL. Please try to find another venue for your lost cause. --Para (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
User:MJD86 reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Santa's Little Helper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MJD86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 22:45, 8 March 2008
- 1st revert: 00:40, 11 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 03:53, 11 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 04:24, 11 March 2008
- 4th revert: 04:43, 11 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 04:31, 11 March 2008
I cleaned the page up a few days ago, and MJD86 reverted it. He has a history of edit warring just for the sake of it on multiple articles (to the point where one had to be fully protected) and has used IP socks to help with his edit warring previously. Scorpion0422 04:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Scorpion0422 trashed the page. It's idea of cleaned the page up was hitting the undo button on my edit without even reading it. The trashing up by Scorpion0422 left the section with one sentence then two sentences that were bulleted for some reason. Also it's idea of cleaning up the page is link a list of dogs names to celebrities that have the same first name even without any connection given in the episode or the reference. I do have a previous history of fighting against vandalistic deletions. Most of which were by Scorpion0422 who, as it did in this case, reverts my edits regardless of how much better my edit made that page. Scorpion0422 has accused my supporters of being sock puppets and is now pretending that it's allegations are fact.MJD86 (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – also received a warning back in february for edit warring, as well. --slakr\ talk / 07:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Ncmvocalist reported by User:Amarrg (Result: All warned)
- Three-revert rule violation on Raj Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 02:19, 10 March 2008
- 1st revert: 17:33, 10 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 03:26, 11 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 08:07, 11 March 2008
- 4th revert: 11:28, 11 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: The user is well aware of the 3RR rule since he has already been blocked once for violating this rule as seen here.
The user is edit-warring on the Raj Kumar article trying to introduce his POV without starting any discussion. I opened up a discussion page in Talk:Raj Kumar to engage a discussion with the user. Though the person participated in the discussion, the user has continued to do reverts without any consensus being reached, calling me a troll and threatening me with admin action. I had to report him for violating the 3RR rule for this. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- This report was made in a clear and malicious attempt to block me on a mere technicality as yet another method by which User:Amarrg continues to persistently harass me since before 27 February 2008 or so. Even after being asked to leave me alone here, he continues to target articles that I have significantly contributed to and refuses to leave my talk page alone evidenced-here. If you inspect the various comments he has left on my talk page, he has targeted articles I have significantly contributed to, trying to be disruptive in having these articles deleted rather than being bold and making the necessary changes, or even alerting me without non-constructive templates. He has persistently made remarks in bad-faith both on my talk page, and on others talk pages (if you check his edits around 27 and 28 of February particularly). He deliberately and consciously find ways to make life difficult for editors who disagree with him by targetting their contributions and making edits and placing tags in WP:POINT, rather than giving a reasonable time to editors to improve each issue to a satisfactory standard. His overall trollistic behavior should not be tolerated.
- He has given no valid or even reasonable justification for his blatant vandalism here, here and here as he continues to game the system with certain other editors of the Karnataka WikiProject to suit their synthesised and POV based edits that are disruptive to WP:WikiProject India articles. He is in effect gaming the system to suit his POV, so that there are no editors in opposition, particularly those maintaining the assessment department of WP:WikiProject India, being myself (see a notable admin giving recognition for this here). I undid my latest revert here so this report is invalid I would think. However, I request User:Amarrg be blocked for harassment, incivility, vandalism, trollistic behaviour and failure to assume good faith based on his edits and comments made between 27 February 2008 and now (see his edit here for the most recent evidence where he made such remarks directly after he made this very report). Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the editor who filed this report attempted to make no temporary compromise, unlike my 4th edit. I therefore request an administrator to revert back to the 4th edit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Warned The accused editor undid the reported 4th revert not long after making it (but still after this report was filed). This, along with the accused editor's relatively good attitude in the article talk page (tone only went sour after the nominator's ill-tempered comments) suggests a certain degree of good faith. BUT, edit warring is still not the answer and such issues should be settled in the talk page and the article left as is until resolved.
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours given 1) the first revert was in fact by the nominator; and 2) the nominator's clear lack of bad faith in the article discussion.Warned - 52 Pickup (deal) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)- 52 Pickup (deal) 13:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is silly. Amarrg is one of our best and his record speaks for himself. Ncmvocalist has been disruptive for a few weeks now and its amazing that the admin feels it fit to cut the violator some slack! Ncmvocalist has been revert warring with atleast 4 or 5 other editors on different articles and Raj Kumar is only one in many such. And even on Raj Kumar, Ncmvocalist's edits have been so whimsical and uncalled for that he has to be blocked for simple disruption if not for 3RR. And we have here a new admin using one of our best as a sandbox to try his tools out! Shameful. Sarvagnya 17:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- "the first revert was in fact by the nominator;" - and he reverted because Ncmvocalist's edit was simple disruption. Since when have we started blocking people for reverting disruption, vandalism and POV pushing?! And it was Amar who started the discussion and it is clear in the discussion that Ncmvocalist has no case. He made those edits because in his perception Amar is "anti-Tamil-pro-Kannada and he wanted to spite Amar by trolling on Raj Kumar's page because Rajkumar is a Kannada actor and icon. He tried to do it first by carrying out an undiscussed and uncalled for move of Rajkumar which was reverted. Once that was reverted he started being disruptive on the dab page. This is insane. Sarvagnya 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is silly. Amarrg is one of our best and his record speaks for himself. Ncmvocalist has been disruptive for a few weeks now and its amazing that the admin feels it fit to cut the violator some slack! Ncmvocalist has been revert warring with atleast 4 or 5 other editors on different articles and Raj Kumar is only one in many such. And even on Raj Kumar, Ncmvocalist's edits have been so whimsical and uncalled for that he has to be blocked for simple disruption if not for 3RR. And we have here a new admin using one of our best as a sandbox to try his tools out! Shameful. Sarvagnya 17:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Following the actions across other articles, the block has been lifted. It is clear that multiple articles are involved here, so 3RR was not the place to start this. There are other channels to follow when dealing with this. In a 3RR examination, only that particular article should be under consideration. But Amarrg should remain warned that behaviour like this is not acceptable. Although he is clearly an established editor (and his body of work is indeed commendable), using his previous achievements as leverage in an argument is just not on. It is attitudes like that that drive away potential good editors every day. - 52 Pickup (deal) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am confused here. I dont see Amar using his contributions as leverage in that discussion. The remark you take exception to seems to be in response to Ncmvocalist's "In case you prefer to be more constructive than being a troll, ...". Can you elaborate please? Sarvagnya 20:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the comment "I have more than 75 DYKs to my name, so dont question me on my research. You are not worthy enough to call me names, your contributions to Wikipedia are hardly anything..." (emphasis added) could very easily be seen as being both an attempt as establishing "leverage" (or "intimidating" another) and as clearly unacceptable behavior. If the phrasing indicates something different to a native Indian, fine. However, it should be noted that this is the English language wikipedia, and that, at least to me as a citizen of the US, that language can very easily be seen as being an attempt at intimidation/leverage, and probably in and of itself less than acceptable. Under the circumstances, it isn't necessarily sufficient cause for any real action, as most people invovled in a heated debate wind up using language they might later regret, and that should be and generally is taken into account, but it is something which all editors should try to avoid whenever possible. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Mimibianca reported by User:SWik78 (Result: 12 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Touch My Body (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mimibianca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [22]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [28]
The editor keeps inserting direct quotes by the artist who created the song in question. There was a discussion started on the article's talk page where the editor was given the opinion by SKS2K6 (talk · contribs) [29], Gwernol (talk · contribs) [30], and myself [31] that these quotes should not be inserted into the article for the reasons of unclear purpose as well as verifiability through a reliable source. Mimibianca keeps reverting back to the version with the quotes without trying to reach a consensus. SWik78 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked for 12 hours. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Vera, Chuck & Dave reported by User:Ultraviolet scissor flame (Result: No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on Paul McCartney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 15:39, 11 March 2008
- 1st revert: 16:26, 11 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 18:41, 11 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 18:46, 11 March 2008
too long article. Image:Paul McCartney & Bono Live8[32] Vera, Chuck & Dave treats it as vandalism.[33][34] Ultra! 19:05, 11 March 2008 (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. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
User:68.124.66.87 reported by User:Operation Spooner (Result: No action - not warned)
- Three-revert rule violation on Wage slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.124.66.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 03:13, 11 March 2008
- 1st revert: 06:44, 11 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 17:39, 11 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 18:31, 11 March 2008
- 4th revert: 19:06, 11 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: No telling if he's been warned since he comes in through different IP's.
Keeps deleting requests for sources. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Decision: No action. The IP does seem to be the same for all reverts, and has not been warned. I have now issued a warning. TigerShark (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- He's come through different IP's in the past is what I meant. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Mrund reported by User:Olaf Stephanos (Result: No action - no evidence of warning)
- Three-revert rule violation on Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mrund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [35]
Five reverts in 24 hours, pushing content that clearly violates the Wikipedia standards. Linking to James Randi's personal website, which does not qualify by [41]. Making unreferenced allegations, or insisting on personal elaborations on the provided references. User:Mrund has been reminded of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the article's talk page, but he has almost completely ignored these lengthy discussions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Decision: No action. I cannot find proof that Mrund had been warned prior to their last revert. However they clearly are aware of it now [42], and I have also issued a warning on their talk page. If somebody has proof, please provide it and it will be reviewed. TigerShark (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Wyattmj reported by User:Hu12 (Result:24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Structured investment vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wyattmj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 14:31, 8 March 2008
- 1st revert: 01:11, 11 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 01:37, 11 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 11:27, 11 March 2008
- 4th revert: 00:07, 12 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 11:34, 11 March 2008
--Hu12 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- User:Wyattmj blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Ronnotel (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:207.232.97.13 reported by User:Mr Miles (Result: No block)
- Three-revert rule violation on Alcoholics Anonymous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.232.97.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Time reported: 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [43]
- Diff of 3RR warning:
A short explanation of the incident: User continues to place unreferenced material into this section of the article, despite being reverted by multiple other editors and refuses to explain his actions on discussion page.
Mr Miles 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- No block. Seems that the editor is adding referenced material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Multiple users reported by User:Fife Club (Result: Page semi-protected)
I'm not involved with this but I am by far the leading contributer to the article State University of New York at Plattsburgh and I just checked my watch list to see what I think is an edit war going on between two other editors, one of which is an IP? Eleven edits in just the past half hour. Before I attempt to fix anything (if necessary), can somebody please take a look and assess what's going on and whether these people need to be warned, and if anything needs to be done to the page now? Thanks Fife Club (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Astanhope reported by User:Queerudite (result: novio)
- Three-revert rule violation across multiple articles. Astanhope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blanking placeholder images repeatedly after multiple warnings.
- See diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. And related discussion.
- 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. --slakr\ talk / 09:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Equazcion reported by User:rachel63 (Result: protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on Anti-Americanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Equazcion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: [48]
- 2nd revert: [49]
- 3rd revert: [50]
- 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Americanism&diff=197682336&oldid=197682124
I hope I'm doing this right. I don't know what DIFFTIME means. He did all these edits today then said I was a sockpuppet. I think he's an admin, but the rules should be the same for everybody.
- Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME
A short explanation of the incident. Rachel63 (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Halibutt reported by User:M.K (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Republic of Central Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halibutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [51]
- 1st revert: 2008-03-11T16:44:45 Keep changing place names
- 2nd revert: 2008-03-11T17:13:13Keep changing place names
- 3rd revert: 2008-03-11T18:46:26 Keep changing place names
- 4th revert: 2008-03-12T06:29:19 Keep changing place names
- 5th revert: 2008-03-12T10:12:10 Keep changing place names
- Diff of 3RR warning: Contributor several times was blocked due to 3RR [52], so he knows the rules
This is becoming really disruptive, contributor user:Halibutt is involved in prolonged campaign of names changes and variuos distortions. Recently he was informed by neutral administrator that similar campaigns are violations of WP:POINT [53], he was also informed that he violated WP:3RR on the different article and was suggested that further similar disruption will prompt sanctions. It is clear that contributor is following 3RR campaign again and that gentle information to stick on 3RR policy is not working on him. I hope that in this time administrators will take proper actions to stop further campaigns by this contributor. And let me stress that An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Thank you, M.K. (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 10:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)\
User:Grinsandfun reported by User:Hu12 (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Streaming media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grinsandfun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Streaming_media&oldid=197481388
- 1st revert: 22:01, 11 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 16:58, 11 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 14:59, 12 March 2008
- 4th revert: 15:14, 12 March 2008
- 5th revert: 15:17, 12 March 2008
- 6th revert: 15:58, 12 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 15:21, 12 March 2008
repeatedly re adding redlinks to Streaming media--Hu12 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Even though there is a slight lack of many warnings which is usual in 3RR cases, it does appear that Grinsandfun (talk · contribs) has broke the 3RR, even after the warning implemented by Hu12 at 15:21. Rudget. 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Johnnie390 reported by User:Jkatzen (Result: novio)
- Three-revert rule violation on Gare de Lyon-Part-Dieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Johnnie390 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 12:51, 8 March 2008
- 1st revert: 12:51, 8 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 05:28, 9 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 12:22, 10 March 2008
- 4th revert: 03:57, 11 March 2008
Johnnie309 continually works to change American English forms to British English forms in article about a railway station in Lyon, France without explanation. The language variant policy has been explained on his talk page with no response or let-up in the reverts. Jkatzen (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2008 (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. Article has been reverted to the original form of English (American) and editor has been warned about changing it. —Travistalk 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Piotrus reported by User:M.K (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Republic of Central Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [54]
- 1st revert: 2008-03-11T18:09:23
- 2nd revert: 2008-03-11T19:26:04
- 3rd revert: 2008-03-12T07:52:08
- 4th revert: 2008-03-12T17:07:05
- Diff of 3RR warning: contributor was already blocked by admin due to violation of 3RR [55]
This is really disrupting. Another contributor involved in edit warring, that is most troubling in this case that particular contributor not even changing article version which is contested, but also trying to distort cited publications consistently; despite many pleas to stop. M.K. (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Update another article is affected Simonas Daukantas [56]. Wondering how long this edit warring by particular contributor will lasts? M.K. (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Tortugadillo reported by User:Redrocket (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on Hoofer Sailing Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tortugadillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 23:11, 11 March 2008
- 1st revert: 00:16, 12 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 2:40, 12 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 2:54, 12 March 2008
- 4th revert: 14:34, 12 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 0:31, 12 March 2008
This editor was informed of WP:3RR twice, once here [57] (which was actually premature, and apologized for here [58]), and then here about continued edit warring [59]. In addition, this editor has continually referred to any other edits that remove his own as "vandalism," and reverted them as minor edits. Redrocket (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE:
- 5th revert: 16:08, 12 March 2008
- 6th revert: 16:21, 12 March 2008
- 7th revert: 17:08, 12 March 2008
Not all of these are the exact same revert, but they do revert whatever corrections another editor tries to make to his edits.
User:Uconnstud reported by User:Jaysweet (Result:Blocked for 24 hours )
- Three-revert rule violation on Talk:David Paterson (edit | [[Talk:Talk:David Paterson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Uconnstud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 20:24, 12 March 2008
- 1st revert: 20:50, 12 March 2008
- 2nd revert: 21:22, 12 March 2008
- 3rd revert: 21:25, 12 March 2008
- 4th revert: 21:50, 12 March 2008
- 5th revert: 21:59, 12 March 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 21:56, 12 March 2008
I'm not sure if Talk pages count, but this is very annoying. Uconnstud continues to add a link to a comedy video that he thinks will calm everyone down, despite explanations that it is not relevant to the talk page.
- Blocked for both the 3RR violations and the inappropriate linking to copyrighted content. Metros (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
you'll notice that on this "reversion" [60] I had included 9 links as well as a question that was summarily deleted. User:Jaysweet even stated he didn't read my talk page comment [61] after I asked him [62]. he simply deleted them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uconnstud (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Jaysweet User:Colfer2 reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:malformed report, no action)
- Three-revert rule violation on Talk:David Paterson (edit | [[Talk:Talk:David Paterson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Colfer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jaysweet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [63]
- 1st revert: [64]
- 2nd revert: [65]
- 3rd revert: [66]
- 4th revert: [67]
- 5th revert: [68]
- 6th revert: [69]
- Diff of 3RR warning: See below comment
There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [70] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [71] and [72] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [73] and working together Uconnstud (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
you'll notice that on this "reversion" [74] I had included 9 links as well as a question that was summarily deleted. User:Jaysweet even stated he didn't read my talk page comment [75] after I asked him [76]. he simply deleted them Uconnstud (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The reversions I made were all for vandalism After the video had first been removed (not by me, but correctly), Uconnstud added the video + random links, which were just copied from the article itself & Google. So my reversions were all for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colfer2 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- In response to Jaysweet adding the 3RR warning to his page, Uconnstud added it to my Talk page and to Jaysweet's Talk page. So he is just joking around. Colfer2 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I will take no action on this report as it is severely malformed. Please submit a report for each user instead of two editors in one report. Also, follow the directions of the sample report and include times of reverts. Thanks, Metros (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Example
<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE --> == [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) == *[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~ *Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. --> <!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.--> <!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. --> *1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~ <!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
See also
- Help:Diff
- 3RR report helper tool – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.