(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 563: | Line 563: | ||
For some months, editor has been repeatedly reverting edits by most other users on this article and telling one editor on the talk page ([[Talk:Central_Jersey/Archive_1#Definition]]) that "I will continue to undo you". --[[User:Bryan H Bell|Bryan H Bell]] ([[User talk:Bryan H Bell|talk]]) 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
For some months, editor has been repeatedly reverting edits by most other users on this article and telling one editor on the talk page ([[Talk:Central_Jersey/Archive_1#Definition]]) that "I will continue to undo you". --[[User:Bryan H Bell|Bryan H Bell]] ([[User talk:Bryan H Bell|talk]]) 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:MSJ1958]] reported by [[User:Joshii]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:MSJ1958]] reported by [[User:Joshii]] (Result:24 hour block ) == |
||
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Rochdale}}. {{3RRV|MSJ1958}}: Time reported: 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Rochdale}}. {{3RRV|MSJ1958}}: Time reported: 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 591: | Line 591: | ||
User has been constantly adding a "Media" section to the [[Rochdale]] article and being a small town it really does not warrant one, let alone one which is merely promotion. Myself, [[User:Jza84]] and recently [[User:Malleus Fatuarum]] have tried to reason with him but he persists on promoting his own website. He has already admitted he owns the site on the [[Talk:Rochdale]] page. He also posted a comment on his own talk page saying "You may block me but I will be back of that you can be very sure." which shows a clear intention to come back and continue adding this spam disguised as prose. The reason the edition which I included to revert back is so recent is because other editors have been trying to improve the article during the edit war with copyediting. <sup>┌</sup><sub>'''[[User:Joshii|<font color="#000099">Joshii</font>]]'''</sub><sup>┐</sup><sub>└</sub><sup>'''[[User talk:Joshii|<font color="#660066">chat</font>]]'''</sup><sub>┘</sub> 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
User has been constantly adding a "Media" section to the [[Rochdale]] article and being a small town it really does not warrant one, let alone one which is merely promotion. Myself, [[User:Jza84]] and recently [[User:Malleus Fatuarum]] have tried to reason with him but he persists on promoting his own website. He has already admitted he owns the site on the [[Talk:Rochdale]] page. He also posted a comment on his own talk page saying "You may block me but I will be back of that you can be very sure." which shows a clear intention to come back and continue adding this spam disguised as prose. The reason the edition which I included to revert back is so recent is because other editors have been trying to improve the article during the edit war with copyediting. <sup>┌</sup><sub>'''[[User:Joshii|<font color="#000099">Joshii</font>]]'''</sub><sup>┐</sup><sub>└</sub><sup>'''[[User talk:Joshii|<font color="#660066">chat</font>]]'''</sup><sub>┘</sub> 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}}--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE --> |
<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE --> |
||
Revision as of 05:52, 6 May 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:Mikkalai reported by User:Nicklausse (Result: Stale)
- Three-revert rule violation on Nairi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [1]
- 1st revert: 07:49, 28 April 2008
- 2nd revert: 15:25, 28 April 2008
- 3rd revert: 16:04, 28 April 2008
- 4th revert: 16:48, 28 April 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 16:21, 28 April 2008
- This was in turn reverted by Mikkalai 16:43, 28 April 2008
This user is essentially trying to make Nairi part of Armenian history.
Mikkalai is continuing to revert the content of this page [2], as well as reverting another template [3]. Nicklausse (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Reverts by Nicklausse:
Previous version reverted to: 00:40, 28 April 2008
- 1st revert: 04:28, 28 April 2008 restores Ancient Near East portal among other material.
- 2nd revert: 15:39, 28 April 2008; reverts almost exactly to version 14:03, 28 April 2008.
- 3rd revert: 16:20, 28 April 2008; adds They were considered a force strong enough to contend, among other material; reverts approximately to same version that revert 2 reverts to.
- 4th revert: 23:41, 28 April 2008 reverts precisely to 23:10, 28 April 2008.
Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- 1st: yes, this is part of the Ancient Near East.
- 3rd: that was not added - it was copy-edited and moved.
- 4th: Somebody else came along and reverted to a much earlier version, undoing changes that even administrators had made to the article.
- Nicklausse (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Re the third diff: OK, not all those words were added. The word "contend" was changed to "tackle" by Mikkalai and changed back to "contend" by Nicklauss, so it is a revert. I have the impression other material was reverted too because the diff of the two Nicklauss versions (15:41 and 16:20, April 28) looks (at a glance) as if it has fewer differences than the diff of the Mikkalai and Nicklauss versions (16:04 to 16:20). Possibly a move of material was reverted. Reverting to a version by an administrator is not an excuse to violate the 3RR rule. In any case, the reverting seems to have stopped; almost no editing on the article at all in the past 24 hours, but instead there is discussion on the talk page. That's good. (non-admin opinion.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody has cared enough to do anything in 3 days, so I guess we can call it stale. --B (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Bless sins reported by User:Merzbow (Result: Stale)
- Three-revert rule violation on Banu Qurayza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bless sins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 2008-04-21T07:43:05
- 1st revert: 2008-04-27T08:09:51
- 2nd revert: 2008-04-28T05:26:16
- 3rd revert: 2008-04-28T08:29:57
- 4th revert: 2008-04-28T09:15:15
Games 3RR by reverting 4 times in 25 hours and 10 minutes. He's a very experienced user who's been blocked for this in the past. - Merzbow (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly notice that it is not 24 hours. Yes it is a little over 24 hours, but I never intended to game the system. If I like gaming the system, then Merzbow should be able to find other examples. Yet the history of this article and other articles show that I have restricted myself to no more than 2 reverts per day (often even 1 revert a day).
- Secondly, there is a question on Merzbow's involvement. Merzbow reverted me on Banu Qurayza [4] without even caring to discuss why or joining the discussion on the talk page. From that perspective Merzbow's contribution looks like that of a drive-by reverter. Isn't drive-by reversion against the spirit of 3rr?Bless sins (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am afraid I might bear some responsibility for this report as I mistakenly talked about such a violation on the article talk page and BS's user talk page (asking him to self-rv). I was mistaken in thinking that these reverts all occurred within 24 hours (and mistaken on the extent of the last revert).
- However, I do think that this reverting is disruptive, no matter whether BS just got lucky or was waiting for the 25 hour mark. I certainly think it is not proper for him to fault Merzbow for his reverting or the report. Str1977 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I too find your reverting disruptive (did you notice it reduces the article by 2k everytime?). But this is not the avenue to solve disputes. Do you also realize that you've made 3 reverts in less than 8 hours?Bless sins (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- BS, this is not the venue to discuss my edits but yours. I do not engage in constant blanket reverting aside from countering yours. I actively work towards finding solutions. I made three reverts and stopped then because I follow the rules. I do not care that your version as 2 KB less litter included. Str1977 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Str1977, the edit conflict form which the edits are being reported is something you too were engaged in. You said that you "stopped then because I follow the rules". Well I didn't break the rules either, as I did not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. "I actively work towards finding solutions" as do I by actively engaging on the talk page, and responding to you before I revert. I'm not sure the same can be said of Merzbow, who made a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- And working towards finding solutions includes reverting 4 times in 25 hours? Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage, but I have every right to revert an immediately objectionable POV edit if I see one, where I see one. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- If reverting 3 times in less than 8 hours is (as Str1977 did), then reverting in less than 26 hours (but more than 25) can also be considered as working towards a solution. During that same 25 hour period I made 9 responses on the talk page. "Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage" The talkpage is where I explained my revert. So you reverted without knowing "what the heck [are]" my reasons (or others) were? That's indicative of a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Both you and Str1977 need to cut it out. This edit summary exemplifies the wrong attitude you both seem to have: that someone else's reverting justifies your own. Both of you need to do what Str1977 said and stop with your double standards and quit reverting (and yes, I said both of you). You're both edit warring, which is to say you're both being disruptive, and I'm rather disinclined to take any action that doesn't treat you equally. Can both of you just stop reverting, or am I going to have to get out the hammer? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Let me just state that I take exception to this "everyone's equally bad" view. If one editor repeatedly reverts to a version that he knows to be controversial, are we not allowed to resist? Str1977 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think any of the versions is considered controversial by the other person :) I personally don't think attempts to get any of the parties blocked is a good way to go. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Let me just state that I take exception to this "everyone's equally bad" view. If one editor repeatedly reverts to a version that he knows to be controversial, are we not allowed to resist? Str1977 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Both you and Str1977 need to cut it out. This edit summary exemplifies the wrong attitude you both seem to have: that someone else's reverting justifies your own. Both of you need to do what Str1977 said and stop with your double standards and quit reverting (and yes, I said both of you). You're both edit warring, which is to say you're both being disruptive, and I'm rather disinclined to take any action that doesn't treat you equally. Can both of you just stop reverting, or am I going to have to get out the hammer? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- If reverting 3 times in less than 8 hours is (as Str1977 did), then reverting in less than 26 hours (but more than 25) can also be considered as working towards a solution. During that same 25 hour period I made 9 responses on the talk page. "Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage" The talkpage is where I explained my revert. So you reverted without knowing "what the heck [are]" my reasons (or others) were? That's indicative of a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- And working towards finding solutions includes reverting 4 times in 25 hours? Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage, but I have every right to revert an immediately objectionable POV edit if I see one, where I see one. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Str1977, the edit conflict form which the edits are being reported is something you too were engaged in. You said that you "stopped then because I follow the rules". Well I didn't break the rules either, as I did not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. "I actively work towards finding solutions" as do I by actively engaging on the talk page, and responding to you before I revert. I'm not sure the same can be said of Merzbow, who made a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- BS, this is not the venue to discuss my edits but yours. I do not engage in constant blanket reverting aside from countering yours. I actively work towards finding solutions. I made three reverts and stopped then because I follow the rules. I do not care that your version as 2 KB less litter included. Str1977 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I too find your reverting disruptive (did you notice it reduces the article by 2k everytime?). But this is not the avenue to solve disputes. Do you also realize that you've made 3 reverts in less than 8 hours?Bless sins (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't have submitted this report. There has been a long dispute on the Qurayza article; there was a mediation but it was closed as being failed. There has been much discussion on the talk page. This is not gaming the system to me, to be sure; and in my opinion filing such reports and trying to get one editors blocked is by no means, by no means the way to go. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Let me make it clear that I don't fault Merzbow for making this report. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody has cared enough to do anything in three days, so I guess we can call it stale. --B (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
User:B626mrk reported by User:Skomorokh (Result: No block)
- Three-revert rule violation on Boris Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). B626mrk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 15:11, May 1, 2008 (versions reverted to are slightly different; see diffs)
- 1st revert: 18:17, May 1, 2008
- 2nd revert: 18:31, May 1, 2008
- 3rd revert: 19:11, May 1, 2008
- 4th revert: 20:43, May 1, 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 19:17, May 1, 2008
Thank you for your time. Skomorokh 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not blocked - he hasn't edited the article in 24 hours and in his last comment on the talk page, he seemed content with the result. As the edit warring has stopped, there is no need for a preventative block. --B (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
User:77.42.187.213 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Not blocked)
- Three-revert rule violation on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 77.42.187.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 09:09, April 17, 2008
- 1st revert: 13:38, May 1, 2008
- 2nd revert: 16:08, May 1, 2008
- 3rd revert: 17:29, May 1, 2008
- 4th revert: 20:07, May 1, 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 17:34, May 1, 2008
- Three-revert rule violation on Yousaf Raza Gillani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 77.42.187.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 21:18, April 30, 2008
- 1st revert: 17:46, May 1, 2008
- 2nd revert: 17:52, May 1, 2008
- 3rd revert: 20:09, May 1, 2008
- 4th revert: 20:38, May 1, 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 20:40, May 1, 2008
- Note by User:77.42.187.213: Please look at the history page for all the articles in question and you will see that I was reverting vandalism done by Special:Contributions/81.149.22.123 two weeks ago and that User:Smsarmad was undoing my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:77.42.187.213 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't embolden your comments. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not blocked for now - he hasn't edited in nearly 24 hours so it is moot. If either the edit warring or civility issues return, please make a note here and we can block this IP. --B (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Gallery of sovereign state flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Gallery of country coats of arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Koov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:21 1 May 2008. 22:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 17:22, 29 April 2008
- 1st revert: 17:44, 1 May 2008 (This edit is via IP 149.4.108.120)
- 2nd revert: 17:35, 1 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 19:40, 1 May 2008
- 4th revert: 19:55, 1 May 2008
- 5th revert: 20:09, 1 May 2008
- 6th revert: 20:19, 1 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 20:22, 29 April 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 01:02, 30 April 2008
- Comment: Even if the IP edit is unrelated, there are 5 reverts within 24 hours. The reverts are deleting one or more of the coats of arms of Kosovo, Palestine, and Western Sahara. I've posted a 3RR warning to WikiDegausser at 02:22, 2 May 2008. (non-admin opinion.) Coppertwig (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 month Yikes! Persistent nationalist POV warring over many different articles. The reverts noted above came right after another 24-hour block. So far more than 95% of his Wikipedia edits have been reverted. Blocked for disruptive editing. No objection to review by another admin; an indef block is a tempting option. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Carl.bunderson reported (Result: =no vio)
- Three-revert rule violation on Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 06:47, 2 May 2008
Note please: That this user uses "rv v" (meaning rv vandalism) in his edit summaries but he is not reverting any vandalism, if anything he is actually vandalizing himself. He probably doesn't understand what "rv v" means or is using that to fool others because the talk page makes it clear that that edit is correct but he uses this edit summary since he doesn't have any good reason to rv.
- 1st revert: 06:56, 2 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 07:19, 2 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 07:25, 2 May 2008
- 4th revert: 07:33, 2 May 2008
- 5th revert: 07:40, 2 May 2008
- 6th revert: 07:43, 2 May 2008
- 7th revert: 07:49, 2 May 2008
- 8th revert: 07:53, 2 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 07:44, 2 May 2008 This user has already been aware of 3RR and was warned about it before but an admin warned him this time too. He disregarded that admin, used foul language with him, and continued his senseless edit warring.
- Evidently, the user Carl was reverting was a banned user, meaning his reverts were acceptable (though "rv v" still doesn't apply here). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Some reasons why he should still be blocked:
- He did not know he was edit warring with a sockpuppet
- That user could have been falsely blocked as a sock
- Carl.bunderson is known for childish edit warring on many articles
- Carl.bunderson is claiming that that language is not Persian, I think someone who knows their own language would know what the language is better
- He is defying years of consensus on this, you can see for yourself throughout the entire article the language has always been referred to as Persian always, but now he insists that in the top of the infobox it be called something else for no good reason.
- Conclusion, even if that was a banned user, Carl.bunderson was still edit warring senselessly.
- Some reasons why he should still be blocked:
User:Krzyzowiec reported by User:M0RD00R (Result: blocked, 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on National Revival of Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jan T. Gross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Krzyzowiec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [5]
- 1st revert 07:41, 2 May 2008 (edit)
- 2nd revert
- 3rd revert
- 4th revert
- 5th revert
- 6th revert
- 7th revert 23:31, 2 May 2008)
The user was today reported for disruptive behavior and personal attacks such as this [6] here [7] was issued final warning [8] but it didn't help at all as can be plainly seen. M0RD00R (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that about 2.5 days might be appropriate given that the last two edits shown are in vio of 3RR and were done after a final warning by Black Kite which also referenced a personal attack. Anybody else want to weigh in here? R. Baley (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Matt Lewis reported by User:Wotapalaver (Result: No action)
- Three-revert rule violation on British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Matt Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [10]
Wotapalaver (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Defence: I've been stitched up here with the use of an IP - and a weak 'warning' came after my last edit too. We were told to discuss changes when the article was recently locked - Wotapalaver has simply carried on in the same vein. I didn't intend to 3RR - but this guy is writing a entire article to his POV. I have explained why I feel he is "spinning exaggerations" and others agree: he does not have consensus. I feel I have been provoked here by an IP that seems to have turned up to replace Wotapalaver's edits - I was reverting the IP without considering a 3RR total - stupid maybe, but this has happened too easily, in my eyes. My reverts weren't all on the same text - but they certainly were for the less-biased spirit of the pre-existing edit (which was aleady a compromise from my own point of view).--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Additional note: I was reverting the "Many Irish" line in the edit (a long dispute), not the Irish language line (which I know nothing about, but others were clearly unhappy with). The problem was that it seems two separate controversial issues were being made in the same constantly replaced edit: I did say this in Talk too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Without making a clear decision right now, it appears to me that blocking Matt Lewis would be rather pointless, as this seems to be an extremely widespread edit war. Normally, I'd just protect the article for this; however, it's already been protected twice recently, making me skeptical that doing it again will solve the problem and reluctant to lock out non-edit warring users again. I think we need a better solution here; possibly one where we're willing to liberally give out edit warring blocks (ideally, some of those "discretionary sanctions" might be nice...) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article has been full-protected many times in the past, and this has not led to a stable version. The entire edit war we are seeing now started after 16:02 UTC on 1 May, when the last protection expired.
How about we offer a tricky plan:- (A) Each editor who went over 1RR during the most recent war (1 May 16:00 up through 3 May 03:00 UTC) would be subject to an article ban. They would not be allowed to edit the British Isles article during the rest of the month of May.
- This list of editors restricted consists of: Bastun, Matt Lewis, Thingg, Wotapalaver and the two 78.19.* IPs.
- (B) The ban would be lifted for any of the editors who can come to agreement among themselves on a compromise version of the article. The group includes Bastun, Matt Lewis, Thingg and Wotapalaver. The IP doesn't have to join the agreement, but if he doesn't he is still banned from the article during the month of May. Editors freed from the ban must still observe 1RR for the rest of May. (One revert per article per day).
- (C) All editors besides the above five are restricted to 1RR for the rest of May on this article.
The article ban would be enforced by a delayed 3RR block that would be given to whoever resumes editing before the end of May, unless they've signed to a compromise. Please let me know your opinion of this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note. The discussion thread that used to be here has been moved to Talk:British Isles#Discussion of how to resolve the 3RR complaint. Please add any additional comments there. I've marked this 3RR complaint as 'On hold pending discussion'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Closing. I am closing this complaint as 'No Action.' I've no objection if another admin wants to follow up anyway. The exposure of the issue at 3RR seems to have temporarily halted the edit war, and the Talk discussion is extremely vigorous. I'm aware that at least three editors skirted the rules about number of reverts. Admins at 3RR do have a tendency to recall the specifics of repeated problems concerning the same file and the same editors, and please don't assume that blocks won't be used in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article has been full-protected many times in the past, and this has not led to a stable version. The entire edit war we are seeing now started after 16:02 UTC on 1 May, when the last protection expired.
User:Kt66 reported by User:Wisdombuddha (Result: Not blocked, will submit checkuser)
- Three-revert rule violation on Dorje Shugden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [16]
- 1st revert: 12:26, 3 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 16:02, 3 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 16:11, 3 May 2008
- 4th revert: 19:06, 3 May 2008
- 5th revert: 19:40, 3 May 2008
- 6th revert: 19:49, 3 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 19:30, 3 May 2008
Thank you for your time. This user is repeatedly reverting any other editor and not discussing with them.Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Version of the above, reformatted: Previous version reverted to: 15:59, 3 May 2008
- 1st revert: 16:02, 3 May 2008 (reverts exactly to earlier version)
- 2nd revert: 16:11, 3 May 2008 inserts "relatively recent but very controversial"
- 3rd revert: 19:06, 3 May 2008 Previous version reverted to exactly: 16:25, 3 May 2008
- 4th revert: 19:49, 3 May 2008 Previous version reverted to exactly: 19:49, 3 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: Kt66 has previously been blocked for 3RR: 07:00, 22 September 2006
The other edits may or may not also be reverts. Truthsayer62 may have also violated 3RR. Wisdombuddha has done 2 reverts and Helen37 has done 1 revert. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not blocked as the user has retired so it is now moot - I'm going to ask for a checkuser on Truthsayer62, Helen37, and Wisdomofbuddha for obvious reasons. --B (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
User:67.183.62.211 reported by User:asams10 (Result: No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on Mosin-Nagant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.183.62.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [17]
- 1st revert: [18]
- 2nd revert: [19]
- 3rd revert: [20]
- 4th revert: [21]
- 5th revert: [22]
- 6th revert: [23]
- 7th revert: [24]
- 8th revert: [25]
- 9th revert: [26]
- 10th revert: [27]
- 11th revert: [28]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [29]
Comments: This is edit warring. He is doing the same thing on two other articles, all of which is being reverted by multiple users and violates several Wikipedia and WP:Firearms project policies. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The reverts span much more than 24 hours. I don't see more than about 2 reverts in a 24-hour period. Neither 67.183.62.211 nor asams10 has been making use of the article talk page to explain their edits. Although 67.183.62.211 has received a number of warnings, the warnings don't seem to me to explain clearly what is wrong with the particular material the user wants to insert. 67.183.62.211, please note that editwarring is not endorsed as an editing method. When others revert your changes, you should realize that your changes don't have consensus, and you should discuss the changes on the article talk page and get agreement among the editors before re-inserting. Note that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't violate the 3RR rule. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and discuss the situation with other editors. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Zhenqinli reported by User:Oiboy77 (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on article Jin Jing. Zhenqinli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to:
- Diff of 3RR warning: [35]
Comments: This user has repeatedly being reverting an article where most of the editors have come to a consensus on the issue at hand on the talk page. As a new editor on wikipedia I urge you to look at the edit history of the article carefully some of the edits by people were not reverts. Simply adding information or correcting grammar.Oiboy77 (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Response
- The 4 reverts mentioned (for removing a controversial category on a living person) occurred in more than 24-hours time frame.
- These reverts were intended to safeguard the policy and guidelines of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories and Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations, that extra precaution should be exerted with regard to the categorization of living people.
- User:Oiboy77 is among several people pushing for including Jin Jing (a living person) within Category:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, while engaging in numerous edits and reverts on this article. Contrary to what User:Oiboy77 said, no consensus exists for this issue.
- This particular category currently contains no other living people, and would be a poor choice to be used for categorizing living people.
- In the non-English (French and Chinese) versions of this article (Jin Jing), no existing category corresponding to Category:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China is present.
- The above relevant background and facts should be taken into considerations. --Zhenqinli (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please look at the edit history carefully 4 edits were made within a 24 hour period. Also please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jin_Jing#Official_policy_from_Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.23Categories It cleary shows that it has been discussed and sources have been provided by various editors that support the statement. Regardless of that fact 4 reverts within 24 hours is a violation of the 3 revert rule.Oiboy77 (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also it was made clear to you that adding a link to Category:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China does not violate any policy regarding a Biography of a Living person as it is not refering to her as a propagandist and refering to the incident itself.Oiboy77 (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Whether Propaganda should be used as a category or not has been discussed on the talk page, with the conclusion that there are reliable source supporting the inclusion in the Propaganda category. If you ahve concerns about the category User:Zhenqinli should have taken that to the talk page instead of reverting one edit after another. See Talk:Jin_Jing#Official_policy_from_Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.23Categories for the relavant discussion. Novidmarana (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Skyring reported by User:WebHamster (Result: Not blocked)
- Three-revert rule violation on Torchwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [36]
There is currently a heated discussion taking place on Template talk:Infobox Television about Torchwood and Doctor Who about the use of flags in the infobox template. During the discussion on the infobox talk page Islander (talk · contribs) proposed that no changes should be made until a consensus is reached. Skyring (talk · contribs) a user who has been blocked several times for edit warring and 3RR violation, has ignored this 4 times since the suggestion was made, 3 times within 15 minutes today. In spite of the edit summaries used Skyring was in full knowledge of the ruling, in fact he even voted on it. -WebHamster 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- not blocked - reverting three times (which you did yourself, by the way) is outside the scope of this noticeboard. This is silly and if it continues, then we may have to implement Edokter's proposal. A better idea would be to just quit reverting it and wait until some kind of agreement is reached in the discussion. Who really cares if the infobox has a flag or not? --B (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your opinion on the reasons for the edit war is immaterial, but your ability to count is. I reverted twice (not three times as you erroneously stated) to maintain the status quo of the ruling stated in the discussion. Regardless 3RR is 3RR whether you think the reason is silly or not. But now I know what the threshold is I can do what I like, thanks for the heads up. --WebHamster 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- In case this isn't clear, one must revert four times to violate 3RR, not three. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your opinion on the reasons for the edit war is immaterial, but your ability to count is. I reverted twice (not three times as you erroneously stated) to maintain the status quo of the ruling stated in the discussion. Regardless 3RR is 3RR whether you think the reason is silly or not. But now I know what the threshold is I can do what I like, thanks for the heads up. --WebHamster 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
User:79.22.129.58 reported by User:Rsazevedo (Result:protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on Juninho Pernambucano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 79.22.129.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [40]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [46]
User has been consistently changing this player's statistics, removing properly sourced information retrieved from the player's official website, and inserting inappropriate ones from dubious websites. He made the same alterations on the same page using other IP numbers as well, such as 82.59.70.249, 79.3.121.30 and 82.53.67.141. Rsazevedo msg 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Out-of-control edit war: 82.53.67.141 and Rsazevedo are continuing to revert each other rapidly numerous times in violation of 3RR. Neither user has made any effort to explain their edits on the article talk page. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- My reversal hardly needs explaining, since it consists of information previously contained in the article before the aforementioned user's first edit. However, I did include my point of view in the Edit summary of the first reverts. If any proof is needed that the user is wrong, is the fact that other editors have deleted his edits as well. It would be in the best interest of everybody to try to watch and understand what's going on before passing an opinion. Rsazevedo msg 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, Coppertwig is right. Both parties are edit warring. Since the user in question is hopping IPs, this situation is rather complex, as it's difficult to block both editors. I'm leaning toward protection right now pending any other input. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see. I am "edit-warring". I guess next time I should just let the page be vandalised... (sigh) Rsazevedo msg 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- A dispute over sources is not vandalism. And if this is vandalism, it shouldn't be here, but at WP:AIV. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The user was reported at WP:AIV. And if you'd compared both sources, you'd understand that in this case it is, indeed, vandalism. Rsazevedo msg 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'll assume it is vandalism. If so, there's no need to report here. This place is for edit warring only. Take vandalism reports only to AIV and, if protection is need, WP:RFPP. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The user was reported at WP:AIV. And if you'd compared both sources, you'd understand that in this case it is, indeed, vandalism. Rsazevedo msg 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- A dispute over sources is not vandalism. And if this is vandalism, it shouldn't be here, but at WP:AIV. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see. I am "edit-warring". I guess next time I should just let the page be vandalised... (sigh) Rsazevedo msg 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, Coppertwig is right. Both parties are edit warring. Since the user in question is hopping IPs, this situation is rather complex, as it's difficult to block both editors. I'm leaning toward protection right now pending any other input. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- My reversal hardly needs explaining, since it consists of information previously contained in the article before the aforementioned user's first edit. However, I did include my point of view in the Edit summary of the first reverts. If any proof is needed that the user is wrong, is the fact that other editors have deleted his edits as well. It would be in the best interest of everybody to try to watch and understand what's going on before passing an opinion. Rsazevedo msg 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- In any case, the page is now semi-protected, and I guess that should settle things down. Greetings, Rsazevedo msg 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Ejanev reported by User:Laveol (Result:warning, page watched)
- Three-revert rule violation on Lazar Koliševski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ejanev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 01:44, 26 April 2008
- 1st revert: 20:20, 3 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 23:47, 3 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 02:25, 4 May 2008
- 4th revert: 17:38, 4 May 2008
- The user ecidently knows what 3RR is as previously he was blocked for logging out and reverting with his IP when he was out of reverts with the original account. See the notices on his talkpage [47] and [48]. Moreover he has tones of other notices for disrupting editing (apart from mine). --Laveol T 20:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Both users are edit warring and misusing the term "vandalism" to refer to the other's edits. Both need to stop. I'm watching the article and am ready to block either editor if he or she reverts again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've labeled his edits as vandalism only cause he stalks me and undoes my edits. And moreover he removes info which is sources - I tried to explain to him why sources are needed and added, but he keeps repeating the same stuff again and again. --Laveol T 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stalking and undoing is bad, yes, but not vandalism. Not all misbehaviour on Wikipedia is vandalism. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed a lengthy comment by Ejanev, as it was solely about content. This board is not for resolving content disputes, but for dealing with user conduct, specifically, edit warring/3RR. It may be appropriate to resurrect this comment elsewhere, such as on the talk page or a dispute resolution-related page, so I'll give the diff to the comment here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks "Heimstern". The case of "Laveol" is even harder one. He has not pushed the Bulgarian POV for the Macedonian articles just at "Lazar Kolisevski" but for many of them, including the once of the highest importance to the Macedonians.
Please watch his [actions] to see if this case with [Lazar Kolisevski] and myself is an isolated one or a pattern with many articles about Republic of Macedonia and other contributors of Wikipedia. This has already happened: Promoting the Bulgarian POV in articles about Republic of Macedonia by "Laveol's" and other contributors actions. Please let not make a climate where people masked under "Wikipedia Contributors" seed Propaganda negating their neighbors and taking away from them their right to express there views.
Sincerely, --Ejanev (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Krzyzowiec reported by User:M0RD00R (Result: 48 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Jan T. Gross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Krzyzowiec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [49]
- 1st revert: 07:34, 4 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 08:09, 4 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 09:34, 4 May 2008
- 4th revert: 23:48, 4 May 2008)
- The user just came out of 3rr block and started revert warring on the same articles (see also National Rebirth of Poland.
Previous reports on disruptive editing [50], [51] [52]M0RD00R (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC).
User:Red4tribe reported by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: 1 week)
- Three-revert rule violation on Dutch Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Red4tribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 14:42, 4 May 2008
User is repeatedly adding a map that he has drawn (and that was challenged for WP:NOR, WP:SYN reasons). On numerous occasions he has been asked not to put up maps that he has drawn himself. Having an uphill struggle asking him to use reputable sources, not self-published websites.
- 1st revert: 15:17, 4 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 15:22, 4 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 18:23, 4 May 2008
- 4th revert: 19:14, 4 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 20:12, 1 May 2008 [53]
Also multiple reversions at Fall of Constantinople following disagreement with another editor there. I also have reason to believe that he has used a sockpuppet account to revert changes at the same Dutch Empire article - not the first time that he has been accused. I have requested a new checkuser here [54].
- Here
[55] [56] [57] [58] [59] (Red4tribe (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week Edit-warring to insert a map, drawn by himself, of the use of Dutch language around the world that seems to be inadequately confirmed by reliable sources. It is taking liberty with our policies to think this insertion of personal POV is an innocent matter. Checkuser has confirmed that SaudiArabia44 is a sock of this editor. I think that an indef block of SaudiArabia44 ought to be considered, but the 3RR submitter should submit his own report at WP:SSP documenting some form of collusion or abusive editing before this is done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
User:NuclearVacuum reported by User:Miyokan (Result: Blocked for 24 hours - reporting user warned for edit warring)
- Three-revert rule violation on Template:Russian cities (edit | [[Talk:Template:Russian cities|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NuclearVacuum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 22:58, 3 May 2008
- 1st revert: 15:49, 4 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 10:12, 5 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 10:32, 5 May 2008
- 4th revert: 10:49, 5 May 2008
User knows full well about the 3RR rule as he just 3RR warned me.[60]. He put this page (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR) on his watchlist as soon as he reverted for the 4th time. [61].--Miyokan (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Decision: Reported user blocked for 24 hours. The reporting user has also edit warred extensively over the past few days, but it is not clear whether they were aware of the 3RR policy. I have given them a warning. TigerShark (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Yaf (Result: 96 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Right to bear arms ([[Special:EditPage/Right to bear arms
|edit]] | [[Talk:Right to bear arms |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Right to bear arms |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Right to bear arms |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Right to bear arms |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 14:16, 23 April 2008
- 1st revert: 15:06, 4 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 22:27, 4 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 16:07, 5 May 2008
- 4th revert: 16:35, 5 May 2008)
- Diff of 3RR warning: 19:25, 17 April 2008
Editor continues to edit war on this article, for which earlier edit warring blocks were issued to him. Yaf (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- 5th revert: 22:02, 5 May 2008
- The first three reverts are adding a "{{primary sources}}" tag to a section. The fourth revert is adding a "{{POV}}" tag. The fifth revert inserts the words "which is not necessarily the same as bear arms", for which the previous version reverted to is 16:33, 5 May 2008. Leaving out the first revert but including the fifth, there are 4 reverts within a 24-hour period. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 96 hours Two previous 3RR violations on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Jps57 reported by User:Bryan H Bell (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on Central Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jps57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 23:43 5 May 5 2008 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 2nd revert: 01:30, 6 May 6 2008 (UTC)
- 3rd revert: 01:45, 6 May 6 2008 (UTC)
- 4th revert: 02:07 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Diff of 3RR warning: 01:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
For some months, editor has been repeatedly reverting edits by most other users on this article and telling one editor on the talk page (Talk:Central_Jersey/Archive_1#Definition) that "I will continue to undo you". --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
User:MSJ1958 reported by User:Joshii (Result:24 hour block )
- Three-revert rule violation on Rochdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MSJ1958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 4:50
- 1st revert: 3:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 2nd revert: 3:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 3rd revert: 3:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 4th revert: 4:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 5th revert: 4:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 6th revert: 4:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 7th revert: 4:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 8th revert: 4:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 9th revert: 4:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 10th revert: 5:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 11th revert: 5:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 12th revert: 5:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 13th revert: 6:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 14th revert: 6:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 15th revert: 6:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 16th revert: 6:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- 17th revert: 6:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Diff of 3RR warning: 4:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
User has been constantly adding a "Media" section to the Rochdale article and being a small town it really does not warrant one, let alone one which is merely promotion. Myself, User:Jza84 and recently User:Malleus Fatuarum have tried to reason with him but he persists on promoting his own website. He has already admitted he owns the site on the Talk:Rochdale page. He also posted a comment on his own talk page saying "You may block me but I will be back of that you can be very sure." which shows a clear intention to come back and continue adding this spam disguised as prose. The reason the edition which I included to revert back is so recent is because other editors have been trying to improve the article during the edit war with copyediting. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Joshii reported by User:MSJ1958 (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on Rochdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [62]
Joshii is lying, I have made significant compromises and I am not engaged in self promotion. I have explained my intent and my expertise. I have also added to other sections which he has removed without reason.
A media section with a short note is within Wiki guidelines and he refuses to accept this and persists in vandalising my contributions.
Moreover, my note to him that I will come back is nothing more than a refusal to be bullied by someone who has a history of attempting to impose his will unilaterally on others. MSJ1958 (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please note: this page is not for discussions and you cannot create a false report for starting a discussion. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 05:43, 6 May 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. The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. --> <!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide 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] <!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
See also
- Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide
- 3RR report helper tool – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.