Line 858: | Line 858: | ||
::A 3RR usually needs '''four''' reverts. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
::A 3RR usually needs '''four''' reverts. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
===[[User:PalestineRemembered]] reported by [[User:Jaakobou]] (Result:)=== |
===[[User:PalestineRemembered]] reported by [[User:Jaakobou]] (Result:No apparent violation)=== |
||
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on |
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on |
||
{{Article|Battle of Jenin}}. {{3RRV|PalestineRemembered}}: Time reported: 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
{{Article|Battle of Jenin}}. {{3RRV|PalestineRemembered}}: Time reported: 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 872: | Line 872: | ||
:There are three editors who think the article has gross, systemic POV-issues, and three who do not. A disputed" tag is obviously appropriate. The "weasel phrase" Jaakobou is referring to is ''"prima facie"''. Human rights organizations found "no evidence of massacre in Jenin but strong ''prima facie'' evidence of Israeli war crimes." These are their words. Jaakobou likes the first finding but dislikes the second, so he's cropping the material accordingly and edit-warring to maintain the whitewash. PR's edit here is wholly uncontroversial.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 12:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
:There are three editors who think the article has gross, systemic POV-issues, and three who do not. A disputed" tag is obviously appropriate. The "weasel phrase" Jaakobou is referring to is ''"prima facie"''. Human rights organizations found "no evidence of massacre in Jenin but strong ''prima facie'' evidence of Israeli war crimes." These are their words. Jaakobou likes the first finding but dislikes the second, so he's cropping the material accordingly and edit-warring to maintain the whitewash. PR's edit here is wholly uncontroversial.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] 12:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Uncontroversial or not, he still broke the rules and knows better. 3rr is easy to avoid and he failed, again, to withdraw from a heated situation as he should have. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
::Uncontroversial or not, he still broke the rules and knows better. 3rr is easy to avoid and he failed, again, to withdraw from a heated situation as he should have. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
While both PR and Jaakobou should be given timeouts and sent to opposite corners of the sandbox, based on their long-term bickering that has spread to their talk pages, my talk page, [[WP:AN]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:CSN]], and [[WP:Kitchen Sink]], there does not seem to be a 3RR violation here. The first edit listed is the '''09:43, 4 September 2007''' one. Where is the "prior version reverted to" edit? It happens that there is one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&oldid=155267214 ID155267214 15:38, September 2, 2007]. So, let us agree that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&diff=155596585&oldid=155595549 ID 155596585] is a revert. However, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jenin&diff=155676259&oldid=155643986 ID155676259 ] does not revert to add the tag, it is a removal of content. Therefore, there are only three reverts here. |
|||
Now, I believe while I may believe that both PR and Jaakabou have some serious issues when it comes to editing without rancor, without POV, and without attacks, there is no direct violation of 3RR. And while "gaming" the system often results in protective measures being taken even without direct violations, this is less "gaming" and more a result of the ongoinf issues that PR and others have with certain topics. Dispute resolution is the route that needs to be taken here. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 18:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===[[User:Caomhan27]] reported by [[User:Mucky Duck]] (Result: 24h)=== |
===[[User:Caomhan27]] reported by [[User:Mucky Duck]] (Result: 24h)=== |
Revision as of 18:46, 5 September 2007
Administrators: please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
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.
User:24.13.244.119 reported by User:Ronnotel (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Virginia Tech massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.13.244.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 12:56 30 Aug 2007
- 2nd revert: 13:02 30 Aug 2007
- 3rd revert: 13:26 30 Aug 2007
- 4th revert: 13:59 30 Aug 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 13:14 30 Aug 2007
What's the procedure when a user returns from a 3RR block only to revert the exact same content, when the topic has already been addressed? That is what has happened in this case. -- Sfmammamia 05:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Brendan.lloyd reported by User:Prester John (Result: Page protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
David Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brendan.lloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 09:13 30 Aug
All reverts are the same
- 1st revert: 09:13 30 Aug
- 2nd revert: 18:20 30 Aug
- 3rd revert: 18:37 30 Aug
- 4th revert: 18:41 30 Aug
- Diff of 3RR warning: [1]
Brendan Lloyd breaks 3RR to continually reinsert his POV replacement "lead" in a long established article and doesn't seem to acknowledge arguments on the talk page.
- I've protected the page. I see only 3 reverts here by User:Brendan.lloyd; interestingly, I see 4 reverts in the past 24 hours by the reporter, User:Prester John. However, rather than blocking either party, I've protected the page to cool off the edit war and encourage discussion. If edit-warring resumes after the protection is lifted, I'd likely have a lower threshold for handing out blocks to all involved parties. MastCell Talk 19:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- It should be noted that User:Prester John was recently blocked himself for edit warring on this same article, recently had his block removed and has again been involved in edit warring in this instance.Lester2 04:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:DIREKTOR and User:Zenanarh reported by User:Giovanni Giove (Result: no violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Zadar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). {{User:DIREKTOR and User:Zenanarh}}: Time reported: 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Insertion by [user:Clap]:[2]
The two users act together in several articles imposing POV with edit wars.--Giovanni Giove 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Moderator involved in the problem Isotope23 (he can confirm the accuse, the 2 user play together)--Giovanni Giove 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Completely untrue, I edited, not merely reverted. The user Giovanni Giove attempted (unsuccessfully) to provoke two other users into violating the rule. He himself made no less than seven reverts on a previous occasion (see the report above). Now he presumes to judge others in upholding this rule. DIREKTOR 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
User:75.183.174.149 reported by User:Chrishomingtang (Result: 31 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Chinese Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.183.174.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [7]
- 1st revert: 09:32, August 30, 2007
- 2nd revert: 11:06, August 30, 2007
- 3rd revert: 11:44, August 30, 2007
- 4th revert: 11:54, August 30, 2007
- Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
- Diff of 3RR warning: 11:48, August 30, 2007
User:Gantuya eng reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 48 hrs)
- Three-revert rule violation on
China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gantuya eng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 2007-08-31T00:18:47
- 1st revert: 2007-08-31T00:47:50
- 2nd revert: 2007-08-31T03:00:21
- 3rd revert: 2007-08-31T03:40:32
- 4th revert: 2007-08-31T03:52:13
- Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-08-31T03:41:35
- Editor had previously violated 3RR on the same revert and was blocked for 24 hours on 2007-08-29T22:14:06. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours as a repeat offender. Crum375 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Hungrywolf reported by User:Blackbeard2K7 (Result:no action)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Field Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hungrywolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 05:56, 31 August 2007
- 1st revert: 04:45, 31 August 2007
- 2nd revert: 05:18, 31 August 2007
- 3rd revert: 05:41, 31 August 2007
- 4th revert: 05:56, 31 August 2007
I dont understand how this user has sweet talked his way out of a perfectly legitimate block.[8] The user clearly violated 3RR and has been causing disruption for weeks. This is not the first time he has done it, and he has also resorted to personal attacks and false accusations all over the place against me, I can't even keep track anymore, reverting my edits on my own talk page with comments like "let everyone see what u are" and "Why are you shy of showing people what a person u r". He has never responded to any of the questions asked of him. All he ever does is cry wolf and repeat his false accusations over and over, in several different pages. He should be reprimanded for his actions since he is a repeat offender. See[9]. Additionally, if you look at Hungrywolf (talk · contribs) his contributions even after the block was lifted, he is now claiming that he has personal information about me that he is willing to offer other users, and is continuing to "admin shop" and make petitions against me.Blackbeard2k7 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- As both sides are edit warring, I'm not willing to block only one. As for the personal information: this is a more serious issue, but without some diffs, I can't really verify if this is the case (also more appropriate for WP:ANI, anyway). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Watchdogb reported by User:Snowolfd4 (Result:article protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Watchdogb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 15:31, August 30, 2007
- 1st revert: 17:53, August 30, 2007
- 2nd revert: 11:29, August 31, 2007
- 3rd revert: 12:04, August 31, 2007
- 4th revert: 12:19, August 31, 2007
- User has previously been blocked for 3RR - block message
- Some if not all of content in question is common knowledge to anyone from sri lanka and watchdogb upheld these facts. Since this accuser had claimed this stuff is fake, I have added reputable citations dismissing these claims. I don't think anyone can claim the stuff is uncited now. Sinhala freedom 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also the page has been protected. Sinhala freedom 14:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, so no blocks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also the page has been protected. Sinhala freedom 14:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Dreaded Walrus reported by User:Aladdin Zane (Result: No action)
User [Dreaded_Walrus] violated the 3RR on the [Elvis Presley] page in a period of less than an hour. Over a few different edits i had made.Aladdin Zane 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah... See my response here. As I said there, I haven't broken 3RR. I don't understand why you decided to bring it here anyway. I assume you read the guidelines on 3RR? --Dreaded Walrus t c 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see 3 reverts, not more than three. And next time please follow the correct format for 3RR reports. Thanks. --Tango 20:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:24h, 1 week for reporter)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Mark Lane (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 01:56, August 29, 2007
- 1st revert: 01:08, August 31, 2007
- 2nd revert: 12:28, August 30, 2007
- 3rd revert: 12:03, August 30, 2007
- 4th revert: 23:36, August 29, 2007
- User is gaming the 3RR by making 4 reverts in just over 25 hours. User is a likely sockpupet of an unidentified IP who was involved in an arbcom case, and is well aware of the 3RR rule, and is clearly manipulating it here.
- After going through the history of the article carefully, it seems clear to me that both parties here are equally guilty of edit warring, so I am blocking both for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- After a look at the block log, I see that TDC has a history of this and has been sanctioned by ArbCom on this matter in the past. 1 week instead. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- After going through the history of the article carefully, it seems clear to me that both parties here are equally guilty of edit warring, so I am blocking both for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User:AlexCovarrubias reported by User:67.71.251.74 (Result: 2 Blocks, 1 month and 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Subregion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:02 1 Sep/07
- Previous version reverted to: 17:27, 31 Aug./07
- 1st revert: 00:38, 1 Sep./07
- 2nd revert: 00:44, 1 Sep./07
- 3rd revert: 00:48, 1 Sep./07
- 4th revert: 00:50, 1 Sep./07
The offending user added gibberish to this article, not making much sense. After my duly labeled corrections, this editor afterward reverted four times in the span of minutes, each time labeling edits as 'rvv' despite my summaries to the contrary (see 2nd dif). Apparently, this editor has a lengthy history of edit warring and blocking. This warrants some punishment for both parties, since I also had to revert his reverts. 67.71.251.74 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- BTW: I was reported by this editor as a vandal, only to be dismissed for similar reasons. [10] 67.71.251.74 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can you two not work this out? I mean, you claim his material is "gibberish" when it's clearly not, and he claims yours is vandalism, when it's clearly not. At least try to discuss this before edit warring. --Haemo 06:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, please note that erasing valid and verifiable information is vandalism, or maybe I'm wrong, last time I checked it was considered vandalism, especially from an "anonimous IP" user. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are rather out of line: if you didn't read the above vandal report, even the admin that dismissed it thought that the reverted "edits consisted of rewording confusingly phrased and misspelled content." Read: gibberish. I do not edit to help others with their English. 67.71.251.74 16:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I might add that anonimously erasing valid and verifiable content is vandalism. Also, sadly, the "anonimous IP user" seem to be in reality another user (sockpuppetry), or how an anon user learnt so fast about WP policies and even how to "report 3RR" violations? Why don't he just login with his main account and report? He says he "deserves" to be blocked... on an anon IP address? This fact only proves to be a registered user trying to avoid scrutinity from admins when he admits that "he does not help other with their english". The user in question is avoiding another of his multiple blocks for edit-warring and/or use of profanity and uncivil manners (as you can read in the above messages left by him). It is easy to notice when sockpuppetry is going on. I first thought it was just a vandal, but then I realized it was not. This "anon user" is obviously passionately interested in the topic of subregions and geographical arrangements. Please take a look at Talk:Metropolis. I suspect he is User:Corticopia (please check his contrib. and block list). I beg for the attention of an admin. regarding Corticopia and his multiple accounts (and IP anon accounts). I have been following the case very closely since 2006, as he edits in almost every article I edit and I have detected the trend. I can provide with the proofs and the investigation I have made. Thank you. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Vandalism has to be malicious. The edits you reverted were clearly not malicious, so were not vandalism. This is a content dispute, and the 3RR applies. Seeing as you have already been blocked repeatedly for 3RR violations, and should therefore know better, I am blocking you for a month. I am also blocking the IP address for 24 hours, since your edits were also not vandalism. --Tango 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User:68.49.28.218 reported by User:Strothra (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Princeton University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.49.28.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 06:09, 31 August 2007
- 1st revert: 06:46, 31 August 2007
- 2nd revert: 15:56, 31 August 2007
- 3rd revert: 20:33, 31 August 2007
- 4th revert: 05:10, 1 September 2007
- 5th revert: 14:12, 1 September 2007
- 6th revert: 14:40, 2 September 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 18:29, 31 August 2007
False information was added to the article, and I removed it. An edit war ensued, and so I created a section on the talk page for the article with an explanation of my revision in the hopes of reaching a consensus. No one has made any comments there. Instead, User:Strothra constantly reverts my correction without any explanation on the talk page. I'm following good wiki procedure. User:Strothra should have the warning, not me.68.49.28.218 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:3RR. A lack of responses on the talk page is not carte blanche to flout the rules. dcandeto 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:DR. I've tried to start discussion on the talk page and have offered reasons for my revert. You have given no input or support for your revert, and I have offered reasons why it is inaccurate. I'm the only one following the rules here. 68.49.28.218 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most of these are oldids; need diffs instead. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- How's this?
- 1st revert: 06:09, 31 August 2007
- 2nd revert: 06:46, 31 August 2007
- 3rd revert: 15:56, 31 August 2007
- 4th revert: 20:33, 31 August 2007
- 5th revert: 05:10, 1 September 2007
- 6th revert: 14:12, 1 September 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 18:29, 31 August 2007
- How's this?
- dcandeto 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I also went ahead and fixed my initial mistake. --Strothra 20:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- This report is about to become two days old and the anon IP is still reverting the article. Does someone want to take action soon? --Strothra 00:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:219.90.223.197 reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result: 24 hrs)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Skin (Japanese band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 219.90.223.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 21:33, August 30, 2007
- 1st revert: 03:27, September 1, 2007
- 2nd revert: 03:47, September 1, 2007
- 3rd revert: 03:54, September 1, 2007
- 4th revert: 04:10, September 1, 2007
- 3RR warning: 04:16, September 1, 2007
- 5th revert: 04:36, September 1, 2007
- 6th revert: 04:43, September 1, 2007
Edit:
- 7th revert: 8:04, September 1, 2007
- Blocked for 24 hours. Crum375 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
WilliamSpencer (talk · contribs · logs) reported by Anynobody (Result: No action)
His contributions make think this might be a sock, but I'll WP:AGF on that for now. However of four edits, three have been reverts so far. Anynobody 05:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- You say yourself, he has only reverted 3 times. And next time, use the correct format for reports. --Tango 20:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I did, which is why I was warning him/her not to go past that point as one more would put them over the line. It seems to have worked because the editor backed off for a while. Sorry you wasted your time on this, I had planned to take it down once the 24 hours passed but forgot. Anynobody 07:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:68.84.10.219 reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Survivor: China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.84.10.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 15:06, 1 September 2007
- 1st revert: 15:18, 1 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 15:25, 1 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 15:28, 1 September 2007
- 4th revert: 15:41, 1 September 2007
(Edit by User:Maxamegalon2000:
- 5th revert: 16:14, 1 September 2007
- 6th revert: 16:35, 1 September 2007)
- Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
- Diff of 3RR warning: 15:30, 1 September 2007 (Note, user has since wiped these 3RRs from this talk page
- Improper report: please provide diffs, not revisions. Note that diffs cannot be 'wiped out'. Crum375 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- This was an obvious case of 3rr violation but I will not block because the IP has stopped editing for several hours now. If anyone else comes along and starts reverting again then we have a strong case for sockpuppetry, but until then there is no reason to block. ugen64 04:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Blueshirts reported by User:Hornplease (Result: 48 hrs)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Radhabinod Pal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Blueshirts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 1 September 2:12
- 1st revert: 1 September 4:06
- 2nd revert: 1 September 4:09
- 3rd revert: 1 September 14:00
- 4th revert: 1 September 14:18
Not a new user. I wouldn't normally report it, as I am guilty on this occasion of a revert with the edit summary "yes it is", which is embarrassing, but a look at his userpage indicates that he has just been blocked. When warned that he was violating 3RR, he replied that he didn't care, as it was blatant vandalism. That is, I think, unacceptable. Hornplease 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- this user removed a sourced section with absolutely no discussion on the talk page and I reverted it. Then we had a discussion during which the user kept on erasing the section, and then accusing me of 3RR? Blueshirts 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was explained at length on two talkpages how this was a misrepresentation. The reference was retained, the misrepresentation removed. I did not violate 3RR, and never have; regardless of my beliefs about edits, I would have reverted if I had. Contempt for the concern, as demonstrated on the user's talkpage, is what is worrying. I have nothing further to add, as this page is cluttered already.Hornplease 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours as a repeat offender. Crum375 21:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Mpublius reported by User:Famspear (Result:18h)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Tom Cryer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mpublius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: [11]
- 2nd revert: [12]
- 3rd revert: [13]
- 4th revert: [14]
- Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
- Diff of 3RR warning: [15]
Famspear 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for 18 hours, also suspicious of N0 D1C4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as possible sock- or meatpuppet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Majorly reported by User:Hankwang (Result: No action)
- Three-revert rule violation on
User talk:Mdebow (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Mdebow|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Majorly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: n/a - I don't want to be part of this edit war
- 1st revert: 00:03, 1 September 2007 deleting all warnings, replace by welcome template
- 2nd revert: 16:13, 1 September 2007 re-deleting all warnings, replace by welcome template
- 3rd revert: 16:49, 1 September 2007 deleting AGF warning that was added to the welcome message
- 4th revert: 17:31, 1 September 2007) re-deleting AGF warning that was added to the welcome message
Majorly is an admin: certainly well aware of the 3RR. The reverts consist of replacement of a user talk page full of warnings and an indefblock with a welcome template, with the argument that these warnings are biting the newcomer. The user was warned for spamming, first as an IP, who then created an account in order to continue spamming. Han-Kwang (t) 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will certainly have a word with Majorly about this, but I don't think it warrants any action. The warnings issued were over the top - the article(s) he created don't look like spam to me, so removing the unnecessary warnings does seem appropriate. Edit warring over it is inappropriate though, by both sides. --Tango 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User:John Foxe reported by User:74s181 (Result: No action)
- Three-revert rule violation on
First Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 10:52, 31 August 2007
Diff of the article from John Foxe's last edit (10:52, 31 August 2007) before I began editing yesterday evening, and his last edit (15:13, 1 September 2007) after reverting today. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Diff of the article from my last edit (14:34, 1 September 2007) this afternoon, and John Foxe's last edit (15:13, 1 September 2007) after reverting today. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that if John Foxe had used a revert tool to do a full revert, this would have only been one revert. He's been reported before, so now he games the system by doing incremental reverts. However, in this particular case each edit represents a revert of a particular section. That is, I made multiple edits to multiple sections, he reverted each section, one at a time, all within a 30 minute time period. I'm identifying the revert of each individual section as a separate revert. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 14:44, 1 September 2007 Revert of edits in 2nd paragraph of the lead.
- 2nd revert: 14:51, 1 September 2007 Revert of edits to the Possible 1830 allusion section.
- 3rd revert: 14:54, 1 September 2007 Revert of edits to the Joseph Smith 1832 account section.
- 4th revert: 14:58, 1 September 2007 Revert of edits to the Joseph Smith 1838 Account section.
The next one is a bit more complicated, I was still editing when John Foxe began reverting my previous edits. Although I don't like it, one of John Foxe's edits is actually a good edit, but the one following it is another revert. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- 5th revert: 15:13, 1 September 2007) Revert of edits to the intro of the How people have responded to the First Vision section.
- Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
John Foxe is not a new user, and these reverts were over and done with before I even knew what was happening. However, John Foxe has previously been reported for 3rr violation with warnings on his talk page (14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC), 23:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)), with the result that the article was protected twice. More recently, I posted informal warnings on his talk page for inappropriate reverts (08:54, 21 August 2007, 20:24, 24 August 2007), John Foxe deleted them. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- These are not reverts. If you edit sequentially, and keep making changes, uninterrupted by someone else, all your edits are counted as a single edit for 3RR purposes. No action. Crum375 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Freecyprus reported by User:Calton (Result: 24 hour block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
List of Greek companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Freecyprus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 12:35, September 1, 2007
- 1st revert: 17:23, September 1, 2007.
- 2nd revert: 17:23, September 1, 2007.
- 3rd revert: 00:17, September 21, 2007.
- 4th revert: 01:05, September 2, 2007.
- User bound and determined to flood List of Greek companies with red links, including those of articles which have already been speedy deleted (see history. Has been blocked once already for edit-warring over flooding the list with spam and external links, and unblocked under a promise to stop, but this is essentially more of the same. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, he has not violated the 3 revert rule since he was unblocked (he was blocked for violating the 3 revert rule and the relevant edits were made less than 24 hours ago, so if you ignore the block he has violated the 3 revert rule anyway - but I am being generous here). However, the reason he was unblocked is because he was supposedly discussing his edits, yet his pattern of editing has not changed since that unblock. Either way I believe this case falls under the "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive" clause. ugen64 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
User:219.90.148.152 reported by User:Kaypoh (Result: page protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Skin (Japanese band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 219.90.148.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 16.50 on 1 Sep
- 1st revert: 4.17 on 2 Sep
- 2nd revert: 4.20 on 2 Sep
- 3rd revert: 5.07 on 2 Sep
- 4th revert: 5.26 on 2 Sep
- Diff of 3RR warning: 5.24 on 2 Sep
User:Brendan.lloyd reported by User:Prester John (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brendan.lloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 15:42 Sept 1
All reverts are the same....
- 1st revert: 15:42 Sept 1
- 2nd revert: 06:06 Sept 2
- 3rd revert: 06:11 Sept 2
- 4th revert: 06:27 Sept 2
- Diff of 3RR warning: [16]
Despite being reverted by multiple admins, user insists on claiming a false consensus to add totally slanderous material about the article subjects father.
24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Prester John escalated an edit war by revert-baiting in spite of prior consensus. My reverts were not slanderous, no evidence of admin reverts was ever presented, Prester John himself is the one claiming false consensus (per Howard talkpage discussions about copra plantations) and my so-called first "revert" is actually an original/initial edit by me. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
User:IPSOS reported by User:Melsaran (Result:No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Wikipedia:Hatnote (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Hatnote|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 03:18, 2 September 2007 (this is not a revert, it is an edit, my first to the page. IPSOS (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)) -Yes it is a revert, namely of this edit, partial reverts also count according to WP:3RR. Melsaran (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- 2nd revert: 14:10, 2 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 14:20, 2 September 2007
- 4th revert: 14:28, 2 September 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 14:23, 2 September 2007
Note that he has said that he will continue reverting because he views me as a "vandal": [17]
- Note that that comment is not about this, but about the removal of useful hatnotes on specific articles. This is clearly a bad faith report. The first edit reported is simply not a revert. It is the implementation of a clear consensus on the talk page, one that Melsaran is against and for which he is willing to edit war against consensus and misuse the 3RR policy to attempt to override that consensus. IPSOS (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Removals of content are by definition reverts, your first edit was clearly a revert. And if you say that I'm a vandal and that you will continue reverting me, I assume that you will also do so on other pages we disagree about. And I don't "misuse" 3RR to override consensus, I even agreed to a compromise (adding exceptions), which you blatantly reverted as well. Melsaran (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe an editor's first edit to a page, which is claimed as reverting to an article state from 20 months ago, is considered a revert within the meaning of 3RR. Hence, no violation, or even if it were considered a technical violation, not one requiring any action. I see that there is now discussion and a content RfC on the talkpage, which obviously is preferable to continued reverting by either side. Please also avoid name-calling; for example, a good-faith disagreement over whether a hatnote should or should not be included in an article is not "vandalism" by either side. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Kiwisoup reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Picross DS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kiwisoup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 20:12, 25 August 2007
- 1st revert: 09:56, 31 August 2007
- 2nd revert: 21:40, 31 August 2007
- 3rd revert: 06:19, 1 September 2007
- 4th revert: 07:09, 1 September 2007
- 5th revert: 22:43, 1 September 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 16:08, 1 September 2007
24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Nomadent reported by User:Rrburke (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Santa Cruz, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nomadent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 10:37, 2 September 2007
- 1st revert: 11:03, 2 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 11:19, 2 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 11:43, 2 September 2007
- 4th revert: 11:57, 2 September 2007
- 5th revert: 12:10, 2 September 2007
- 6th revert: 12:36, 2 September 2007
- 7th revert: 12:46, 2 September 2007
- 8th revert: 12:50, 2 September 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 12:40, 2 September 2007
New user attempting to insert spam links about self and related organization. Persists in spite of warnings. --Rrburke(talk) 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Dev920 reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result:Page protected )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Jake Gyllenhaal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dev920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 18:37, 2007 August 23
The issue here is a phrase in the lead "gay cowboy (movie)". A number of editor have pointed out that that characterization is a poor one, albeit having been used in the press (hence Dev920's desire for ambiguous scare quotes). After a number of minor revisions of a compromise phrase a week ago, Dev920 decided yesterday to enter into an edit war to insert his/her favorite "cute phrase" in the lead.
After every such reversion, I or other editors discussed mentioning that phrase later in the article, with proper citation to sources. I then added such during the editing. But Dev920 only wants that phrase in lead, and her/his edits to this article are exclusively for that purpose. Btw, the previous version indicated is itself one of Dev920's several edits of exactly the same thing from last week; back then s/he also made this change a number of times.
Btw. I myself have not violated 3RR on this. I made 3—but not 4—changes to the compromise language, and always with intervening talk page discussion (either on article, or Dev920's talk, or my talk). LotLE×talk 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- No block. There's a heck of a load of parties edit warring, and instead of blocking them all (many seem to be forgetting that 3RR is not a license to three reverts, and I could block a large number of people including the filer of this request), I've protected the page for a month and directed all parties to the talk page and dispute resolution. By protecting the page, I'm preventing the edit warring. By preventing the edit warring, blocking Dev920 only would be punitive, not preventative (see WP:BLOCK). I'm sure all people involved would agree that protecting the page for a month is a much easier, less stressful and generally more beneficial way to stop the reverting than blocking half-a-dozen established Wikipedians. Daniel 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- But you protect the wrong version!! Just kidding :) Good move but a month seems long, maybe a week would do the trick? Cheers --Tom 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise for breaking 3RR. As you can see from the times of the diffs, I had clearly reverted once before going to bed and did not remember my first revert the next morning. Btw, I hope that any admins who are going to become involved in this note the aggressive tone of Lotus towards me and their evident desire to have me blocked out of revenge rather than for the sake of the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- But you protect the wrong version!! Just kidding :) Good move but a month seems long, maybe a week would do the trick? Cheers --Tom 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:RookZERO reported by User:Justanother (Result: 1 week)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Dianazene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 20:35, 29 August 2007
RookZERO is reverting to reinsert this text and this reference.
Dianazene also plays a large role in [. . .] the Narconon program, where it is similarly claimed that the large quantities of niacin in the compound, combined with the heat in a sauna, can "purify" the body by allowing it to "handle radiation" [. . .]<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/detoxbookpt2.htm | title = What is the Narconon programme? - The New Life Detoxification Program Picture Book | author = Narconon Exposed}}</ref>
- 1st revert: 03:52, 2 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 16:04, 2 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 17:44, 2 September 2007
- 4th revert: 18:55, 2 September 2007
RookZERO is once again reverting well-cited and correct material to POV-push the insertion of incorrect and poorly-cited material. He has five previous blocks for similar activity (the block for "Abusing multiple accounts" was mislabeled - it was for 3RR). He is 4RR in the Dianazene article and is also edit-warring and reverting in Church of Scientology (3RR update, 4RR against multiple editors) and L. Ron Hubbard (3RR against multiple editors). --Justanother 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've blocked him for one week to prevent further warring; several previous blocks and multiple warnings led me to extend the block to the week long duration. Welcome review for this action. Kuru talk 00:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Hardouin reported by User:ThePromenader (Result: no violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Economy of Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hardouin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 2007-07-21T00:14:21
- 1st revert: 2007-09-02 01:38:26
- 2nd revert: 2007-09-02 15:14:02 - Using account User:Keizuko to revert ad litteram to User:Hardouin's 1st revert
- 3rd revert: 2007-09-02 17:58:26
- 4th revert: 2007-09-02 21:51:39
- Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
- Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-09-02 13:20:47 - Warning on article talk page after second revert.
- Comment - A multi-repeat offender, User:Hardouin is this time using either another account or person to out-revert to "his version" - note that recent member User:Keizuko arrived the same day to the same page where the edit-warring was happening, only to revert to User:Hardouin's version to the letter. May I also note that User:Hardouin has ignored all evident fact, reference and factual discussion in his reverts to only make personal attacks - after reverting yet again. THEPROMENADER 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note - I opened a request for mediation after User:Hardouin's first revert - here. THEPROMENADER 22:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm confused, "recent member" User:Keizuko has been editing for almost a year, including several edits to that same article. Unless you can be a little more specific in your accusation, I'm not seeing a specific 3rr here. Kuru talk 02:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Odd, isn't it? That same user has made a few minor edits to the article, even including edits that counter User:Hardouin's trademark agenda. Yet what are the chances of a contributor making a to-the-letter revert - to another contributor's version - only hours after that other contributor began reverting to a former version, and this after weeks of inactivity? This was a result of either order or instruction - Meatpuppetry is akin to sockpuppetry in Wikipedia's books, and even then, it's a disruptive "gaming of the system" to the extreme. THEPROMENADER 06:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm confused, "recent member" User:Keizuko has been editing for almost a year, including several edits to that same article. Unless you can be a little more specific in your accusation, I'm not seeing a specific 3rr here. Kuru talk 02:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:76.116.99.168 reported by User:Metros (Result: Note to user)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Talk:Vanessa Anne Hudgens ( | article | history | links | watch | logs). 76.116.99.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 16:54 02 September 2007
- 1st revert: 17:59 02 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 22:36 02 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 23:14 02 September 2007
- 4th revert: 23:17 02 September 2007
- Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
- Diff of 3RR warning: 23:16 02 September 2007
- Comment This might fall under the coverage of WP:BLP reverts on the part of myself and User:Malevious who have reverted this IP user now 2 and 3 times respectively. The only source for this rumor of her nude photos is the National Enquirer which is not even close to a reliable source in my opinion. Metros 23:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. This was very strange: an edit war on the article's talk page... I left the IP user another note to let them know how to proceed without violating either WP:BLP or WP:3RR. If this continues though, a block should be applied. Sancho 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:210.56.80.46 reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Morocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 210.56.80.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [23]
- Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
- Diff of 3RR warning: [28]
- Warned at 23:30. Reverted for the fourth time at 23:34. Seems pretty clear cut; 24 hours. Daniel 07:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:`Abd al-Ghafur reported by User:nadav1 (Result:Blocked 1 week )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Omar Bakri Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). `Abd al-Ghafur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 10:53, 1 September 2007
- Perhaps hasn't violated the letter of 3rr this time, but account continues to be used for reverts only without any explanations. Has been blocked twice but still refuses to discuss edits. No other contributions. nadav (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Justanother reported by User:Anynobody (Result: No action, warned)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Dianazene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Justanother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I happened to notice Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:RookZERO reported by User:Justanother (Result: 1 week) earlier when I was warning another editor with this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#WilliamSpencer (talk • contribs • logs) reported by Anynobody (Result: No action). Since I've had experiences with this editor before and had commented on a dispute regarding WP:RS on the WP:RSN he is involved in with on another article I was curious to see if his following of the 3RR was a studious for himself as it was for RookZERO. It was not,
Added:29 Aug 03:28,
Rem:Revision as of 13:06, 29 August 2007 Revert #1
Added:Revision as of 17:14, 29 August 2007
Rem:Revision as of 17:17, 29 August 2007 Revert #2
Added:Revision as of 20:35, 29 August 2007
Rem:Revision as of 20:43, 29 August 2007 Revert #3, removed source he had also removed with prior revert of entire paragraph.
Same diff:Added:Revision as of 20:30, 29 August 2007
Rem:Revision as of 20:34, 29 August 2007 Revert #4 entire paragraph again.
Anynobody 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most certainly no action. Blocking now, five days after the event, would be a text-book definition of "punitive, not preventative" (WP:BLOCK). Daniel 08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Who says he needs to be blocked, I was thinking of a warning. Anynobody 08:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll leave him a note. However, this page is for requesting administrator intervention (ie. blocks) for 3RR. Anyone can leave someone else a friendly note :) Daniel 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You'd think so, but I'm actually not supposed to. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop. Anynobody 08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(PS It's a funny coincidence you happened to be the one responding to this though.) Anynobody 08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was aware of the existance of this, however the case hasn't closed and no temporary injunctions had been placed on you, so you are/were free to communicate with Justanother until such a time as the case closes. I don't understand how it's a 'coincidence' - I try to answer as many reports as possible on this page, as seen from the handful above in the last hour or so. Daniel 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply anything sinister by funny coincidence, it's just funny that you were being discussed indirectly and here you are. As for warning him myself, I'm not sure what they are defining as harassment, better to keep at a distance for a little while. (Don't get me wrong, I'd of rather done this myself but at least this way there's proof I wasn't seeing something that wasn't there. Plus I figure it's safer to assume the worst and act like it'll pass.) Anynobody 08:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Good friend100 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result: Indefinitely Blocked)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 21:18, September 2, 2007
- 1st revert: 22:12, September 2, 2007
- 2nd revert: 02:31, September 3, 2007
- 3rd revert: 04:04, September 3, 2007
- 4th revert: 15:03, September 3, 2007
- Fresh off his summer vacation, he is back and violating 3RR on the same article he was blocked six times in a month's time for violating 3RR on just before the vacation (up to a week at a time)...
- I'm not fresh off my summer vacation, I wasn't thinking about wikipedia until now. And you word your parting comment to the admins as if I've been doing this my whole time on Wikipedia. I'm not "back again" to simply edit war, and if you think that because I'm opposing you, your wrong.
- Please stop wikistalking me. I asked you before and I ask you again. You watch every move I make and edit them or simply revert them. Now your following my edit history and the moment I breach 3RR, you immediately report me. Good friend100 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Its wikistalking because whenever I make an edit, you change it or revert it. And I'm not simply talking about Liancourt Rocks. I feel that it is wikistalking because its certainly distressing that I can't do anything here unless you like it. And considering my request to you (which you seemed to have ignored), its clear to me that your motives are simply to follow me around. Good friend100 15:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- This was the seventh block for 3rr violations. Enough is enough. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:129.120.244.214 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 48 hours )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Hulk (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --129.120.244.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Tenebrae 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 06:41, 3 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 13:02 16:44, 3 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 18:01, 3 September 2007
- 4th revert: 13:59 18:06, 3 September 2007
- 5th revert: 18:15, 3 September 2007
- 6th revert:18:16, 3 September 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 18:12, 3 September 2007
Comment: 69.181.174.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a [29] identical to that of the other user reported, and it's the user's first edit. IP switching to get around an impending 3RR block? Gscshoyru 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: At Talk:Hulk User:69.181.174.116 has at least claimed not to be a sock puppet. Worth at least taking into account. --mordicai. 20:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't considered the 3RR. I blocked the ip for vandalising AN3. Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Lee5435 reported by User:Sephiroth BCR (Result: No Violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on
List of major Konoha teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lee5435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: [30]
- 2nd revert: [31], [32] (consecutive)
- 3rd revert: [33], [34] (consecutive)
- 4th revert: [35]
- 5th revert: [36]
- 6th revert: [37]
- 7th revert: [38]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [39]
- Comment - attempting to add images into the List of major Konoha teams article after the images were removed due to a fair-use violation. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Its not a 3RR violation to add different images over a series of edits although mildly disruptive. A quick look over their recent edits suggest that we have a new user lacking in clue here rather then someone deliberately flouting the 3rr. Nothing to do here from an admin perspective but feel free to apply the cluebat as and where required. Spartaz Humbug! 06:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- My bad. I meant to remove this report after I conversed with the user in question, and he expressed ignorance at what he was violating, but I forgot to. Thanks in any case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Denaar reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:no action 31 hours )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Visual kei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Denaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 19:52, September 3, 2007
- 1st revert: 22:31, September 3, 2007
- 2nd revert: 00:34, September 4, 2007
- 3rd revert: 00:53, September 4, 2007
- 4th revert: 01:02, September 4, 2007
- The 3RR offender has been around since March 2006 and has also previously made accusations of 3RR "pushing", so no warning was issued, as an awareness of the rule seems obvious.
Cyrus was 3RRing the same article using his sock-puppet - this is a content debate and I have clearly shown the resources which they seek to remove. Actually, I've never been warned about 3RR before (check my talk page). Denaar 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- As I am the only other editor present on the page, I do believe I am the so-called "sock puppet". I think I've made it clear though that I am indeed, only myself, and in general, not influenced by Cyrus, I merely agree with him on keeping strict policies to this issue. If what I'm doing is against any policy, I will gladly accept any consequences. I do, however, try my hardest to strictly abide by all policies. --Jacob 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do you even know, what sock-puppetry is? Because sock puppets usually don't sport far more elaborate user pages than the primary account. Oh wait, maybe I'm the sock-puppet? That is, with four times the edit count of the then main account. Not to mention patently schizophrenic arguments between those accounts on other people's talk pages. - Cyrus XIII 00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- As for breaking 3RR - I didn't. I did not revert the page but did a new edit to satisfy the questions raised about the "word phrasing". The main concern was not the content, but my phrasing of that content, therefore, I changed the phraseing to something you would accept.
- The message posted on my talk page was cleary written by Cyrus - it was in his style (little bulleted numbers), using his syntax (not that of a 15 year old boy). Look at the Skin (band) talk page, their comments (telling a newbie to get off wikipedia) are the same.
- I addressed the content issues on the talk page, and you refused to talk - this is the second time you have sent Jacob to "leave me messages" on my talk page. I have jumped through every hoop you have set so far - but I wonder why I have to jump through "your" hoops instead of just Wikipedia's guidelines. I provided resources - over 13. However, I did not add a single resource this time, and instead used the resources that you validated as acceptable to fufil your most recent request "what does visual kei sound like". I was moved to come back after sourcing two bands - one that said they were "lumped in with visual kei only because they way they looked" and another that was described as "not sounding like typical visual kei." If bands don't sound like visual kei, then obviously visual kei has a sound. I went looking in your own articles - and it says right in them what it sounds like. Denaar 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Denaar 01:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- So my individual identity is being questioned, because
- I use numbers
- I write articulately
- I happen to work in the same field as Cyrus
- Is that correct? I insist that you look at the past edits in the field of Dir en grey, where Cyrus and I had disagreement, before I took a day to sit down and read all the Wikipedia policies that pertain to that sort of material. Please, if you feel threatened, do not drag me down with you. I'm sure Wikipedia knows my IP address, showing that I and Cyrus are indeed two different people. --Jacob 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- So my individual identity is being questioned, because
- I am showing that you two have a pattern of working together to do reverts without talking about them. And yes, I don't believe for a minute the message left on my talk page was written by you - it has Cyrus's syntax all over it. Neither of you have addressed any concerns I have brought up about this content issue - and I've met both of your "demands". Denaar 01:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, given your strong beliefs in that respect, your should probably head over to WP:SSP, file a report and in the meantime leave it to an administrator to review this 3RR violation. - Cyrus XIII 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Denaar made a 5th revert (17:50, September 4, 2007), still within the previous 24h frame. - Cyrus XIII 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Wait, that is very clearly not a revert - I just adjusted the syntax of article again, but have not added "Genre" back into the article - I took that to the talk page. It was a copy edit to clean up language, nothing more, after your 3rd revert in 24 hours [42] [43] [44]. Actually I came to go ask Krakatoa if this type of edit was ok - since it isn't regarding the original content we were discussing. :) I still think the term "visuals-conscious phenomena" isn't clear language - "Phenomena is an observed event or, quite literally, something that is seen." To me it does not clearly explain anything at all, and you can re-write the wording to something more clear as I stated in my edit summary. Denaar 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- And another one (18:59, September 4, 2007), dubbed "copy edit" in the edit summary, even though it contains a fair amount of statement altering rephrasing. - Cyrus XIII 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Arawiki reported by User:MezzoMezzo (Result: user warned)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Salafism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arawiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 09:23, 2 September 2007
- 1st revert: 15:33, 3 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 17:14, 3 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 21:41, 3 September 2007
- 4th revert: 11:25, 4 September 2007
Seems like a fairly simple issue to me. The guy's been around since last November and seems to know the site policies at least somewhat; I have repeatedly asked this user to go to the talk page in my edit summaries and the results of that may be seen here. He has displayed much of the same behavior on the article for Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz, to the point where another editor on the talk page thought he was a sock for an earlier individual known for trolling that specific page. I also highly suspect that User:Arawiki is using 87.101.244.8 (talk) as a sock, as they both have been doing the exact same reverts of my edits on several articles; a checkuser may be in order. Any help that may be lent in this situation would be much appreciated, please advise. MezzoMezzo 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- In addition to the straightforward violation shown above, Arawiki, counting his IP, has also broken 3RR on Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz.Proabivouac 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Arawiki has violated the 3RR on Salafism and Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz, but I don't see any evidence that he's been warned about the 3RR. Since he appears to be a new user (it's quite possible he's used the IP, but he seems new in that incarnation as well), I'm going to warn him rather than block him. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:172.177.248.14 reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 24hrs )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Translation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.177.248.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 17:34, 3 September 2007
- 1st revert: 17:39, 3 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 17:52, 3 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 17:56, 3 September 2007
- 4th revert: 18:18, 3 September 2007
- 5th revert: 01:23, 4 September 2007
- 6th revert: 02:25, 4 September 2007
- 7th revert: 06:42, 4 September 2007
- 8th revert: 14:09, 4 September 2007
- Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
- Diff of 3RR warning: 03:28, 4 September 2007
Anon user has been engaging in an edit war since approximately mid August, adding content that is disputed by many other editors. The content being added by anon is poorly written, contains linkspam and contains copyrighted content. Anon refuses to discuss in a civil manner on the talk page, saying the other editors are "antagonists", accusing them of "vandalizing" and being "rogues", and comments like "Things were being over-dumbed down, this was childish." Dreadstar † 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Update: Anon continues his revert war: 15:59, 4 September 2007. Asking for "reverse burden of proof" on his contested edits. Dreadstar † 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Many reverts, but this one continues the thread I outlined above: 15:58, 4 September 2007 Dreadstar † 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- 18:01, 4 September 2007.
The same user apparently hops IP addresses periodically, this is the same content being posted in the same manner:
A range of IP address may need to be blocked: Here are earlier IP addresses used for the same purpose:
- 172.174.104.67
- 172.176.208.17
- 172.158.48.148
Apparently, this editor was blocked or banned from the German Wikipedia for similar behavior: [45].
Dreadstar † 08:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Anon continues today:
If there is a problem with this report, please let me know. Dreadstar † 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Voyevoda reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Kiev Expedition (1018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Voyevoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 15:14, September 4, 2007
- 1st revert: 15:21, September 4, 2007
- 2nd revert: 16:17, September 4, 2007
- 3rd revert: 16:23, September 4, 2007
- 4th revert: 16:38, September 4, 2007
- 5th revert: 16:49, September 4, 2007
- 6th revert: 16:56, September 4, 2007
That editor keeps reverting other editors copyediting changes to insert a claim of dubious reliability; in his 4th revert for reasons unknown he restores an incorrect interlink (both issues were explained on talk, but Voyevoda has yet to post there). Such revert warring is hardly constructive, and is destabilizing the article under GAC review.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good that I caught this at my watch list. No opinion about reverts, would need to check, but the claim about "dubious" info is bogus. The editor attempts to insert the well-referenced fact that some happen to not know or not like and insist on removal. --Irpen 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Now started checking. The "first" so called "revert" is an edit, not a revert at all. Will be back with more. --Irpen 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- The first edit is a revert (15:21, September 4, 2007) restoring disputed fragments "The wide-scale pillaging of the Polish troops caused a massive uprising among Kievan citizens...However, he managed to kidnap the Kievan treasury... As Gallus has it, the war started when Boleslaus was refused Predslava's hand, but this testimony is not given credit by most historians." introduced in the 15:14, September 4, 2007 edit by that user and removed by Olessi's. And yes, we are not discussing doubious sources here, but simply dealing with a case of 3RR (or rather 6RR).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So called "second and third" are indeed reverts. The fourth one is not a revert in any way. Click on the diff for itself. The editor merely formatted the ref. Gimme a sec to check the rest. --Irpen 21:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- In the forth one the editor restored an erroneus link (discussed on talk) for unknown reason. Restoring information is a revert.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- More, the so called "fifth revert": the editor re-references the facts from the source the other side objects to to another source.
- The info was still removed by his opponent who was clearly revert warring just to remove the info based on any possible pretense. Last time the info was removed because of the opponent's "not liking the source". This time because Voevoda failed to give a page number. So, in so called "sixth revert" Voevoda merely add the page number to the book. It is dishonest to call this a revert.
- A side note, Piotrus, I understand that having your opponent blocked to "win" the content dispute is tempting. Besides, it is not new. But at least present "reports" non-misleadingly. Preferably use times in GMT, that's one. Two: do not list mere edits, like your so called "revert 1" and, especially, "revert 4". Finally, even if you go by your local time zone, the so called "*4th revert: 16:38, September 4, 2007" is a bogus listing. The editor did not make any edits at XX:38 on any occasion. --Irpen 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Rereferencing the facts with a different source, while restoring them at the same time is a revert. Whatever the reasons for removal of his additions were, him restoring it 5-6 times is an obvious violation of 3rr, and it doesn't matter if the restorations change a few words, use a different ref or add a page number.
- And Irpen, I find your accusations that I want to block dispute opponents laughable. Who else is to see a 3rr violation if not one of the editors involved in editing the page? The point is that editors must learn that 3rr violations are a 'no-no', or otherwise we would all be revert warring with no end in sigh.
- PS. I still find it particulary inconstructive that Voyevoda has not used talk of the article to argue for his edits; that he simply reverts others (and their copyediting) is a sign of a quite disruptive user, uniterested in any sort of cooperation or consensus.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for twenty-four hours, per evidence in history (and here, I suppose). -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Ankush135 reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Romila Thapar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ankush135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 09:08, 4 September 2007
- 1st revert: 09:49, 4 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 11:37, 4 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 11:44, 4 September 2007
- 4th revert: 17:06, 4 September 2007
- 5th revert: 17:45, 4 September 2007
- 6th revert: 01:36, 5 September 2007
This is a particularly lame revert war which concerns the presence of a "POV" tag. In some of these edits Ankush135 is reverting an IP sock of a banned user, which may be a mitigating factor. Ankush is aware of the 3RR [46], [47]. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Francis Tyers reported by User:Andranikpasha (Result:No apparent violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Khojaly Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
- 1st revert: 10:01, September 4, 2007
- 2nd revert: 17:08, September 4, 2007
- 3rd revert: 09:10, September 5, 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: 17:35, September 4, 2007 Andranikpasha 09:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Aren't you jumping the gun a bit mate? - Francis Tyers · 09:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- note: moved to bottom of the page per request at top by myself. - Francis Tyers · 09:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- further notes:
- I haven't broken the 3RR
- My editing has not been disruptive, and
- My edits have been explained on the talk page and are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- - Francis Tyers · 09:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I protected the article. Try to solve the problem on the talk page. bogdan 10:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Is is not better to protect it in the variant before a large number of reversions in content disputes? Especially if only the part of reverts (related to the links) is explained in the talk page! Andranikpasha 10:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually everything is explained on talk. You should provide reliable sources to support your claims. And I don't see any violation of 3RR here. Grandmaster 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- A 3RR usually needs four reverts. -- Avi 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:PalestineRemembered reported by User:Jaakobou (Result:No apparent violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Battle of Jenin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: 09:43, 4 September 2007
- 2nd revert: 18:36, 4 September 2007
- 3rd revert: 19:44, 4 September 2007
- 4th revert: 08:50, 5 September 2007
- Diff of 3RR warning: user has been warned before and even blocked for 3RR on same article.[48]
PalestineRemembered ignored the related talk subsections repeatedly and in general is complicit in longstanding soapbox behavior. with this instance, he's ignored the related talk and broke 3RR to continually reinsert a "this article is totally disputed" tag (and some unrelated article and/or weasel terms). p.s this article is experiancing a large portion of improper behavior and i invite anyone to give it a serious look. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- There are three editors who think the article has gross, systemic POV-issues, and three who do not. A disputed" tag is obviously appropriate. The "weasel phrase" Jaakobou is referring to is "prima facie". Human rights organizations found "no evidence of massacre in Jenin but strong prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimes." These are their words. Jaakobou likes the first finding but dislikes the second, so he's cropping the material accordingly and edit-warring to maintain the whitewash. PR's edit here is wholly uncontroversial.--G-Dett 12:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Uncontroversial or not, he still broke the rules and knows better. 3rr is easy to avoid and he failed, again, to withdraw from a heated situation as he should have. Kyaa the Catlord 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
While both PR and Jaakobou should be given timeouts and sent to opposite corners of the sandbox, based on their long-term bickering that has spread to their talk pages, my talk page, WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:CSN, and WP:Kitchen Sink, there does not seem to be a 3RR violation here. The first edit listed is the 09:43, 4 September 2007 one. Where is the "prior version reverted to" edit? It happens that there is one ID155267214 15:38, September 2, 2007. So, let us agree that ID 155596585 is a revert. However, ID155676259 does not revert to add the tag, it is a removal of content. Therefore, there are only three reverts here.
Now, I believe while I may believe that both PR and Jaakabou have some serious issues when it comes to editing without rancor, without POV, and without attacks, there is no direct violation of 3RR. And while "gaming" the system often results in protective measures being taken even without direct violations, this is less "gaming" and more a result of the ongoinf issues that PR and others have with certain topics. Dispute resolution is the route that needs to be taken here. -- Avi 18:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Caomhan27 reported by User:Mucky Duck (Result: 24h)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Atlantic Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Camonham27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: 11:38 Sept 5 2007
- 2nd revert: 12:10 Sept 5 2007
- 3rd revert: 12:19 Sept 5 2007
- 4th revert: 12:39 Sept 5 2007
- 5th revert: 13:04 Sept 5 2007
- 6th revert: 13:29 Sept 5 2007
Caomhan27 persists in deleting fully sourced and referenced information about more common uses of the term. He has ignored the 3RR warning and has deleted all such warnings from his talk page. Mucky Duck 12:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: The reverts also include removing a request for citation; and removing my insertion of the word "some" to tone down a PoV statement, without backing with a reference. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User: Adalme reported by User:BigDunc (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on
ETA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adalme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- 1st revert: [49]
- 2nd revert: [50]
- 3rd revert: [51]
- 4th revert: [52]
- 5th revert: [53]
- Necessary for newer users:
A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
User:Clydey reported by User:Lawrence Cohen (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Andy Murray (tennis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Clydey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: • Lawrence Cohen 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
See here for many more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Clydey&namespace=0&year=&month=-1
- Necessary for newer users:
A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. Both users aware/warned/acknowledged on article talk page, not new users.
User:JimmyMac82 reported by User:Lawrence Cohen (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Andy Murray (tennis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JimmyMac82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: • Lawrence Cohen 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
See here for many more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=JimmyMac82&namespace=0&year=&month=-1
- Necessary for newer users:
A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. Both users aware/warned/acknowledged on article talk page, not new users.
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] <!--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.--> *1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. *Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] <!-- copy from _above_ this line -->