Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 476: Line 476:




===[[User:ErleGrey]] reported by [[User:DavyJonesLocker]] (Result:)===
===[[User:ErleGrey]] reported by [[User:DavyJonesLocker]] (Result:No block)===


[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
Line 489: Line 489:
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beatles&oldid=107389637 20:39, 11 February 2007]
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beatles&oldid=107389637 20:39, 11 February 2007]
;Comments: <!-- Optional --> Just seems to be for the sake of argument.
;Comments: <!-- Optional --> Just seems to be for the sake of argument.
:Seems to have been a reasonable course of action. Stopped after he was warned. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|Woohoo!]]</sup> 07:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


===[[User:Michaelbusch]] reported by [[User:Malamockq]] (Result: move prot)===
===[[User:Michaelbusch]] reported by [[User:Malamockq]] (Result: move prot)===

Revision as of 07:37, 13 February 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    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 {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report



    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:Someguy0830 reported by User:MsHyde (Result:warned)

    Three-revert rule violation on Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Someguy0830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    Result: User warned. Cbrown1023 talk 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MsHyde reported by User:Someguy0830 (Result:Warned)

    Three-revert rule violation on Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MsHyde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comment: Please note that Someguy0830 was reverting dispute tags, and insulted me in edit summary. (Also, there was an AN/I report, and he continued to revert the dispute tags during the AN/I discussion. Also, he followed me around the the OR noticeboard and the science help desk, arguing, but then claimed he reverted the dispute tags because there was no dispute.)-MsHyde 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not arguing with you here. We're both guilty. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Please also note that in the diffs he has provided, the first two are the placement of a policy noncompliant tag. Then I sought outside opinions, and placed different tags-- dispute tags. I stopped at 3 replacements of the tags, and made a report to AN/I and then here. the article now has no dispute tags, and I have left it that way, to avoid violating 3RR, although there is a dispute. Other editors should be able to see the tags, and participate. This cannot happen if Someguy continually removes them. Also, he appears to be an established editor. I am a very new editor, and I do not think he thought I knew how to report him. I also believe he was trying to bully me, because of the insults. I think it would be better for the article if I am able to replace the dispute tags as soon as possible, and get discussion going with other editors while Someguy is unable to stymie discussion.-MsHyde 10:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: User warned. Cbrown1023 talk 18:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hipocrite reported by User:Codex Sinaiticus (Result:Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mengistu Haile Mariam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [09:30, 9 February 2007 09:30, 9 February 2007]


    Comments
    Four reverts in the space of 90 min., even after warning, repeatedly removing well-referenced charges against Mengistu that came up at his trial. Possible sock of same person who tries to do this periodically (Jacob Peters)?. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see one edit and three reverts. Can you explain how the first version you have produced is a revert? — Nearly Headless Nick 14:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Just look through the article history. The same statement has been repeatedly blanked by many other socks in recent weeks. I don't know when it was first added or by whom, but it has gone back and forth for quite some time. I added the most recent version that does NOT contain the statement as the "previous version" although there may be other differences aside from the presence of absence of that statement, it is still a revert. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP requires the removal of poorly sourced biographical information without attention to [[WP:3rr]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Without attention to 3RR". Yeah, that's what they all say. Your personal assessment of the source is disputed, so it's a content dispute. The source refers to numerous other sources, so it is well sourced. It is even in the genocide trial documents. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect! Provide them as a source and we can reinsert the information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessary. This is a WELL-SOURCED website that apparently you personally have blacklisted because of your own personal political leanings. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have not. I suggest you find better sources for your assertions of fact. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't sharing by what criterion you have determined this website to be unreliable in your own personal assessment. What is your litmus test? Do they have to be approved by the Kremlin to be called reliable? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to discuss this with you at the talk page of the article, where I have laid out why the source in question fails WP:RS. In short, Editorial oversight, Replicability, Corroboration, and Recognition by other reliable sources are lacking. You said there were other sources. Let's use them.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have protected the page. Please resolve your disputes amicably. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Smeelgova reported by User:Justanother (Result:No violation)

    Three-revert rule violation on Cult apologist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    I gave him a nice warning last night here on his behavior on Keith Henson and he self-reverted here but now he is back to his pattern of "blind reverts"; repeatedly reverting another's good faith edits without discussion. --Justanother 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The real problem is BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been warned before, and keeps deleting segments without discussing it first and wait for some agreement between the parties. I'm not sure if he is at his 3th or 4th revert. --Tilman 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While we may have disagreements over where the article should go and while we may not agree on edits, disruptive behavior needs to be strongly discouraged, and Smee needs to understand that objections to his actions of repeatedly reverting without evaluating are not based on POV but on the extremely disruptive nature of such bahavior. --Justanother 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had honestly waited what I thought was enough time, but perhaps it was not. I will self revert. My apologies. SELF REVERT DIFF HERE. Yours, Smee 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    The self-revert was un-needed as the article had already been reverted and is, in fact, just another example of reverting without evaluating. Rather than watch the clock to see when you can revert again, I suggest that you evaluate another's edits and discuss and make those specific changes you feel are appropriate. Stop "blindly" reverting everything! Please. --Justanother 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretations of my actions are incorrect. The SELF REVERT is a show of good faith, whether or not it is necessary in and of itself. And I was not "blindly" reverting anything. I was responding to what I and multiple other editors have interpreted as vandalism and inappropriate behaviour and personal attacks by BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In any event, I will allow time for other editors to enter the fray, and I will cease any reverting for a while. Certainly if you had warned me again, I would have SELF REVERTED, again - and will continue to respond with good faith in this manner from other editors' good faith warnings. In fact, prior to this chain-of-events User:Jossi and I both showed good faith, and each reverted our own edits on an unrelated page, Lord of the Universe (documentary), even though it was not necessarily needed for both of us to go back in the edit history. Here is my DIFF, and Jossi's. Smee 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    I did warn you. Once. The point is that the system you are using is disruptive. I would describe that system as "blindly reverting without evaluating". The fact that you had to back-pedal after repeatedly reverting my valid edits on Henson shows me that there is an issue that you should address. Reporting it is my way of showing you that it is not my POV talking here. And to expect other editors to keep track of your reverts for you and warn you each time you overdo it so you can then "self-revert" is patently ridiculous. --Justanother 21:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The real problem is indeed BabyDweezil:
    • Lengthy prior discussions on ANI.
    • Ensuing block.
    • His attitude in response (see "24 hour virus").
    • After the block another warning issued within about 24 hours.
    • Another warning.
    Smeelgova has merely been struggling to counteract destructive edits made by BabyDweezil. If he lost track of of whether 24 hours had passed or not, then he should at most be warned. His self-revert shows good faith. Neither should he considered to be the edit warrior in the case. In the the opinion of Bishonen (sorry, I can't find the diff right now) it was BabyDweezil who was the primary edit warrior in the dispute that led to his block, and BabyDweezil has resumed his exact same behaviors after the block expired. Tanaats 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    I went through the diffs. There is no violation. What's listed as the first revert and the 4th revert are not reverts. And Smeelgova has clearly shown an effort to make peace. So. No block. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Well, all due respect but apparently you missed that I, in my inexperience at posting 3RR complaints, made a simple error. On the first revert, I failed to show how Smee reverted four of BD edits all in one swell foop. In the 4th Smee reverted BD and an anon at the same time. Don't know why you would say "What's listed as the first revert and the 4th revert are not reverts.|" So I guess next time I will show the reverts as I do below. Anyway, it was a righteous call on my part of five (5) reverts and to let Smee off without even a warning is bad mojo, IMO, because he did not give BD any room to settle down after coming off his block but instead went at his edits aggressively, IMO, in Cult apologist and Keith Henson (where he smashed up my valid edits in the process . . . repeatedly). I feel that his actions were disruptive and he needs to know that that feeling is not what he might perceive as a function of my POV. BD is a perceptive editor and I am sure that he will make necessary adjustments. I would like to see Smee do likewise. For now, Smee, by his own admission, thinks that he can revert away and that other editors should let him know when he has violated 3RR so he can self-revert and all will be well. That is all I have to say on the subject. Please see the diff below to validate my call. Thanks.
    --Justanother 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also 2007-02-09T22:31:19 Bishonen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "BabyDweezil (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Aggravated 3RR on Cult apologist: 7 reverts in 17 hours, multiply warned, simultaneouly edit warring and 3RR gaming on Keith Henson, just back from edit war block, just back from previous edit war block.) William M. Connolley 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Yes, BD got in trouble but still Smee was over-aggressive, IMO, and clearly violated 3RR (not opinion, fact). Please see my comments above. --Justanother 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not going to block him. He is showing good faith by reverting himself, apologizing and not getting involved in the edit war which has spilled over to this page. Blocks are supposed to be instructive, not punitive. There is nothing to teach someone who has obviously learned that what he did was counter productive and wrong. I mean, he's the first person I've ever seen to revert himself and apologize and back away from an article when he knew he was getting too upset about it. Honestly, I wish more users would do that, including everyone who has posted here. What I really dislike is you, Tanaats and BabyDweezil continuing the edit war on this page, which is strictly not ok (just look at the very top of this page). So. Take this to the talk page of the article and work with Smeelgova and others to get this worked out. Even though he wasn't blocked, Smeelgova seems to have imposed a 24 hour block on himself from the cult apologist article. So take this opportunity to work with him. And please, please stop the edit warring here. This page is not meant for discussions such as this. Take it to the talk page. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am not out bounds to not block Smeelgova here because he self-reverted and apologized. Just look here. It's right up above. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, hopefully he will not land here again and, if he does not, then the purpose has been served, I guess. Re the "edit warring" spilling over here; I would be really happy to see someone delete the lot of it and just leave the bits relevant to the 3RR case.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justanother (talk • contribs).

    Whohookitty, I see that you are right. This is the place to discuss 3RR issues. Spilling irrelevant disputes over to this page was completely inappropriate. I apologize. I too have unwatched the Henson page. I have also implemented your suggestion and have deleted the inappropriate material. Tanaats 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That was my suggestion, Tanaats, not Woohoo's. Sorry, I forgot to sign it. So thanks. --Justanother 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nirelan2 reported by User:Betsythedevine (Result:Indef block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Dave_Winer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nirelan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    Nirelan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is just the third and latest sockpuppet for Nirelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is already banned for 3RR violations. For other (so far in vain) efforts to end his disruption of this article, see my RfC and User:Random832's report. But is there any way to stop him from ignoring blocks and creating more sockpuppets? betsythedevine 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ryulong blocked the sockpuppet. To answer your question, no there isn't a whole lot we can do to stop him outside of trying to determine when a new sockpuppet has been created. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BMT reported by User:TheEditor (Result:Warned)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ben Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BMT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    The rule is BEYOND three reverts in a 24 hour period. And please try to follow the suggested format if possible. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FOUR REVERTS IN 24 HOURS. Revert 5 and 6 are complete rewrites of the section, removing the NPOV. I take the view that if there are two sourced non-trivial points of view then both warrant being expressed. I would also like to point out that user BMT has referenced very unprofessional websites - usualy ones that have a vested interest in displaying Ben Thompson as some sort of hero. I have provided news paper articles explaining why the character is not so well know. This article was very recently created, by BMT (aka Ben Thompson), which supports my arguement.

    Comment: User BMT's real name is Ben Thompson. The article in question is called Ben Thompson. Because my adition to the article portrays the character in a negative way, user BMT is continually removing it. I have sourced it with far more validity than much of the other information has been by BMT. I would like to maintain a NPOV in the article.--84.9.66.118 14:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: User warned. Cbrown1023 talk 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:210.213.229.36 and other IPs ("David Tombe") reported by User:Henning Makholm (Result: 8h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Centrifugal force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 210.213.229.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    IP-hopping anon with a rather unorthodox take on dynamics. Repeatedly rewrites article to assert that a centrifugal force "occurs radially outwards between any two objects that possess a mutual tangential velocity", which all other active editors of the article agree is nonsense (not to mention being OR and unsourced). Recent IPs include
    Not sure how much can be done about this due to the IP-hopping, except re-revert him until he loses interest, as some 7 different editors have been doing recently. On the other hand, we can't keep doing that or we'd get into 3RR problems ourselves. Henning Makholm 15:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update
    David Tombe has now declared that he will not continue to revert at Talk:Centrifugal force, but continues to edit war (on the same points) at Fictitious force:
    Henning Makholm 16:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-02-10T16:12:43 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "210.213.229.36 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 hours (3rr on Centrifugal force) - does that help? William M. Connolley 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Last seen editing from a different IP less than an hour after being blocked, but seems to behave himself in articlespace now. Not sure how amused I am by the block-dodging, but I shan't press charges now that the edit warring has stopped. Thanks for helping. Henning Makholm 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He inserted his text yet again on Fictitious force. Could we have a day of semiprotection next time he does it? Blocking just makes him get a new IP. --PeR 19:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.101.183.42 reported by User:RJASE1 (Result:Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mammary intercourse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.101.183.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [2]
    Comments
    Page has already been protected based on an WP:RFPP request. Cbrown1023 talk 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheEditor20 reported by User:BMT (Result:Warned)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ben Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TheEditor20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    None of these are in the same 24 hour period. If you look, you will see. User BMT has not included the times for which these reverts took place.--TheEditor20 18:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: User warned. Cbrown1023 talk 18:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michaelsanders reported by User:RosePlantagenet (Result:Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Michaelsanders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    I have left a comment on the Adminstration Notice Board about this user, about some their past behavior. I have asked them to leave me alone and they continue to write on my talk page. Could someone help?
    That's only three edits; four are necessary for a violation. The purported "previous version" is identical to one of the edits. The three edits do not even fit within a 24-hour period. Are you sure you read the rule closely enough to be able to conclude that it's being violated here? Henning Makholm 20:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    She reported me because she disagreed with my removal of OR from an article she patronises, and because I asked her not to remove my comments from her talk page. Michaelsanders 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Lulurascal (Result:User warned, page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Folken de Fanel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    This user had been warned that they were exceeding three reverts in the edit summary ([[17]] and still continued to revert. This user claimed that the material was OR, but this was never a consensus (see Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows). This user was told that s/he broke wikipedian rules, and asked not to do it again. However, instead of taking this advice, this user decided to argue back, believing that s/he had not broken wikipedian rules. This user needs at least a warning that it is not ok to revert contributions from several wikipedian editors more than three times. --User:Lulurascal
    User:Lulurascal has actually started an edit war, by reverting 3 times without explanation, and without discussing the matter on the talk page even though he was invited to do so. His edits were actually established as OR, but he kept ignoring it and kept reverting to his OR edits. Before touching anything on the article, I thoroughly explained my position by quoting precise wikipedian rules, according to which his edits were OR. However, User:Lulurascal has never said a word on the talk page, and has never answered me, before reverting 3 times. And by his attitude there was no doubt he would have continued, had not another editor continued the edit war in his place.
    Besides, the article has already been protected more than 6 hours ago (which, interestingly, has forced User:Lulurascal to finally make comments on the talk page), and this late report is only a proof that User:Lulurascal is being vindictive, and that he is merely harassing me in order to avenge himself for being reverted by me.
    As I'm not as vindictive as he is, I don't ask anyone to warn him, however I don't want him to adress me anymore. Folken de Fanel 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made many contributions to the talk page about this issue. On my first edit, I was pointing User:Folken de Fanel to my contributions by saying in the edit summary "see discussion". I thought he might have missed my arguments on the subject. I believed my second edit after User:Folken de Fanel's revert to be fulfilling User:Folken de Fanel's complaints about sources. I took his/her comments into consideration, and decided to provide academic sources rather than well established sites. After my second edit, User:Folken de Fanel decided to revert without adding to the discussion. I decided to revert, and then left it at that. So, in all, I did two reverts, and I have never harrassed User:Folken de Fanel. Nevertheless, this user needs to be officially notified of the rules. He would not give me time to respond, before accusing me of not responding. He would not give me time to explain my reverts or my edits before reverting them. When another user reverted his reverts, and added to the discussion page about why, this user continued to revert. When another user warned User:Folken de Fanel that s/he was exceeding 3 reverts, User:Folken de Fanel continued to revert. After telling him that the proper thing to do would been to have placed a tag on the top of the page saying that the information was OR, s/he still believed he was justified in all of his/her reverts. Her/His assertion that the material was OR had never been a consensus, and there was an on going discussion about this matter, which I had contributed to before User:Folken de Fanel's edits.--User:Lulurascal
    You have made absolutely no contribs to the talk page until you reverted 3 times and the article was protected.
    I added to the discussion with each of my edits, both in the talk page and the edit summaries.
    I gave you plenty of time - you had 2 full hours between the moment you started reverting and when the article was protected. Yet you did not discuss anything until there was no technical possibility to revert any longer.
    You did 3 reverts, and you're harassing me.
    Stop lying, michealsanders, like you, NEVER contributed to the discussion and merely reverted, until the article was blocked and he also was forced to discuss.
    When I warned Lulurascal and Michaelsanders that they were violating the OR and RS rules, they ignored me and continued reverting.
    My assertions have been thoroughly proven, and Lulurascal was unable to contradict them. Folken de Fanel 11:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Viriditas reported by User:Arcayne (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Children of Men. Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [18]

    this is the version prior to the constant reverts.

    • Warning: This user was given warning twice regarding 3rr, but as the user is an editor, it can be assumed that he was well aware that he was violating the rule.

    Comments: All of he reverts by Viriditas have been to remove a few statements at the end of the plot synopsis of the article. He is an editor, and has been warned about violating 3RR. He has not responded to numerous efforts to leaven the situation or to cooperative efforts to find middle ground. When approached numerous times to defuse the situation on his talk page, he has chosen to simply blank the comments, add rude commentary, and proceed as if no effort was made. He has taken no steps whatsoever to avoid edit warring behavior.While another editor on the piece feels that the statement should remain, he has chosen to ignore this concensus and revert (essentially, it could also be deemed vandalism). A number of times before, he has skirted the edge of 3rr by terming his reversions minor edits. As this person is an editor, it sets a bad tone. Lastly, another editor called for the comments to remain while independent evaluations were perfromed. Viriditas disregarded this request to disengage and reverted the article yet again.Arcayne 04:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this is a violation. The first edit appears not to have been a revert, except in the sense that, because the edit removed something, there was probably a previous version somewhere along the line that didn't contain that material, but I can't see that Viriditas or anyone else had actually removed that material before. The links given as the first and second reverts, 11:43 and 11:55, are back-to-back and therefore both count as the first edit. After that we have just three reverts: 21:02, 23:04, and 00:25. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would submit that the first edit was in fact a revert, although Viriditas was cautious to avoid actually saying it was a revert. His edit summary: "Remove non-diegetic reference: "Titles, subtitles, and voice-over narration (with some exceptions) are...non-diegetic"; however, the text that he removed as "diegetic" was in fact the same material he removed in his other reversions. Grouping the first and second instance as one revert, I guess I can see - but from looking at the diff one can see the previous version on the left, and the Viriditas' reverted version on the right. As you explained that you could not see where he had removed this same material before, I should clarify that this has been going back and forth for days, with Viriditas mostly only reverting once or twice a day. An example of one of these prior reverts can be found here, here, here and finally here. You will note that these prior occurrences also constitute a 3RR violation ( and different from those cited in the complaint), Viriditas has carefully avoided using the word revert while systematically performing precisely that action. These examples indicate that he had reverted this same material on several prior occasions, and offered different edit summaries to conceal his pattern of reverting edits. That he violated 3RR this time means he simply wasn't counting his reverts, or expected them to go unnoticed.Arcayne 10:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (this report was previously submitted and was archived without result)
    No violation, so no block. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please recall that blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. Please do not bring ancient 3RR requests back to the board for another "kick at the can". Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.202.122.81 reported by User:Beetstra (Result:12 hours each)

    Three-revert rule violation on Diamond simulant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.202.122.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    etc. etc.

    - * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Comments

    He has a point in what he wants to change, but he is unilateral in his changes, and is adding incorrect information. The references use other numbers than what he wants to add, but he does not recognise the scale used in the patent. Author is also active on silicon carbide (moissanite) where a solution was found in an explanatory note (which keeps on being deleted by a.o. this user as well diff), and now on diamond simulant he is continuously pushing his POV and is not engaging in discussion. I file this 3RR quite late, should have added a 3RR earlier, but I reported the user first to AIV, which came back after 20 minutes that I had to report him somewhere else.

    12h both, as this is a content dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.56.185.191 reported by User:CJCurrie (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Conservative Party of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.56.185.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [19]
    Comments
    • Update: 74.56's version of the page has now been reverted by another contributor. Unless he breaks the 3RR again, no remedial action is necessary. CJCurrie 08:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thucydides411 reported by User:Merzbow (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Juan_Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    Technically not 4 reverts in 24 hours, but still a violation of WP:3RR because he is gaming the system. As you can see above, reverts 1-3 were made within 24 hours, the next just a few hours afterward. More evidence that he's being disruptive is that between 02-06 and 02-08 he first removed the text, then reverted it three more times (see article history here). He is clearly edit warring against consensus, since he has been reverted by three different editors, while he is the only one removing the text. He has shown a stubborn unwillingness to compromise (the text in question is criticism well-sourced to a professor), even after I improved the paragraph by adding more of Cole's response ([20]). - Merzbow 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment The text in question is subject to an ongoing mediation. While I disagree with Merzbow's alterations to it while mediation is in the works, it is true that Thucydides411 has repeated blanked cited content which offends his POV. I think there's a good case that he gaming the system on 3RR here, but even if he's given the benefit of the doubt on that point, I believe he deserves a block for WP:DE and/or WP:VANDAL. <<-armon->> 12:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      User was not intimated about the WP:3RR rule on Wikipedia. I have done the same now. In case he continues to revert-war, I invite another administrator to issue a block. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Notinsane reported by User:Goochelaar (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Geoffrey Giuliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Notinsane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    This user also has the habit of removing other editors' remarks in Talk:Geoffrey Giuliano.

    24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Emir Arven reported by User:Ivan Kricancic (Result:72h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Alija Izetbegović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Emir Arven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->

    Also see Srebrenica massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the user has reverted 3 times already, and will almost certainly revert again soon, since in the past two days, the user has blindly reverted no less than eight times.

    Blocked for 72 hours due to past history of 3RR and personal attacks. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    Also, please note the personal attacks, profanity and incivility of the user in the edit summaries. The user has been blocked repeatedly for personal attacks, and has been warned in the past few days about them, but he has not heeded the warnings. In my opinion, a block of about one week (or possibly more) is easily justified. This incivility has also been rampant in his talkpage edits of late. He has also been vandalizing my user page, and has reverted it 3 times now. —KingIvan 11:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:L0b0t reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 8h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Lynne Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). L0b0t (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->

    Version Reverted To: 02:57, 11 February 2007

    Comments

    Note that I also violated the three revert rule on this article - I self reverted my fourth revert however, and throw myself on the mercy of the administrator. All I ask is that my dispute with the reliability of a source be reflected on the page so that more eyes will see it. I have offered to remove this report if Lobot self reverts. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also violated 3rr on CounterPunch (newsletter), Evan Thomas, alleging that I am engaging in vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    COMMENT from User:L0b0t. This is a bad faith report from a partisan POV pusher who is upset that his vandalism gets reverted. User:Hipocrite keeps tagging external links that he does not like with dispute tags, Hipocrite will not engage in constructive discussion, rather he just makes declarative statements without offering any evidence about why the link is bad. He says "I looked at the website, and determined it was not a reliable source.", then he uses the guideline WP:RS to justify the tagging or removal of external links. Cheers. L0b0t 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The threat he makes against me above is cute "I have offered to remove this report if Lobot self reverts." L0b0t 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This pull quote from one of User:Hipocrite's noms at AfD says it all "Hipocrite's nomination is typical of what he's been doing. No effort involved on his part, just involves everone else in a lot of wasted effort dealing with his messes." Cheers. L0b0t 16:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 18:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:ErleGrey reported by User:DavyJonesLocker (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on The Beatles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ErleGrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    Just seems to be for the sake of argument.
    Seems to have been a reasonable course of action. Stopped after he was warned. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michaelbusch reported by User:Malamockq (Result: move prot)

    Three-revert rule violation on Impact winter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Michaelbusch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    Reverted move to Cosmic winter which is the most common name in the scientific community. Refused to allow it.
    I have explained on Talk:Impact winter that the term 'Impact winter' is by far more common. The last move was to revert a move by Malamockq after I had given the usage figures. Michaelbusch 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected the page against moves - please don't wheel-war over this. MB is reprimanded for breaking 3RR over this and is lucky to escape a block (from me at least) William M. Connolley 11:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pbarnes reported by User:vsmith (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Common descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pbarnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:Webucation reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Alex Jones (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Webucation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    I committed 4RR myself, but reverted it before anyone could comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.53.8.67 reported by User:Zrulli (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Fort_Whoop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.53.8.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [28]
    • 1st revert: [29]
    • 2nd revert: [30]
    • 3rd revert: [31]
    • 4th revert: [32]

    and the list goes on... --Zrulli 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PANONIAN reported by User:FunkyFly (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Pirot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PANONIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    • The last two reverts are made by the unregistered user: 212.200.172.224, who is from the same country as Pannonian and uses similar vocabulary to justify his reverts. He has started to troll around my contributions and has been warned to stop on his talkpage.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.158.208.83 reported by User:Xiner (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Dixie Chicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.158.208.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    2007-02-12T21:52:54

    Comments
    I believe that the page should be semi-protected for the edit warring, to which I'm of course a party, and for the excessive amount of vandalism in the past 24 hours.

    Sample violation report to copy

    ===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result:)===

[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]



<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
-->

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=107772681"