Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:59, 13 May 2007 view sourceSwatjester (talk | contribs)Administrators27,553 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:No violation)← Previous edit Revision as of 13:01, 13 May 2007 view source Arcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,324 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:Blocked, 24 hours): resolved: blocked. 24 hoursNext edit →
Line 490: Line 490:
*One week, because of clear violation, aggressive attitude, failure to go to the talk page, and because it's his third block for 3rr. ] 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC) *One week, because of clear violation, aggressive attitude, failure to go to the talk page, and because it's his third block for 3rr. ] 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result:)=== ===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)===
{{resolved}}

*] violation on *] violation on
{{Article|Chic (band)}}. {{3RRV|Pocat-chictribute.com}}: Time reported: 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC) {{Article|Chic (band)}}. {{3RRV|Pocat-chictribute.com}}: Time reported: 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 505: Line 505:


Repeated re-introduction of emphasis on a band name's supposed official typeset, after the article was recently moved to a less stylized variant per ]. No edit summaries, no talk page messages, even though the editor in question has been around for about a year. - ] 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Repeated re-introduction of emphasis on a band name's supposed official typeset, after the article was recently moved to a less stylized variant per ]. No edit summaries, no talk page messages, even though the editor in question has been around for about a year. - ] 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
:{{tick}} '''Blocked''' &mdash; {{3RRV|Pocat-chictribute.com}} ] for 24 hours for a violation of ] at ] ~ ] 13:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


=== Example === === Example ===

Revision as of 13:01, 13 May 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:Miskin reported by User:Arash the Archer (Result: No block)

    Last stand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Dharmender6767 also has been engaged in the edit war but he/she is a new user and has not been warned yet. (Arash the Archer 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

    I have placed some pointers in your talk page. Please get informed about how this project works, and how you can contribute successfully. In particular read WP:CONSENSUS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Reddi (Result: No block)

    Paraphysics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 10:41, 10 May 2007 (a redirect he put in without discussion and with a display of non-cooperation)


    User:71.29.238.115 reported by User:Veritas Noctis (Result: 48 hours)

    American Taekwondo Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.29.238.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    He's been reverting for a while, but here are the latest 5. I attempted to encourage discussion on the repeatedly deleted section (the criticisms section, which admittedly isn't perfect) but he has refused to participate and keeps deleting the section without explanation or consensus.

    User 71.29.238.115 attempted to delete warnings on his talk page (13:07, 10 May 2007).

    User:Ed g2s reported by User:Arcayne (Result:no block, removing violations of copyright policy)

    300 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ed g2s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    Duplicate reverts removing images, edit-warring 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:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    - * User was warned by two separate editors that they were approaching 3RR violations. Violater claimed that they were removing non fair-use images. From a look at the user's edit history, this is not a new issue with them. User is also edit-warring in the article's Discussion page. -Arcayne () 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Please don't edit war with an administrator who is trying to enforce our policy on non-free content. See also Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Musical Linguist 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    um, perhaps you might want to reconsider who is edit-warring with who. I was actually going to remove this complaint, as it appears Ed didn't violate 3RR (he had just done subsequent edits, using 3RR as an electric fence instead).. However, that said, you might want to seriously consider if the way he is interpreting and implementing this policy is accurate. There needs to be a great deal more oversight in regards to making sure that the folk doing these deletions are clear as what is and is not a vilolation of the policy. Clearly, what he was removing wasn't a violation. As well, you might wish to consider communication with the community effectively enough that perhaps one in five different, unrelated editors are aware of these new interpretations of policy. So far, the editors and admins attempting to be the new sheriff in town are doing it haf-assed. You want us to fall in line with the new interpetation? Maybe tell us about it if, you know, it isn;t too much trouble. Arcayne () 18:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    To add detail to the report, the images that Ed removed had fair use rationale attached, and there had been discussion a while ago for selecting appropriate screenshots for the Plot section. Whether the choices are disagreeable or not, like Minderbinder said, this is a content dispute, not at all "cleaning up" copyright violations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    That some people disagree with the strictness of the policy doesn't turn it into a content dispute. Musical Linguist 07:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:216.16.55.81 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:Already blocked)

    Archimedes Plutonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.16.55.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Ed g2s reported by User:Minderbinder (Result: 24h no block)

    300 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ed g2s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): --Minderbinder 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    Duplicate reverts removing images, edit-warring

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: (revert to )

    Ed was reported earlier but only three reverts had been made at that point. Since then he has made a fourth revert, hence this report. This isn't a case of removing copyright violations since WP:NONFREE and the foundation specifically allow nonfree content under certain limitations. This is a content dispute over whether certain images are approprate and justified by the text, and not an exemption from 3RR restrictions. --Minderbinder 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    To add detail to the report, the images that Ed removed had fair use rationale attached, and there had been discussion a while ago for selecting appropriate screenshots for the Plot section. Whether the choices are disagreeable or not, like Minderbinder said, this is a content dispute, not at all "cleaning up" copyright violations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Edit warring is unacceptable, especially for a long-standing admin, you should be setting an example. Multiple reports and lots of edit warring, and previous blocks are aggravating factors as well in this. You were warned to stop. Majorly (hot!) 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Note: block overturned. See previous 3RR report which ruled on the first 3 of these reverts. ed g2s • talk 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    The previous report was excused because you were "cleaning up copyright violation". Minderbinder and I explained why this wasn't the case. You deserve the block. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I second this. Dude, if it wasn't an admin who was doing this, they would be cooling their heels. It doesn't matter what a person is doing in hteir edits. the only exception to 3RR is reverting vandalism. Are the admins here actually calling those of us who oppose this user's incorrect interpetation of the policy vandals? Either we are all vandals, or this guy broke the rules. And the guy is an admin. If nothing else, admins are supposed to know when they are getting so involved in their edits they violate 3RR. If the rules apply to the rank and file, it most certainly has to apply to the admins as well. Of course, if you are just protecting your fellow admins, we wouldn't really be surprised, as half of us already think that are growing to think that anyway. When a user like Erik starts to lose faith in admins, something is quite frakking wrong. Your authority as neutral authorities is being tested here. Please pay attention and act appropriately. Arcayne () 01:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    As a non-admin member of the Film project I would like to thank User:Ed g2s and every other admin like him for their continued dedication to the project. Banal admin bashing by consummate edit warriors just coming off of their most recent 24 hour block is nothing more than sour grapes. To admins everywhere, keep up the great work. Non-admins support you and your commitment to preserving and maintaining the integrity of this project is held in the highest regard. —Viriditas | Talk 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, I endorse the unblock, but would urge ed to try to get help from other admins as soon as there is a problem with people trying to restore unfree images on shaky grounds, and before it comes to a 3RR case. Musical Linguist 07:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    This just condones, if not encourages, edit warring by admins. I thought the point was that edit warring is bad? --Minderbinder 12:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Bill_Storm reported by User:Guyver8400 (Result: No block)

    gerritsen beach. Bill_Storm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:

    User:Burntsauce reported by User:Alex Roza (Result: No block)

    Kennedy Fried Chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burntsauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:

    User:Ned_Scott reported by User:Tivedshambo (Result: 24 hours No block)

    Misplaced Pages:Non-free content (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 05:20
    Comment

    I reverted an addition that was in conflict with Foundation policy, and was added without anything near a strong consensus. Such an addition is fundamentally wrong. Agree with it or not, that is not how you chance policy. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    I agree with Ned on this. The addition should not be happening when it's disputed. Point in fact it is disputed by multiple users. Matthew 07:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Please, one can't talk oneself out of 4 reverts. It's just not permitted and the editor has been editing long enough that he should be well aware of our policies on this matter. Badagnani 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe I'm apart of the conspiracy. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Comment - Times given in the above links are BST, = UTC+1. Sorry, should have thought of this. – Tivedshambo (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    • I've blocked him for 24 hours. I concur this section might be deemed wrong, but editors should continue adhering WP:CON before making a revert. Further edit warring will result in protection. Michaelas 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Unblocked. Trying to force through a policy through which contradicts the Foundation and has no consensus is something that must be immediately reverted. Perhaps the user should have requested page protection, but there's no need for a block. ed g2s • talk 13:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Ed is a participant in this dispute, for him to unblock in this situation is abuse of admin powers and conflict of interest. I'd encourage another admin to reblock and look into Ed's behavour. --Minderbinder 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe the block should be returned, especially due to the numerous amount of established editors participating in the edit war, and the fact that Ed unblocked because he felt that Ned was defending the page (despite the fact that I see a clear two-sided edit war here among numerous established editors). Seems like an incorrect unblock based on something that cannot be considered an exception to 3RR. — Deckiller 13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    There is no dispute. This is simply removing an unjustifiable edit to our policy page. Regardless of opinion or consensus (which there isn't even) - we cannot modify our EDP to contradict the Foundation licensing policy. This is non-negotiable. ed g2s • talk 13:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Since the page is currently protected, a reinstatement of the block would be punitive and not helpful regardless of whether one thinks the original block was correct and the subsequent unblock were correct. This is therefore mootJoshuaZ 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    • This was an incorrect unblock on User:ed g2s's part, as it sets a very bad example by encouraging the editor to continue violating our 3RR policy. Whether Ed g2s approves of the 4 reverts or not is irrelevant. Ed g2s, in fact, is a participant in the dispute, and his unblock thus shows a strong conflict of interest. The unblock makes it appear as if the 3RR rule is only enforced selectively. This is not about being punitive, it is about adhering to our principles. Please reinstate the block promptly. Badagnani 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Jvalant reported by User:Philip Baird Shearer (Result: 24 hours)

    Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jvalant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Martinphi reported by User:Minderbinder (Result: No block)

    Institute of Noetic Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    • 1st revert: 22:05, 9 May 2007 (removed "alleged" again)
    • 2nd revert: 22:48, 9 May 2007 (removed alleged and listing of specific topics again, added "consciousness and its potentials" again)
    • 3rd revert: 23:25, 9 May 2007 (removed listing of specific topics again, added "consciousness and its potentials" again)
    • 4th revert: 20:54, 10 May 2007 (added "consciousness and its potentials" again)
    • (5th revert, technically doesn't count toward 3RR count (nine minutes outside 24 hour period), but evidence of continued revert warring: 22:14, 10 May 2007) (added "consciousness and its potentials" again)

    Generally partial reverts, some wording tweaks on edits but still the same additions and subtractions of the same disputed material repeatedly. --Minderbinder 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    3RR blocks are not punitive. Editors has not reverted since May 10. If he persists, please relist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    That was only a few hours before this is reported. This isn't a request for punitive action, this is a request for admin intervention to make the reversion stop. I'm not sure what makes you think that this editor has stopped reverting on this article? --Minderbinder 15:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Dharmender6767 reported by User:RaiderAspect (Result: 24 hours)

    Battle of the Persian Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


    I would like to add that Dharmender had also broken 3RR two days ago in the article last stand but I did not report him on the basis that he was a new user. He has been warned about 3RR, NPOV etc multiple times ever since, but there doesn't seem to be any improvement on his rv-warring habits. His edit-warring above continues as we speak . Miskin 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    i just read about this rule, but if undoing more than 3 edits in 24 hour is prohibited, then why hasn't Miskin been punished yet, he undid 4 edits on last stand in less than 24 hours. why the double standard?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

    You were warned about this rule and received a link to WP:3RR by at least 3 different users, in your talk page, articles' talk page and edit summaries. Miskin 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Killacrockka reported by User:Wildthing61476 (Result: 24 hrs)

    Espio the Chameleon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Killacrockka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    I was on routine recent change/new page patrol and noted that this article was recreated a number of times. Further research into the article shows that a consensus was made to NOT split characters in the article Chaotix into their own separate articles. The editor continues to replace the article, with his reasoning being "READ THE DAM DESCUSION ARTICKLE ON CHAOTIX, ME & TMNT DONATELO WHONT EM" (from the edit summary of one of the above edits. Further more, the editor has blanked his talk pagewith previous comments regarding the same issue, and made threats to an editor over this same issue. Wildthing61476 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    Geoffrey Giuliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bangkokbasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


    There is a long-standing problem with several incarnations of the same user (who might be the subject of the article or a very keen fan). History and talk of the article and of the user page show that several editors have tried to draw his attention to WP policies and to discuss possible changes to the article, but to no avail.

    User:Showninner reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 72 hours)

    Nicolas Sarkozy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Showninner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Editor has been insisting on inserting stuff about Sarkozy being of "Greek-Jewish ancestry", using various formulations. He has just come back from a 24 hour block for tendentious editing on the same article. Jayjg 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:TyrusThomas4lyf reported by User:Tayquan (Result:48 hours)

    Kobe Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tyrus Thomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


    Kobe Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    The first one os a revert too, from a while back. Tayquan My work 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


    User:Miskin reported by User:Mardavich (Result:1 month)

    Battle of the Persian Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    - * Four reverts in five hours, please note that all the revisions have been made with the ultimate goal of replacing the number 700 in the info box with 25,000. As per WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Also, the user has been blocked previously for 3RR violations. --Mardavich 00:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

      • Having examined the page history here, I'm not prepared to regard the fourth edit here as a 'revert', because Miskin's edit there preserved the claim of Ariobarzanes' army being only 700 strong. Miskin has three clear reverts, but not a fourth, and has not broken the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 11:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Whoa, holy block history batman. Extending to 1 month due to vast history of disruptiveness. If you disagree, take it to AN/I. ⇒ SWATJester 05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:NI4D reported by User:bytebear (Result:24 hours)

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NI4D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    This user continues to revert. Bytebear 05:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Additional reverts to Joseph F. Smith and many Mormon related articles. Bytebear 05:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Hoponpop69 Reported by User:Pbroks13 (Result:No violation)

    Anberlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:193.223.98.186 reported by User:Sceptre (Result:24 hours)

    Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.223.98.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    ---

    and so on...Makalp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Must. 17:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    What can I say? I asked them, don't blind revert, go and talk on the talk page!! Nobody came...--193.223.98.186 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Micheal-Nick reported by User:Maggott2000 (Result: 24 hours)

    List of best-selling albums worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Micheal-Nick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Maggott2000 20:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    • 1st revert: rv with wiki-clone and forum references.
    • 2nd revert: rv with wiki-clone and forum references.
    • 3rd revert: rv with wiki-clone and forum references.

    User:Micheal-Nick has reverted 17 times since beginning of May, and currently 3 times since notified of 3RR rule in past 24 hours. He has been told why his edits are not verifiable references within this article and multiple other articles, but he refuses to listen, and been abusive. Also someone deleted his discussion page, which I reversed.

    • You are supposed to list the fourth revert in a 24-hour period. However, looking at the article history it is clear this user is a revert warrior who reverted at 14:00, 20:06 on 11 May and 11:55 and 13:21 on 12 May. This makes four reverts in 24 hours and a clear 3RR breach. 24 hours. Sam Blacketer 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    69.118.129.76 reported by User:BaseballDetective (Result:No violation)

    List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.118.129.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    User:69.118.129.76 is an anonymous IP address, but clearly the same one person since they have engaged in a revert war with over 9 reversions despite multiple warnings and even an attempt at discussion on the articles talk page. Someone else must look into this and take appropriate action.

    • For a three revert violation, the editor must revert more than three times within a 24-hour period. This IP address has not done that. No violation. Sam Blacketer 21:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The three revert rule is there to stop sterile revert wars. It is not necessarily useful in stopping all disruptive editing. I do notice that this user has gone to the article talk page to explain why they think the section which they are removing should come out. You should continue to discuss the issue, inviting views from outside if necessary using a request for comment. Sam Blacketer 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Sosomk reported by User:Corticopia (Result:1 week)

    Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sosomk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    Despite continuous discussion, this editor continues to revert recent consensual edits to the introduction regarding the country's location -- the consensual version equitably notes that it is located at the juncture of Asia and Europe (and S. alone objects to this version), while the version which S. maintains is very unclear and unjustified (not to mention unsourced) but partial to its inclusion in (or outside of?) Continental Europe. In his carte blanche reverts (which have been reverted by me and at least one other), amid his accusations of vandalism and POV editing, S. has reverted other edits too and has been warned of this. Corticopia 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Pocat-chictribute.com reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)

    Resolved

    Chic (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pocat-chictribute.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Repeated re-introduction of emphasis on a band name's supposed official typeset, after the article was recently moved to a less stylized variant per WP:MOS-TM. No edit summaries, no talk page messages, even though the editor in question has been around for about a year. - Cyrus XIII 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    checkY Blocked — Pocat-chictribute.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 24 hours for a violation of WP:3RR at Chic (band) ~ Anthony 13:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Example

    <!-- copy from _below_ this line -->
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- 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 and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
-->
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Categories: