Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 19:03, 28 March 2008 view sourceAltenmann (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers220,255 edits →User:Police,Mad,Jack reported by User:Mikkalai (Result: )← Previous edit Revision as of 19:31, 28 March 2008 view source Altenmann (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers220,255 edits →User:Police,Mad,Jack reported by User:Mikkalai (Result: ): withdrawnNext edit →
Line 653: Line 653:
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE --> <!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
Revert war in ]: reinserts deleted unreferenced text and refuses to follow th policy ]. `']] 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
# (cur) (last) 22:36, March 28, 2008 Police,Mad,Jack (Talk | contribs | block) (874 bytes) (Undid revision 201628832 by Mikkalai (talkSame)) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 22:36, March 28, 2008 Police,Mad,Jack (Talk | contribs | block) (565 bytes) (Undid revision 201629079 by Mikkalai (talkRevert vandalism by removing info without explanation)) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 22:47, March 28, 2008 Police,Mad,Jack (Talk | contribs | block) (874 bytes) (Undid revision 201634784 by Mikkalai (talkIts not about "kicking butt" its about use of force and self defence, grow up please.)) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 22:51, March 28, 2008 Police,Mad,Jack (Talk | contribs | block) (874 bytes) (Undid revision 201636466 by Mikkalai (talk)) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 22:52, March 28, 2008 Police,Mad,Jack (Talk | contribs | block) (874 bytes) (Undid revision 201637038 by Mikkalai (talk)) (rollback | undo)
# (cur) (last) 22:59, March 28, 2008 Police,Mad,Jack (Talk | contribs | block) (1,040 bytes) (Undid revision 201638414 by Mikkalai (talkgive me a chance to reference., I dont understand what I have done to make u hate me)) (rollback | undo)


Obviously it is a disturbed person, so I am not insisting on blocking him. Please someone talk senses to him. I will stop editing this page for now. `']] 19:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


== Example == == Example ==

Revision as of 19:31, 28 March 2008

Template:Moveprotected

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)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    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. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:70.129.197.15 reported by User:Tool2Die4 (Result: No action)

    New information added. New list of diffs, and see also list of reverts by Tool2Die4 further below.

    *Previous version reverted to:

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

    IP is engaged in edit-warring. Is unable to bring an unbiased view to the situation. Crux of the matter is the use of Mythical National Championship in the opening paragraph. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    What you have listed as the "1st revert" is not a revert; that is the IP's 1st edit. Although the IP has made 4 edits, he/she has made only 3 reverts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    I put a new list of diffs near the top of this report, striking out the links provided by Tool2Die4. 70.129.197.15 did 5 edits between 13:55 and 20:26 on 24 March. All 5 edits produced identically the same version of the article, therefore the last 4 are reverts. I've also provided a list of reverts by Tool2Die4, below. I count 4 definite reverts by Tool2Die4 as well. Tool2Die4 also did an edit at 16:57 on the same date (between the 2nd and 3rd reverts below) which could be argued to be a revert as well, since it causes the word "Mythical" to appear again in the article, and all of 70.129.197.15's edits have the effect of hiding the word "Mythical" inside a piped link so the word doesn't display, in the phrase Mythical National Championship. Neither editor is making use of the talk page at all. There isn't a single post to the talk page since November 2007! Editors should discuss the reasons for their edits on the article talk page and make an effort to work out a mutually acceptable solution there. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    Reverts by Tool2Die4:

    Previous version reverted to: 13:15, 24 March 2008

    If I'm interpreting this right, Tool2Die4 has self-reverted at 11:08, 25 March 2008 in order to avoid being in violation of 3RR. Thank you for that gesture, Tool2Die4. However, I still don't see any effort by either party to explain and discuss the reasons for their edits on the article talk page. You need to try to reach a consensus. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Editor5435 reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

    Previous version reverted to: See the previous version reverted to listed beside each revert, except for the last few which share the same previous version.

    *1st revert: 05:18, 23 March 2008

    Editor5435 continues to threaten to revert any edit that he doesn't like, labeling such edits "vandalism" . See ANI]. Ronz (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    No Ronz, I asked Spot to join the consensus on establishing a new article structure before making any significant edits. Why do you continue to spread these lies about me?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    1) There is no consensus on new structure. 2) My edit didn't change the structure, it improved the content and references. Spot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Spot, you aren't exactly telling the truth here, numerous editors support restructuring the article, its all there for everyone to read in the discussion page.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yup, it's all there to read: you and kevin have been talking about restructuring. You are welcome to talk all you want and when you are ready to restructure the content of the article, by all means do so, it might be an improvement. But 1) I certainly didn't join this "consensus", which means there wasn't one, and 2) there's no reason to hold off on fixing the content until the structure is decided. Spot (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Spot, you conveniently left out Owlmonkey, so the consensus is 3 against 2, sorry, you lose!--Editor5435 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    1) Owlmonkey is not part of any consensus in your restructuring discussion. He introduced the history section a while ago, which I totally approve of and I actually tried to do before but it was reverted. He made some suggestions about subsections in an attempt to reduce this articles overemphasis of Iterated Systems, patents, and history. That was weeks ago, before the current discussion started. 2) The notion of a consensus of 3 against 2 is absurd. 3) Anyone's plans to restructure are not a valid argument against improving the content. Spot (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Spot, once again your version of events defies reality. Owlmonkey created the heading New Organization under which he suggested "method", "history", "patents", and "comparison with alternatives" sections. Rather than reduce information on Iterated Systems there was discussion about created new sections to add more information giving the article an improved balance.--Editor5435 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    There should also be an entry for Spot's violations. Putting a notice for Editor5435's violations up without doing the same for spot's shows a bias in the application of justice. -- Which is even more dangerous than the violations. Kevin Baas 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Looks like Spot was the one doing the edit-warring. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Spot is at 3 reverts by my count, so I didn't report him. He's been warned. Meanwhile, Editor5435 is at 12 reverts. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    That only suggest to me that your bias is so deep that it's affecting your ability to count. Kevin Baas 19:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Kevin Baas 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Please follow WP:TALK. There are 12 diffs above. Each is a revert by Editor5435. --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Amazing, Ronz included all of my editing activities under patents and other areas in the same complaint about my reverts of Spot's edits. Ronz is engaged in an all out assault against me, what exactly is going on here?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ronz open your eyes, I cleaned up the patent section and other areas yesterday, what are you talking about? You clearly are not acting in good faith here!--Editor5435 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    @Tool2Die4, can you explain yourself? I made 3 reverts, which is allowed. Editor5435 has made many more which is not. Editor5435 reverted first. How do you conclude that it was me and not him? Have you read the relevant discussion page? Spot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Spot, you made controversial edits, the correct procedure is to revert to the previous version while disagreements are resolved in the discussion page.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Spot, note that WP:3RR says "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique." You can still be blocked for editwarring even if you don't exceed 3R in 24h. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    We already discussed this edit on the discussion page. You and Kevin were unable to provide any references to dispute it, so I put it in. You make controversial edits all the time without any discussion. Spot (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    You must have me confused with someone else, Spot. I don't believe I've ever edited that article or its talk page. If an edit is really a good one and is really supported by a consensus of the editors involved in the discussion, then it will get onto the page without any one editor having to revert it in a large number of times. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I was responding to Editor5435's immediately previous comment, I'm not sure how your text got inbetween. The problem is that Editor5435 has been editing uncivilly since he got here. He does not wait for consensus. He reverts without restraint and harasses anyone who stands in his way. The only way to get this article back to a reasonable place (where I had it a couple months ago before he showed up, imperfect but not an advert at least) is to block him. I didn't realize the 3RR rule prohibited what I did, and i'll steer further clear of it now that I do, but he is in vastly greater violation of it, and many others (see the multiple incident reports). Admins, I beg you, how much suffering must pass before you step in? Spot (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ronz, you are ignoring the fact Spot was acting independently of a consensus to improve the structure of the fractal compression article. His edit attempts only make the original problem worse. I asked him repeatably to settle this matter on the discussion page before making significant edits to the article. He ignored these requests and refused to cooperate with other editors who are all working on a solution.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Two wrongs don't make a right (and that goes for spot, as well) Kevin Baas 19:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    There is no consensus to improve the structure. The structure isn't the problem, the content and references are the problem, and that's what my edit addressed. A draft of it was vetted on the discussion page before I put it into the article. I didn't change the structure anyway. Spot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've modified the list of diffs to try to make it conform to the required format for these reports. I may be adding information soon about reverts by other users on the same page.19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC) --Coppertwig (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      Ronz has not edited the page for about 21 hours, and I have the impression that Ronz' edits were generally not reverts. Spot has edited 4 times recently. The last three of these are clearly reverts, but the first one has edit summary "replace first section with draft text from talk page" and therefore does not seem to me to be a revert. So no other editor seems to have violated 3RR recently on that page. (non-admin opinion.) --Coppertwig (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    The main point is that there is an edit war going on at fractal compression. Reverts only serve to inflame a situation. Leave the article alone and discuss first. That goes for everyone involved. --clpo13(talk) 03:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I would say that there "was" an edit war. I'm happy to see that since 18:31 (nearly 9 hours ago) there have been zero edits to the article, and about 40 edits to the talk page, much of which seem to be constructive discussion. Keep it up, keep cool, and try to reach an agreement. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, well that's good. I just saw a bunch of reverts and didn't think to look at the time. --clpo13(talk) 03:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    There's now a lot of editing going on on the page, but there is also talk page discussion, and as far as I can tell the editing is reasonably collaborative and I don't see any obvious 3RR violations at the moment. Congratulations to all concerned for making an effort to work together. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Traditional unionist reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 100 hours )


    Edit warring seemingly based on the misapprehension that because someone who was born in the Republic of Ireland now lives in Northern Ireland they magically become Northern Irish, or even British based on the discussion on the talk page. One Night In Hackney303 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks and congratulations to One Night In Hackney for filling out the 3RR report correctly and completely -- the first one I've seen, I think! I'm not kidding: at least the last ten previous reports have been missing information. Thanks to One Night In Hackney, Traditional unionist and Belacqua Shuah for using the article talk page to discuss the content issue. Traditional unionist has been informed of the existence of the 3RR rule from in least one previous situation. The four reverts listed above are all adding the word "Northern" to the first sentence of the article. Belacqua Shuah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also removed the word "Northern" from the first sentence five times in the period 17:27 to 20:47 24 March, counting as at least four reverts. (Non-admin opinion.) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    He's also been blocked three times for 3RR violations, hence me not bothering with a warning diff. One Night In Hackney303 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Nor did you grace me with telling me you;d filed this in. I'm delighted at your courtesy. My apologies for breaking the barrier. I confess that I wasn't counting. Again, apologies.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked for 100 hours, more for the fact that this edit-war was so lame than anything else. Moreschi (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Belaquah Shuah had apparently been unaware of the 3R rule and has apologized. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Gni (Result: No violation)


    After recently learning of the 3RR, I've carefully avoided revert warring on this contentious article. Unfortunately, Boodlesthecat, who himself has been banned for violating 3RR (and thus knows the rule very well) almost reflexively reverts changes I make. In this case, his reversions came despite his admission that he didn't even read the case I carefully laid out on the discussion page. He responded, "I'm sorry, your post is too long to really read through for such a minor issue...," and yet reverted anyway. (All this after having declined my attempt to seek help from the mediation cabal.) Gni (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    In the last 72 hours Boodlesthecat has only made 3 edits altogether. It takes four reverts to formally violate 3RR, so I don't see a violation here. It has been argued at WP:COIN that User:Gni is serving as an advocate for CAMERA, that he has edited from their office, and that this violates the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline. For details see the WP:COIN report here. User:Gni has already been blocked twice in March alone for edit-warring on this article. One of the blocks was for evading the original block with an IP account. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Since this issue is still waiting for definitive action at WP:COIN, and I often participate there, I'd prefer if a different admin would close this 3RR issue one way or the other. My comment above was intended to ensure that the possible COI would come to the attention of the closer. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I find no actual violation by User:Boodlesthecat. Closed as such. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Alexwoods reported by Littlebutterfly (Result: )

    Request blocking for this user Alexwoods. He violated the 3RR rules today on two pages.

    His 4 reverts on the Tibet page: revert 4 revert 3 revert 2 revert 1


    He ignored my discussion on the talk page and instead stated his will to start a revert war: “I am going to keep reverting him, but it would be nice if others would help out. Alexwoods (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC).” See under subsection littlebutterfly here

    He also reverted 4 times on the People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951) revert 4, revert 3, revert2, revert 1

    I engaged him on his talk page with good faith, see subsection fresh start. His response here was less than friendly: “I undid your changes, and I'll continue to do so.”

    I invite you to investigate my edits. All I did was to add sourced material to provide more information. And when I removed two paragraphs I started a discussion on the talk page here.

    He should be blocked for his violations. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    In regards to the Tibet article, as it is protected a block is not necessary in that case - blocks are preventative, not punative.
    As for the PLA operations page, Littlebutterfly you have also breached 3RR.
    That is technically a reversion because you removed a fairly important piece of information. But even if one does not accept that is a revert, there were then four subsequent reversions.
    You were warned about edit-warring on the Tibet article by ZimZalaBim only yesterday, so you should have known better yourself. So both you and Alex should be blocked for your edit-warring. Or you can withdraw this report and talk things over with Alex. You should also inform an editor if you are making a 3RR report against them. John Smith's (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Hi. I don't deny making those edits. I've been trying to get Littlebutterfly to stop axeing important parts of Tibet articles, and nothing has been working, short of reverting his edits. I welcome admin attention to this problem and would be happy to discuss further. Alexwoods (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Revert wars waste time and energy. I was forced into two by him. His reverts on the “People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet” page is particularly troubling. He was removing material sourced to western scholars. There is no justification for their removal. I am relatively new here; I did not know that he needs to be informed. Violators of the 3RR rule should be blocked to prevent further revert wars. However, I have no intention of continuing one and if Alexwoods stop his aggressive editing and engage in discussion, punishment would be unnecessary. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    As I explained on your talk page, no one can be forced into revert wars. You choose to participate of your own free will.
    You may not have been editing long, but your account was registered back in the summer of 2007 when you made two edits. You had ample time to read Misplaced Pages rules. Moreover if you know what the 3 revert rule is such that you can report a user to the administrators' board you should know it would apply to yourself as well. John Smith's (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I did approach him with conciliatory gesture, see start fresh. His response here was less than friendly: “I undid your changes, and I'll continue to do so.” Alexwoods was determined to push his edits. His lack of good faith and threat of a revert war should count. I feel like I am being scrutinized here by you. And you are acting like an apologist for the aggressor. As far as I can see you said nothing about his violations. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    You both have violated 3RR. You both are edit warring. You both are being uncivil. You both must cease your current behavior. --ZimZalaBim 21:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry that I was uncivil in the past. Unfortunately, the root problem remains. Littlebutterfly is making irrelevant, incendiary changes to Tibet articles, and when I remove them, he reverts me immediately. See these changes. They amount to random insertions of pro-PRC statements into the article. However because Littlebutterfly has brought the 3RR violation claim, I am reduced to making comments about these edits on the talk page, while they get to continue making the article worse. I take responsibility for my past violation of this rule, and apologize for it, and I am trying to not violate it again, but someone other than me has got to tell Littlebutterfly to stop making these unconstructive edits. Alexwoods (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    I tried to reach a consensus with Alexwoods just a few hours ago. I agreed that the material I recently added “should all be moved elsewhere.” I am very disappointed to find that he is attacking me here without mentioning my Cooperation. I've only added material sourced to western scholars. They are not on Beijing’s payroll and their statements are less sensational than those from the Tibetans. Alexwoods finds them pro-PRC only because they don’t work for him.
    I apologize for my violation of the 3RR rule. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    Talk:Regine Velasquez (Result: Not a 3RR violation)

    Watch the Regine Velasquez fanatic vandalize the page of Regine Velasquez by citing biased information. Please block the user because he has posted false article information and has re-edited the page to favor Velasquez fans. See Regine Velasquez page for more information. The Evil Spartan 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    • No violation - It might be appropriate to remove the personal attacks (although the person being attacked is not overly upset about them). If it becomes an issue requiring administrative attention, there are other appropriate fora, but nobody has violated the 3RR. --B (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Matthew reported by User:Lawrence Cohen (Result: Page protected)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: Veteran user, he is aware of 3rr.

    Edit warring to remove an image. Not exempted in any way from 3rr. Lawrence § t/e 20:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Support block. Also removing a template which he claimed was against consensus; actually, there was a consensus of an admin and two other users. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Note that the 3RR policy exempts users removing clear violations of the non-free content policy, which this is. Matthew (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    See this. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    And like a BLP issue, saying it is does not make it so--the standing of that NFCC claim is heavily disputed, apparently, so you should have stopped and disengaged immediately after #3. Especially as multiple people apparently disagree with you. No one gets free passes in this place anymore. Lawrence § t/e 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Not blocked. Removing non-free content vios is excempt from 3RR. Majorly (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Undid your tag of no block--consider that multiple users in that talk page are actively disputing whether the exemption applies there. Like BLP, contested = subject to review. Consider how Crum375 was blocked for violating 3rr on the Mantanmoreland RFAR--while claiming BLP. Just a note, I have no stake in this specific case and haven't even watched a Doctor Who in about 16 years. Lawrence § t/e 20:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    (ec)I suggest that there is a major, major COI going on here. Matthew and Majorly are good friends and Majorly has failed to respond to the two comments that removing non-free content is only an exemption in clear cases. I am shocked that anybody could behave in the way that Majorly just has. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    The page is locked. There's nothing productive about blocking anyone here. Additionally I've removed TreasuryTag's rollback right for clear abuse of it for edit warring. Majorly (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    You need to undo your actions--you are deeply involved with and linked with Matthew, and should not use your administrative status on anything to do with him. Bringing this up on the existing ANI thread. Lawrence § t/e 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Majorly, it's horribly inappropriate for you to be the one to resolve this. However, I concur that because the page has been protected, no block is appropriate - that is our standard practice. If Majorly had been the one to protect the page, ok, that's an issue, but he wasn't. Additionally, Lerdthenerd and TreasuryTag are cautioned not to use the rollback button in a dispute and if it happens again, they may be de-rollbacked. Reading ANI, I see that Majorly has already removed it, again, a really bad idea. --B (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Jimnogood reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 31 hours )


    After repeatedly adding highly POV commentary, the editor persists in moving a section of the chronology to a misleading section. One Night In Hackney303 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked 31 hours. Moreschi (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


    User:IrishLass0128 reported by User:Radiohead12 (Result: Not a violation, checkuser filed)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: Veteran user, he is aware of 3rr.

    User had a past problem with this user, and now has vandalized their talk page after they have left. Radiohead12 (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti reported by User:TheFEARgod (Result: 24 hours Re-opened: Result: 48 hours)


    User avoids using the talk page. Best explanation for his revert is "I served as a Blue Beret in the Turkish Army, let me know a few details better than you." quite unique. Also, sorry for making 3RR by my side--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    user began discussion. at last--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


    Result - User blocked for 24 hours. Please continue to use discussion resolve content disputes. Scarian 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    Further violation: (non-admin opinion) After coming off the block, the user has editwarred further, again violating 3RR:

    Previous version partially reverted to by first revert: 17:27, 26 March 2008

    The user is reverting changes by 3 other editors. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti has been blocked for 48 hours by Scarian. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Amagase reported by User:Appletrees (Result: Reporter blocked)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-03-26T15:26:44. Well, I thought Amagase's first revert happened today, so the warning is premature, but he did revert 4th times without the discussion.

    A short explanation of the incident.

    A Japanese fraudster, Shinichi Fujimura has been addressed on the page for over 2 years because his case is notable example of fraud. However, a Japanese editor Amagase removed it without discussion or consensus, so another editor reverted it. Then, he left a comment as implying to include Korean cases for revenge because the another editor and I are Korean editors, and really did it. After reverting the article, he falsely accused me of making "personal attack" because I pointed out that (rv by Amagase The case is frequently mentioned in news articles when it comes to "fraud". You tries to evade the subject with other cases) . I let his new addition with adjusting order as a compromise, because the examples suit the definition of fraud as well. However, he accused me of removing all of his edit, which is totally untrue and reverted again. Regardless of my warning and suggestion, he made the 4th revert and shows continuous uncivil behaviors, so I submit this report.

    This is a debate on the talk page Talk:Fraud#Shinichi_Fujimura--Appletrees (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    I, user Amagase (talk) strongly oppose this unreasonable proposal. The following is the reason. First as I said in the note page, Fujimura's case should be mentioned in the Scientific misconduct, in which Fujimura was already mentioned. Note that there are no examples of scientific frauds were shown in the article Fraud. Appletrees disagreed my removal and reverted my edit. So I compromised and added the examples of scientific frauds which are obviously more notable than Fujimura's. Then he reverted this edits again. He wants to add just Fujimura's case. Why? This is the second reason. In his edit records, you can see almost all of his activities in here Wikiepdia are aimed to degrade Japan-related articles and add Korea nationalistic descriptions in articles. This attitude is against the English Misplaced Pages's policies, isn't it? --Amagase (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    You're speaking totally untrue. Did I ever erase your new addition about Korean case even though that is motivated from your revenge? And you still are making further personal attacks on me "here" as calling me aiming to degrade Japan related articles and nationalistic Korean. In my point of view, you, Amagase looks as such because you "intentionaly" erased all Korean mentions from articles related to ancient history of Japan which links to Korea and also has been a target of 2channel's long term abuses such as doing meat/sockpuppetries in English/Japanese/Korean and other Misplaced Pages. I also notice Amagase's misconduct and gave him enough time to be cool, but his threat and assaultive comments are getting escalating and really intolerable with his blatant disregard on 3RR rule. --Appletrees (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Here is a clear evidence for what Amagase (talk · contribs)'s misconduct goes on.

    OK, Go on this absurd argument till the last. I'm certain that you should be removed from the Wikiepdia community. --Amagase (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    I'm so convinced that the privilege of editing Misplaced Pages is too much for this highly uncivil editor who does not respect not only Wiki rules, but also people on the other side. I think he should learn a suitable lesson. --Appletrees (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    My opinion about your edit attitude is not a personal attack but a reasonable and response to you. In various articles you remove "Japanese names of subjects" and add "exaggerated Korean influence over the Japan-related subjects" and oppose to name articles in Japanese. You became the source of troubles in many articles. Some of these arguments seem to be agitated by some idiots from 2ch, but I think the fundamental problem is your unfair edits. I don't know the procedure yet, but I will propose the arbitration about your attitude. --Amagase (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    What a threat, you're keeping that absurd attitude. Your aforementioned comments are clearly good examples of "personal attacks" and your "wishful thinking". If you keeping such behaviros, you should face the consequence. Moreover, you violated 3RR rule, that's why you're summoned here, so don't escalate your misconduct further. As for 2channel, I saw the exactly same plan written on 2channel as your declaration, so I wonder you, making personal attacks here and there have that right? Are you saying that over 20 identifiable Japanese editors are "some idiots"? That is very impressive. Your edits are followed to what I recently edited and my edits are restoration from blanking without rationale. The problem is you intentionally minimize or totally erase the Korean influence on the mentioned articles which are considered disruptive approach to resolve content disputes. You should deal with your "attitude" and violation first. --Appletrees (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No violation - #2 is a new edit and not a revert. Please take discussions to talk pages. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      With all due respect, I think it is a clear 3RR violation and civility issue. According to Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule, 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. Moreover, I'm getting a threat by the editor. Why is he free of any sanction?--Appletrees (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      Because you haven't proven that #2 is a revert. As far as I can see it's the first-time addition of new names. If you can find us an older version which that was a revert to (and the link above doesn't give us that) then we can deal with it. Otherwise, there are three reverts and not four, and the 3RR isn't broken.
      I am just about to head off so hopefully another admin will be able to check this one out if and when Appletrees adds the required information. (Hint: Put "review requested" or something similar in the section header so that an admin will spot it.) Stifle (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Review needed: The addition in question is disputed between 3 editors, so I think #2 fits to the definition of revert to the original page if I interpret 3RR rule properly. In addition to that, I wanted admins to take a look at his uncivil comments along with this report. --Appletrees (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Review, confirming no violation. I can see no way that #2 can be perceived as a revert, since it adds new entries to the list that were never there before. The third and fourth edits marked as reverts don't seem to be removing anything from the list, they are just changing the order. So this is not technically a 3RR violation (there is only ONE single revert within the 24 hours, by my calculation, his first removal of Fujimura, and you need to show FOUR reverts to make your case). The original motivation of Amagase, that scientific frauds weren't prime examples suitable for listing as examples in the Fraud article, is a defensible view, and that's why he said he was removing Fujimura. (He even left a Talk comment at the time of this removal). His adding of other scientific examples seems reasonable, though you must be perceiving a revenge element in the fact he added a Korean scientist to balance out the original Japanese scientist that you added. There does seem to be a lot of incivil talk going on, and I hope we see less of that in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for reviewing the request. Well, the report is rather motivated by Amagase's highly uncivil threats and bad assumption, so I re-acknowledge of the 3RR rule here. (maybe ANI is a better place to report his rudeness) His first revert did happen several days ago without rationale for his removal of the part. After his revert was challenged today, then he declared to contestants to accept either his inclusion of other cases or exclusion of Fujimura. In my point of view, that is a very unwise way to cooperate with others who disagree with his edit because he can't own the article and demand others to follow his own rule. In the ongoing dispute, I got several inappropriate threats by him, and he even lied about my edit. So, I want admins at least give him a proper warning. If Amagase keeps to degrade my dignity and fact, he should deal with the consequence anyhow. --Appletrees (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    After reviewing this (on Appletree's request), I come to the conclusion that the disruption in this affair has been entirely on his own, Appletree's, side. I'm blocking Appletree for 31h for disruptive editing and harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    To enable archiving: Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours Stifle (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Beleg Strongbow reported by User:Paul Barlow (Result: Declined)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Beleg_Strongbow insists on adding repeated creationist assertion about the unreliability of "Darwinistic" assumptions. He has also repeatedly added and readded the text of the Babel astory in Genesis. His reversions are slightly complex, since he often uses several edits to restore his text, and there are some slight variations. There were several reversions before the first one I listed. The last was after my warning. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Declined - the version you say is the "previous version reverted to" is the same version that is left after the 4th revert. What you say is the 1st revert is not therefore proven to be a revert. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    This is untrue. I explained that 'his reversions are slightly complex, since he often uses several edits to restore his text, and there are some slight variations.'. My understanding is that they don't need to be exctly the same. The only significant difference is that he is no longer attempting reinsert biblical text, but the reversion to the disputed sentences remains near-identical. Paul B (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Editor5435 reported by User:Spot (Result: Blocked, 30 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: see below.

    Editor5435 reverts all my edits even when they have important material with stellar references. He has been disrupting work here for weeks, previous incidents include 3RR, ANI, blocked. I only had to search back a few hours to find the five reverts above, if you look further i am sure you will find many more. If you want to see more, I will take the time to find them, busy now and this detailed reporting takes me forever. Spot (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    Spot was not following the agreed upon page layout, he attempted to move the History section which I restored to its original position. I also moved some items to fit within the new page structure and cleaned up wording in the Features section.--Editor5435 (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    Diff of a personal attack by Editor5435 in response to this report. Spot (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not seeing much edit warring going on here, although I'm not an expert on the content behind the areas of contribution, and it may well be that I'm missing the reverts behind the large volumes of edits made by the subject of this report. Nevertheless, per my comments at User talk:Editor5435#You have been blocked from editing, there is obviously disruption ensuing from this editor's contributions. To that end, I've Blocked – for a period of 30 hours Hopefully this remedies the disruption. Regards, Anthøny 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:GordonUS reported by User:TimVickers (Result: 24 hours)

    The user is trying to add disputed material about racial differences based on a book published in 1962, see discussion on talk page. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Svetovid reported by User:87.97.109.54 (Result: Declined)

    Revertwarring on Hedvig Malina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by user Svetovid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Not a "classical" 3RR violation, but a "classical" 3RR avooinding reverwar(ing)


    User:Svetovid is still revertwarring on the Hedvig Malina article, despite that he has been blocked 2x for doing that. Since the last block, he carefully avoids to break the 3RR, so it became a long drawn out battle and - intrestingly - an IP is just joined Svetovid's side. I know, this is not a 3RR violation, but noone is reacting on the WP:ANI or other forums, despite that he's negligating general consensus, and cleary and obviously HAS a "negative attitude" against the article, since it was created. He also tried to delete the page as "not notable", , despite that by a simple google test, this claim can be denied. Oh yeah, look at THIS. Pls, do something, this situation can not be tolerable furthermore. Thanks, --87.97.109.54 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Changchub reported by User:Oestrik (Result: declined)


    The reversions have been made without explaining comment and for the purpose of suppressing referenced information about a religious official having recognised the biographical subject as a Karmapa in 1992. My efforts to talk it through have been responded to with personalisations not addressing the subject matter. The reference seems sound as it is a statement by the person concerned in his own words.-User:Oestrik

    User:Spot reported by User:Jakespalding (Result:No violation)

    • Previous version reverted to: see below.

    It appears Spot has recently been in an edit war with Editor5435 who received a 30 hour ban, during with time Spot has violated the 3RR rule by making multiple significant edits to the fractal compression article.--Jakespalding (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    No violation - Seven edits in a row by Spot, with no intervening edits by others. counts as *at most* one revert. Look at the history. You need four reverts to show a violation. There seems to be a clash of philosophies described on the Talk page; it would be good to develop a Talk page consensus. Though Spot's work is well-intentioned, he can't expect to figure it out all on his own. It might be good to ask for comments on the talk page of a related WikiProject to bring in more editors. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    No thanks, it looks like a handful, I was just reporting what I saw Spot doing as no different than Editor5435, both removing each others contributions but resulting in two different actions. I would rather not be involved any further.--Jakespalding (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    COMMENT: Jakespalding has only two edits prior to this, both on the same article Spot is accused of violating 3RR on. The timing of this notice, and the venom involved with mentioning Editor5435's recent block, seem to be worth noting. Redrocket (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Mesplay reported by User:Cirt (Result: Declined)


    Disruptive edits at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests, after warnings in edit summaries by myself and RelHistBuff (talk · contribs), and also warnings on the user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    This comment by Mesplay (talk · contribs) - At all times I'll utterly disregard you and the ethic of defeating participation which we all can see that you're a byword for - suggests the user is determined to continue to be disruptive at the WP:TFA/R page, disregarding multiple warnings. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    It means what it says, not what you want to call it. See, recording an oppose vote on a TFA request and giving reasons for it isn't 'disruptive'. Neither is attempting to exploit 3RR to do the utmost to have that vote suppressed. The words 'girlish' and 'petulant' are more befitting the latter.Mesplay (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Declined I hate to have to say it, but you really aren't doing yourselves any favours by removing his vote as well as his nomination. If the nomination is out of order you should remove it, sure, but removing his votes as well wasn't fair. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Note The most recent two additions of the disputed nomination were commented out, so could not under any circumstance be construed as being disruptive - at most a storing of the nomination so it could be added when one of the existing noms finished. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Agree with this decision by Stifle (talk · contribs) - the most recent edits by this user to WP:TFA/R seem to be okay, though the method of commenting out an entire nomination on the page is a bit unorthodox/odd. And as that particular part of the edit-warring has ceased, no need for a block as it's not intended as a punitive measure. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Beleg Strongbow reported by User:WLU (Result: 24 hours)

    Beleg Strongbow (talk · contribs) appears to be a strong believer in creationism, or at least a critic of evolution. S/he has consistently added POV criticisms of any statements that are founded on conventional evolutionary theory, disguised as 'disclaimers' in the form of an unreferenced discussion of the 'Darwinistic assumptions' on which scientific hypotheses have been based. WLU (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    Has also contributed anonymously as 192.136.15.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). WLU (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Already blocked Stifle (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Peter Grey & User:Paul Barlow reported by User:Beleg Strongbow (Result: Declined, reporter blocked)


    • 1st revert: - Paul Barlow
    • 2nd revert: - Peter Grey
    • 3rd revert: - Peter Grey
    • 4rth revert: - Paul Barlow
    • 5th revert: - Peter Grey
    • 6th revert: - Peter Grey
    • 7th revert: - Paul Barlow
    • Diff of 3RR warning: - Paul Barlow (1st warning)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: - Peter Grey
    • Diff of 3RR warning: - Paul Barlow (2nd warning)

    There are essentially three sections (namely, Archaic hominids, Modern humans and Gestural theory) within the Origin_of_language article that rely heavily (if not completely) upon the validity of the Theories of Evolution, yet the status in which I found those sections present time spans and conjectures as fact. For the benefit of clarity, I have added to those sections an acknowledgement statement, pointing out their reliance upon Evolution. The users Peter Grey and Paul Barlow (as well as a couple others) conspired and teamed together to revert my insertions out of the article many times. I attempted to discuss the matter with them within our own as well as the main article's talk pages, but they refused to come to an agreed compromise with me and continue to revert my insertions out of the article. Please assist in the resolution process. Thank you.

    -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    since, despite their Christian names, Peter & Paul aren't socks of one another, I fail to see how their reverts can be cumulated for a 3rr report. It is true that Peter rolled back four times, and he did so explicitly as reverting vandalism. I leave it to your judgement if "Beleg Strongbow"'s edit qualifies as such: see here for context: if not a vandal, Beleg in any case is in urgent need of mentoring towards an understanding of basic Misplaced Pages principles. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Beleg Strongbow is insistent on adding disclaimers into articles on evolution, which we don't do. As such the reverters are exempt as they were reverting vandalism. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Lmusielak reported by User:Gwynand (Result: Closed amicably)


    Basically a minor content dispute at first between violator and User:Baseball Bugs. I did not get involved other than noticing violators reasoning wasn't sound. I reverted violator once, then he quickly switched back. I reverted once more, warned him (as this was already 3rd revert). He then reverted a fourth time. Gwynand (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    • New comment by reporter - Violator appears to be engaging me in reasonable discussion in understanding his error. He may be somewhat new, so I think this should be taken into consideration regarding any block he may or may not receive, to avoid being bitey. Thanks Gwynand (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. Since the time of the 3RR warning was only one minute before the last revert, Lmusielak might not have actually seen it. If it appears to observers that the reverting has actually stopped, I suggest this report might be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Agree from reporter - As soon as the 4th revert hit, I knew I wasn't going to engage in an edit war and it appeared the violator was going to keep the page his way no matter what, so I quickly reported. Looks like he is at least now attempting to discuss the dispute and he has not attempted another revert after a different editor reverted the violator. Gwynand (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:71.111.126.200 reported by User:Scarpy (Result: No violation)


    Anon address repeatedly adding unsourced and POV statements. Scarpy (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    Comment The policy states you can't revert more than 3 times. For this to a be a violation, you need to provide a 4th diff (if there is one). Gwynand (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    On top of that, the warning should be on the user's talk page (who reads edit summaries during a revert war?) and should be given before reporting someone. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    I've seen people blocked for just for reverting three times before, without a warning. But, either way, from the IP's talk page it looks like s/he is also vandalizing other articles. You guys do try to stop that, right? -- Scarpy (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    The user has been given several vandalism warnings; if he/she continues please make a listing at WP:AIV. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Question why was I tagged for a 3RR in this situation? I thought that removing vandalism didn't count for that.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Wait, was it because the IP used the phrase "undo vandalism" in the edit summery that you thought I was the vandal?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Note – No, as Gwynand and I explained on your talk page, reverting vandalism is only exempt from 3RR to the extent that it is simple and obvious vandalism. Please contact me on my talk page if you require more information on this. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:BD.Harvest reported by User:JoshuaZ (Result: 31 hours, checkuser filed)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    BD.Harvest and Wmdoti were engaging in a massive revert war on MassResistance Wmdoti and BD both went over 3RR. Wmdoti stopped after a 3RR warning, BD apparently has not. There were actually a total of 10 reversions by BD which I'm not bothering to include all here because formating these take time and 7 is well over 3 anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2008 (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:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic