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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:06, 23 February 2008 view sourceAnmaFinotera (talk \| contribs)107,494 edits →User:Baconhead2010 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: no block): reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:16, 15 January 2025 view source Dawnseeker2000 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers486,859 edits →User:2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: )
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{moveprotected\|small=yes}}
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	<noinclude><center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.<br/>]: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.'''<br/> '''Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.''' <br/></center>
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	</noinclude>
	]
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 66		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~72h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==
	=Violations=
	:Please place ] {{highlight\|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can for it.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Olivia Rodrigo}}
	<!--
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Slomzy0932}}
	-->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*] violation on
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268642187\|diff=1268970122\|label=Consecutive edits made from 11:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	{{Article\|Piedmont, California}}. {{3RRV\|Akhamenehpour}}: Time reported: 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			## {{diff2\|1268969880\|11:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	*Previous version reverted to:
			## {{diff2\|1268970122\|11:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:

	{{Article\|Piedmont High School (California)}}. {{3RRV\|Akhamenehpour}}: Time reported: 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Previous version reverted to:
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Not a strict 24h/3rr but long term constant reinsertion of unsourced pov statement and reverting all removals or fact tags with inappropriate 'removing vandalism' edit summary. ] (]) 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

	:<s>User warned. I didn't see any previous attempt at engaging this new user in talk or warn him, so I think an immediate block would not be warranted at this point. However, I'd be for blocking immediately if he resumes. ] ] 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)</s>
	::Strike that. Blocking 24h. My bad for not checking his talk page history. He was indeed warned, removed the warning, and went on edit-warring. ] ] 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	<s>'''RESUBMIT''' <s>wasn't blocked properly before and</s> continues to edit war despite all warnings, call for discussion. Has threatened to puppet disrupt these articles. ] (]) 08:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)</s> ] (]) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ]♠] (Result: 1 week) ==

			Excessive and unsourced genres. Warning at ]. See also, which Twinkle isn't including: (initial edit), , , , and . Edit warring over multiple days. ''']''' • 11:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	*] violation on
			*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 16:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Article\|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV\|Morpheus Lyric}}: Time reported: 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			*:Left CTOPS notice on talk as article has been semi-protected since last November. ] (]) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	* Revert comparison ("compare"): ().

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Indonesian cuisine}}
	''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Malayologist}}
	# () <small>(edit summary: "formatted entry")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "Reverted wiki to previous state. Changes made are neither vandalism nor gag. Image uploaded is a somewhat popular pro-Obama primary graphic.")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "]Replaced page with ']
	Ban me, but Texas, take note... It is over. I have committed wikisuicide. Viva Obama!'")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "Anger at something so trivial? Is this less than death? No? Very well, then. We will treat it as such.")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "] revision 192792567 by ] (])")</small>

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* Diff of warning:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	User continues to insert image after being reverted by several users and asked to use the talk page...twice replacing the entire article with the image after being warned about 3rr. -—]♠] 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269033903\|18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""These are all poorly sourced" sources are taken from the respective wiki pages for each dish. They are properly sourced. The Arab, Indian, and Chinese sections were not even sourced, and you're okay with that."
			# {{diff2\|1269021132\|17:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Please note that there is more to the story than just Upin Ipin. I kindly request that you review the entire content before making any changes. Additionally, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from reverting the edits solely because of the inclusion of Upin Ipin, as it is only one aspect of the broader context."
			# {{diff2\|1269015313\|16:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Sourced"
			# {{diff2\|1269004089\|15:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Sourced: Ramly Burger and Roti John also popular"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	{{AN3\|ab}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269031551\|18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==
			# {{diff2\|1269033781\|18:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Malaysian "influences" */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1269033887\|18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Malaysian "influences" */"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*] violation on
			:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	]. {{3RRV\|Cebactokpatop}}: Time reported: 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
	*Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Peace}}
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|159.146.51.112}}
	Cebactokpatop repeatedly insists on placing POV description on MZizijulas.jpg file. This is part of ongoing dispute over the article on ]. (Previous 3RR violation by Cebactokpatop on that page resulted in page being protected for 10 days.) ] (]) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Note, I have stepped in on this and I am attempting to mediate. <font color="blue">'' ''']'''<sub>(]\|])</sub> ''</font> 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:There was no 3RR violation on ]. <font color="blue">'' ''']'''<sub>(]\|])</sub> ''</font> 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269051964\|20:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268989837\|13:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268792423\|15:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	::Okay, 3RR warning given . <font color="blue">'' ''']'''<sub>(]\|])</sub> ''</font> 17:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

	'''Cebactokpatop has reverted the text again.''' <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:Fixed by me. <font color="blue">'' ''']'''<sub>(]\|])</sub> ''</font> 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Blocked for 31 hours. · ] <sup>]</sup> 19:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

	'''Cebactokpatop is adding POV to the description of the text again.''' ] (]) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*Blocked again, 72 hours this time. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) ==

			Already given multiple warnings ( and ) on ], yet behavior ongoing. ] (]) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	*] violation on
	{{~~Article~~\|~~Circumcision~~}}. ~~{{3RRV~~\|~~LPRABCMP}}:~~ ~~Time~~ ~~reported~~: 22:27, 20 ~~February~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		*{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}}. ] (]) 21:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Scott Ritter}}
	<!--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.-->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Luganchanka}}
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*1st revert: as ]
	*2nd revert: as ]
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert: as ]

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# {{diff2\|1269047798\|19:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rollback to last version of this article approved by senior wikipedia editors, please go to talkpage and build consensus before further edits"
			# {{diff2\|1269046014\|19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) That is your opinion, take it to the talkpage to build consensus before any further reverts, and please remember Misplaced Pages policy on ]"
			# {{diff2\|1269040838\|19:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) No ] please - take it to the talkpage to build consensus for your claim"
			# {{diff2\|1269040051\|19:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) This will have to go to the talkpage, as at the moment it is looking like a concerted attempt by certain editors to whitewash a sexual offence. The current edit is absolutely ridiculous, making it look as if Ritter knew he was speaking to a police officer. To the talkpage."
			# {{diff2\|1268728980\|06:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) No consensus reached on this on the talkpage, and this lead already approved by multiple senior editors"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Note: should there be any doubt that the two users are the same, ] a post made by ].
			{{diff2\|1269047181\|19:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on Scott Ritter."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	After being blocked for edit warring at 19:25, 18 February 2008, this user has now started edit warring over a different issue at the same page. ] (]) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268633627\|19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard}} "/* Scott Ritter Biography - Noncompliance with MOS and BLP Guidelines */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*{{AN3\|bb\|1 week}} (IP and sock). --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. ] (]) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Left CTOPS notice on talk page. ] (]) 20:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (result: page protected) ==

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article) ==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Hezbollah}}. {{3RRV\|GHcool}} Time reported: 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Twelfth Night (holiday)}} <br />
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|RobinCarmody}}
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:		#
	*3rd revert:		#
			#
			#
			# (added since this report was filed)

	*Diff of 3RR warning: user is not a newbie, he's aware of the policy.

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Revert-war on how ] should state why Hezbollah launched Katyusha rockets in the 2006 war. - ] (]) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*{{AN3\|pp}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result:No block ) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	{{resolved}}
			Not a 3RR violation, but definitely slow-burn edit warning. RobinCarmody has repeatedly edited in redundant, clumsy and ] phrasing into the sentence. I have explained why I don't think it is necessary or valid on the talk page. He is free to disagree of course, but a resolution cannot be reached by avoiding the dsicussion. After 20 years on Misplaced Pages he should know the ropes by now. ] (]) 13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Indefinitely pblocked. In addition to the edit-warring, the user's failure to discuss their edits on the article Talk page is concerning. Also, the user should use edit summaries, particularly when reverting other users. The user has some 16K edits, of which just a bit over 4% include edit summaries. Edit summaries are not required, but many unexplained edits are looked at with suspicion.--] (]) 16:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked for 24 hours) ==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|User:Rschen7754/Problems with Misplaced Pages}}. {{3RRV\|Rschen7754}}: Time reported: 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Murder_of_Wong_Chik_Yeok}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Janessian}}
	<!--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.-->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Basically Rschen7754 thinks he can do what he wants because he's an admin (see ]). He wrote up a little essay that's factually inaccurate. ] 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269257936\|20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	: A 3RR on a user's sandbox page? Mmmm... Not applicable, NE2. If and when he moves it to the Misplaced Pages namespace, then yes. ] <small>]</small> 02:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation; page protected) ==

			User:Janessian is repeatedly removing the same images. By my count they have manually reverted 6 or 7 times. ] (]) 20:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Reggaeton}}. {{3RRV\|74.228.158.68}}: Time reported: 08:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

			I had in fact already decided to block before this report was filed. ] (]) 20:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: p-block) ==
	<!--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.-->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2010: The Year We Make Contact}}
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Æ's old account wasn't working}}
	*1st revert: 01:10, 21 February 2008
	*2nd revert: 16:56, 20 February 2008
	*3rd revert: 16:51, 20 February 2008

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning: The user is well aware of the policy (he even complained about me!)
			# {{diff2\|1269290040\|23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Stop simping for Metacritic!"
			# {{diff2\|1269289340\|23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) That sentence is unsourced. Get over it."
			# {{diff2\|1269285767\|23:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Stop."
			# {{diff2\|1269177396\|11:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Don't start."
			# {{diff2\|1269138638\|06:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Omitting the sentence entirely like what we have done with ] I feel might be the best strategy, seeing as both films have wildly differing RT and MC scores."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1269289036\|23:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	This anonymous user keeps on deleting referenced information (see discussion page: lyrics from songs are provided which show explicit sexism; links to newsmedia with complaints to women´s right councils; internal links to wikipedia musical definitions are also provided to define the lacks of this music. Seeing his historial, I realize he´s a reggaeton fan which cannot admit the less criticism to his loved music.
			# {{diff2\|1267674454\|04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2010: The Year We Make Contact}} "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"
	--] (]) 08:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I'll get straight to the point. Xareau_bs was vandalizing that wiki on a daily basis with critical POV statements. He refuses to include a single reference. I reported him for 3RR last week, and an admin protected the page to prevent further vandalism by him. Take 10 seconds to look at the talk page and the wiki history, his additions are noticeably POV, and he has yet to actually reference anything. He isn't even trying to source anything. I also think he just inadvertantly butchered the 3RR noticeboard coding. ] (]) 08:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:The three-revert rule prohibits ''more'' than three reverts in a 24-hour period. You have provided only three. No violation made out. ] (]) 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

			This editor was banned last week for 7 days after 5 reverts about this same content (). They have now made 5 reverts again today, the first day that their block ended. They have barely contributed to the extensive talk page discussion, where other editors have been working towards a consensus. – ] (]) 23:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::This is ridiculous! Don't start a revert war on this page. Wait for an admin to follow-up. - ] <sup>]</sup> 10:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I've protected the page due to further edit warring. ] (]) 10:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

			:Yes, I will discuss the issue on the talk page. Getting a little impulsive with these reverts. ] (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected) ==
			::You are already at 5 reverts on the day your block for making 5 reverts about the same content ended, and now you are also sending out 3RR notices to other editors such as me (despite me only reverting twice, as there were 2 other editors who also reverted you today). The talk page discussion has been ongoing for over a month, and I think your contribution there so far speak for themselves. – ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You only seem to focus on my contributions to reverting the changes, not my contributions to the talk page discussion. If you want this edit war to end, best you stop by on the talk page to do some civil discussion. ] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Æ, you made ] to the talk page discussion three minutes before writing this reply. You aren't really in a position to demands others "stop by on the talk page" when it took four reverts from three different editors before you did the same. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I guess my ADHD brain thinks reverting is better than discussion on the talk page. At this point I don't even know why I keep edit warring. Maybe I have inherited this "bludgeoning" from my father. Don't know anymore. I just don't.
			:::::Help me. I don't think I can take it anymore. I have gone mentally insane. ] (]) 00:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It's difficult to say why any of us edit war, but you're not alone in it. I think the best option is to just ]. Consider ] or finding another article to work on in the meantime; ], so keep doing that. Find something that ]. Just remember, ]. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 00:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Problem is, all of my edits get reverted. I can't figure out why. I am stuck in a permanent edit war on every article I touch, whether I like it or not. HELP! ] (]) 00:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::All of them. On every article I edit. All of them get reverted. ] (]) 00:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::That's not entirely true; looking at ], I see many edits that were not reverted. In any case, you should consider reversions an opportunity to ]; ] and explain your edits. You may learn something to keep in mind for the future, or you might teach something to someone else. It's always better to respond to reversion ] than with ]. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Understood. ] (]) 00:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Do you even take my edits into consideration? ] (]) 00:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Since Æ's old account wasn't working cannot keep himself from reverting on this article even after having been previously blocked from edit warring at the same article, I've partially blocked him from the article for a month. If he gets talk page consensus for the disputed edits prior to the block expiring let me know and I'll lift the block.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 range blocked) ==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|California State Route 88}}. {{3RRV\|75.47.138.61}}: Time reported: 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia Day 2025}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2600:1001:B129:3A84:31C2:67F3:252:DDAA}}
	<!--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.-->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1269301065\|00:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*2nd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1269301010\|00:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*3rd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1269300981\|00:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*4th revert:
			# {{diff2\|1269300846\|00:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269300458\|00:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269300407\|00:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269300369\|00:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269300275\|00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269300228\|00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269300185\|00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269300108\|00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# {{diff2\|1269300306\|00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	This guy changes IP every day so blocking might have no effect. ] 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Page semi-protected. ] (]) 09:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hrs) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*] violation on
			*/64 range blocked by another admin.--] (]) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Article\|Oink's Pink Palace}}. {{3RRV\|Phantomia}}: Time reported: 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Scuderia Ferrari}}
	<!--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.-->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Baldoz}}
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	There were also two reverts extending back to 18 February.
			# {{diff2\|1269468204\|21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269467160\|20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269462212\|20:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Fixed discrepancies made by user Lobo151"
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# {{diff2\|1269466345\|20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers ]"
			# {{diff2\|1269467260\|20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording ]"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	User continues to add in spam links regarding Oink's Pink Palace. Claims that he is an "ex-Moderator of OiNK Member of OiNKv2" and states that " have seen the new site at the new url with the old data so I can confirm it is real." But the primary states otherwise. It's been previously reported to ], seen ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	: {{done}} 24 hrs. ] <small>]</small> 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*] violation on
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} ] ] 21:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Article\|Carolina-Clemson rivalry}}. {{3RRV\|Tigeringtown}}: Time reported: 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Pudukkottai}}
	<!--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.-->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F}}
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# {{diff2\|1269501838\|00:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268811016\|diff=1269371545\|label=Consecutive edits made from 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) to 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269370583\|09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			## {{diff2\|1269371545\|10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	After being warned of the 3RR the user responded by posting a vandalism template to my talk page, in addition to calling me a liar in violation of ]. Then the user decided to simply ignore the warning and revert the article for the 4th time in 3 hours. This user has no other history of editing and appears to be primarily interested in trying to start an edit war over a topic that has been covered in the article already. I have reason to believe the user is also using sockpuppets for this purpose, as this edit was made by an IP user just before this user started making the same edit, please consider blocking 64.234.75.220 and 209.221.240.193 simultaneous to this user. In fact, semi-protection might be in order for this article until this user gets bored and moves on. ] (]) 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269502083\|00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:Both blocked for 24 hours. ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*] violation on
			:See also the history of ] ] 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Article\|Scotland}}. {{3RRV\|Malarious}}: Time reported: 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
			:See link to my request to have the page protected ] and that request's denial ]

	*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 if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	Discussion open on talk, user not interested, given warning, paid no attention. Other contribs. of user strongly suggest that ] is irrelevent to them. ] (]) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	:Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. -- ''']''' 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] <s>(Result: No violation)</s> (Result:Article ban) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Amon Amarth}} and {{Article\|Dissection (band)}}. {{3RRV\|Twsx}}: Time reported: 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	*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 if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	<small>Note: These are all the Amon Amarth edits, I'm not sure if I got all of them, though. I can also provide the diffs for Dissection, but that would just take me even longer. The later edits are more interesting, if you care.</small>
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:
	*8th revert:
	*9th revert:
	*10th revert:
	*11th revert:
	*12th revert:
	*13th revert:
	*14th revert:
	*15th revert:
	*16th revert:
	*17th revert:
	*18th revert:
	*19th revert:
	*20th revert:
	*21st revert:
	*22nd revert:
	*23rd revert:
	*24th revert:
	*25th revert:
	*26th revert:
	*27th revert:
	*28th revert:
	*29th revert:
	*30th revert:
	*31st revert:
	*32nd revert:
	*33rd revert:
	*34th revert:
	*35th revert:
	*36th revert:
	*37th revert:
	*38th revert:
	*39th revert:
	*40th revert:
	*41st revert:
	*42nd revert:
	*43rd revert:
	*44th revert:
	*45th revert:
	*46th revert:
	*47th revert:


	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	User has been warring on both of those pages long before I took up the issue with him. The user has been warned repeatedly by a handful of users and has made it clear that they don't care. Though, for the past few months, it has been mostly me reverting the user, if you look through both pages' histories you will see that many other users have reverted Twsx as well. I'm sure some of my past indisgressions may be brought up (I have been blocked for edit warring myself a couple times, though I still believe I was in the right on my latest one), but I assure you that I've changed and I ''do'' mean to help wikipedia and this kind of nonsense only makes us all go crazy and not focus on good editing. I also admit that when this edit warring started between me and Twsx it was mostly a comma break vs line break issue, but as I said, I only want the edit warring to stop now. I'm asking for a block to teach the user a lesson and stop edit warring. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	:Interesting that i have never thought of this before. Please note that I could make the very same list with this editors revisions (which usually take place within, say, 12 hours after my edit). More argumentation and referencing concerning the issue can be found at ], (so yes, I had to deal with this before, kinda :-)). As far as my humble judgement goes (partially based on the history of this editors behavoir, as seen on the page linked above) I have to assume that he is placing this report in bad faith. ~ <span style="color:#FF0000;font-weight:bold;">\| <small>]</small> \| <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> \|</span> ~ 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::That is a blatant lie. You have been edit warring on those two pages even before I got involved. Would you like me to provide the evidence? Because I can. You have been warned ''and'' reverted by multiple users, so I suppose they were all in bad faith, too, right? And you happen to be an innocent viction who's done no wrong? You've shown a disregard for the rules of wikipedia and gotten away with it for too long w/o any measures being taken. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	:There is no evidence that a violation of the three-revert rule has occurred. Hence, no action here. -- ''']''' 01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	Not to be offensive but he has most definitely broken 3RR. Excessive edit warring is still breaking 3RR even if the user hasn't reverted three times in a day. And I quote "''Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.''" Which happens a lot. I have been blocked before without making 3 reverts in a day. Edit warring is edit warring and above all it is disruptive and needs to be prevented. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	:Tariq is correct, this is not a violation of ], which is why it cannot be dealt with here. If you feel that these are disruptive edits, you can always post a report at ]. —]] 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	::Ok, I can take it to ANI, but I seem to be missing something here and I admit I don't understand. How is Twsx ''not'' breaking 3RR? He's edit warring like crazy! I, myself, have been reported here before without having to make 3 reverts in a day and simply for edit warring over a week or so. If I take it to ANI should I leave it in the same format with all the diffs and what not? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	Unless I'm missing something it says "''To report edit warring, see the administrators' 3RR noticeboard.''" at ANI. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Policy says: “An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''', in whole or in part, on a single page '''within a 24-hour period'''.” ''(emphasis mine)'' In other words, 4 or more reverts within 24 hours, which hasn’t happened here. I understand your frustration, but this noticeboard is not the proper forum for this case. —]] 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	::No, edit warring is not tolerated, and admins have broad discretion to stop disruption. Read ]; just below the sentence quoted above you will read ''Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks.'' There is nothing wrong with flexibility and creativity in crafting ways to stop editors from acting poorly. ] 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


	*Actually, I'm going to jump in here and do something a little different. Edit warring is not an acceptable editing method, whether or not 3RR is violated. What we have here is a long-running edit war (47 reversions!) over whether or not to list the band's genres on a single line or two lines in the info-box. That is the lamest, saddest, stupidest edit war I have ever seen. I am banning both {{user\|Navnløs}} and {{user\|Twsx}} from editing the article for 30 days, or until they reach an agreement and settle this issue once and for all. There is a talk page, a Wikiproject to consult with, RFC and mediation, and this sort of petty disruption in lieu of appropriate dispute resolution needs to stop. ] 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ] reported by ] (]) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (Result: Stale) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|St. John's University (New York City)‎}}. {{3RRV\|208.40.192.194}}: Time reported: 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->


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

	*Diff of 3RR warning: not a new user has been blocked in the past for same incident

	This is the same user TiconderogaCCB as can be seen by who has been blocked in the past for edit warring and abusive use of sockpuppets ] (]) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


	] (]) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Report is stale - edit war was a couple of days ago. ] (]) 10:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: page protected ) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Serbia}}. {{3RRV\|Imperium_Europeum}}: Time reported: 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	*{{AN3\|pp}} Multiple editors were reverting and general chaos seemed to be ensuing, so it's protected for now. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


	== ] reported by ] (Result: Deferred to ANI) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|User talk:Klpalmer}}. {{3RRV\|Zsero}}: Time reported: 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning: (edit war)
	*2nd 3RR Warning (3RR)

	] is engaged in an edit war over a warning left by admin ] on the pages of five accounts suspected of leaving spam. There is currently a discussion of this matter at ], however, Zsero feels the spam warnings are not valid and deletes them before any consensus can be gained. On the ] page, he admitted to being fully aware of violating the policy here .

	He has also done the same multiple reverts to , , and . I've attempted to talk to him about this on both his talk page and mine, but he remains adamant about removing the warnings because he feels his edit war is justified the spam warnings are ].
	] (]) 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Deferred to ]. There are wider issues here and blocking Zsero would be unhelpful. ] (]) 10:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	Here's the full others;
	*] ] violation on {{IPvandal\|134.68.172.247}}
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

	*] ] violation on {{IPvandal\|134.68.173.135}}
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

	*] ] violation on {{IPvandal\|134.68.172.247}}
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	--] (]) 10:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected, content issue referred to ArbCom) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence}}. {{3RRV\|Crum375}}: Time reported: 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)



	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:
	*8th revert:


	*Diff of 3RR warning:


	3RR violation in arbcom case evidence posting place, ] to try to justify 3RR violation. ] (]) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Exempt due to ]. ] (]) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	**Is this exemption a blank check that permits an unlimited number of reversions if you claim it to fall under that policy, no matter how many other editors in good standing disagree? ] (]) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::No, it just prevents people from posting links that are borderline ], since the link is a highly opinionated blog (see also, our ]) and calls the person a psychopath, which is potentially libelous under the ]. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::The page has been protected twice so far due to this edit warring, and so far Crum375 has reverted it 10 times, while a whole variety of other editors (I think some of them even admins) reverted back. Editing of other people's ArbCom evidence by anybody other than an arbitrator or clerk is supposed to be against policy. If BLP is suddenly to be strictly enforced on ArbCom evidence pages, there's an awful lot else that needs to be redacted, including numerous statements about Judd Bagley in the same case. ] (]) 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::WTF? Throwing three-letter acronyms around doesn't make you exempt from the 3RR. ] ] 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action taken) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy}}. {{3RRV\|Yosemitesam25}}: Time reported: 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	] has been reverting and/or editing out text (both whole and in part) in an article that has been the subject of contentious dispute in the past. S/he has reverted or altered text despite discussion and explanation on my talk page of why these edits were likely not warranted. Thank you. ] (]) 20:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

	** The and are clearly not anything close to a revert. I count 2-ish so far today and one by the reporter. ''']''' ]\|] 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	==] reported by ] (Result:Blocked 12 hours )==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Brendan Nelson}}. {{3RRV\|Timeshift9}}: Time reported: 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	All reverts are the same.

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


	*Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked for 3RR before.

	] attempts a wikipedia 3RR record with 4 reverts in just over half an hour. User was offered the chance to self revert yet has declined. ] (]) 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I've blocked Timeshift9 for 12 hours for edit-warring on the article. However, while changing the size each time he reverted, he sometimes added content or did other work, if it is uncontroversial I encourage him to make such constructive edits when the block expires. ]<nowiki>\|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 03:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: no block) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|List of Wheel of Fortune puzzle categories}}. {{3RRV\|Baconhead2010}}: Time reported: 07:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

	*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 if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	As IP 71.128.137.235, this user restored cleaned up fancruft from the article, that was removed based on discussions in the current AfD and the main Wheel of Fortune talk page. Additionally they removed the AfD templates. After that was reverted, they created the Baconhead2010 account, and kept reverting the revert. After third revert of his edits, he stopped removing the AfD, but kept redoing the readdition of the fancruft, despite warnings to stop. Between the final warning, he made an additional edit, inexplicably removing a single item, perhaps thinking it would negate the 3RR rule or something. User seems to have no purpose but pointed attempts to undo the needed clean up in the article, despite consensus to clean it up for bring back into the main to avoid deletion. ] (]) 07:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
	:This report contains oldids, not ]. Please refile using diffs if you would like the report acted on. ] (]) 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
	::All links fixed to diffs ] (]) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::As both sides are edit warring, and Collectionian is arguably the worse offender (using Twinkle in a content dispute and labelling the edits as vandalism, for example), I'm disinclined to make a block on only one side. Instead, I'm watchlisting the article and am ready to block if either continues to revert. ] ] 19:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::His first two reverts removed the AfD template, something he did as an anon IP. How is that not vandalism??? ] (]) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::If your reverts had only been to restore the AfD tag, fine. But you reverted the entire edit, including the disputed content, making your reverts edit warring. I did indeed take the AfD tag removal into account, since if it weren't for this, I would simply have blocked you both for edit warring. ] ] 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I agree. My first inclination when I saw this was to block both users. Calling something vandalism doesn't make it so. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Okay...I disagree as his edits also blatantly went against consensus, and he was doing the same thing before under various IPs and being reverted by others, but okay. ] (]) 20:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Example ==

	<pre>
	<!-- 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 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 -->
	</pre>

	== See also ==

	* ]
	* – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

Latest revision as of 04:16, 15 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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)
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Slomzy0932 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

User being reported: Slomzy0932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 11:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 11:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 11:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Excessive and unsourced genres. Warning at User talk:Slomzy0932#January 2025. See also, which Twinkle isn't including: (initial edit), , , , and . Edit warring over multiple days. Amaury • 11:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Left CTOPS notice on talk as article has been semi-protected since last November. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Malayologist reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked 24h)

User being reported: Malayologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC) ""These are all poorly sourced" sources are taken from the respective wiki pages for each dish. They are properly sourced. The Arab, Indian, and Chinese sections were not even sourced, and you're okay with that."
17:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Please note that there is more to the story than just Upin Ipin. I kindly request that you review the entire content before making any changes. Additionally, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from reverting the edits solely because of the inclusion of Upin Ipin, as it is only one aspect of the broader context."
16:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Sourced"
15:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Sourced: Ramly Burger and Roti John also popular"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Indonesian cuisine."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Malaysian "influences" */ new section"
18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Malaysian "influences" */"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

User:159.146.51.112 reported by User:Snowycats (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

User being reported: 159.146.51.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269002318 by NJZombie (talk)"
13:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268644937 by Remsense (talk)"
15:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268644937 by Remsense (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Already given multiple warnings ( and ) on WP:3RR, yet behavior ongoing. Snowycats (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Luganchanka reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: Luganchanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Rollback to last version of this article approved by senior wikipedia editors, please go to talkpage and build consensus before further edits"
19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269045641 by NatGertler (talk) That is your opinion, take it to the talkpage to build consensus before any further reverts, and please remember Misplaced Pages policy on WP:Edit warring"
19:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269040492 by NatGertler (talk) No WP:Edit warring please - take it to the talkpage to build consensus for your claim"
19:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269039619 by NatGertler (talk) This will have to go to the talkpage, as at the moment it is looking like a concerted attempt by certain editors to whitewash a sexual offence. The current edit is absolutely ridiculous, making it look as if Ritter knew he was speaking to a police officer. To the talkpage."
06:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268635595 by Hemiauchenia (talk) No consensus reached on this on the talkpage, and this lead already approved by multiple senior editors"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Scott Ritter."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard "/* Scott Ritter Biography - Noncompliance with MOS and BLP Guidelines */ new section"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Left CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

User:RobinCarmody reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(added since this report was filed)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
Not a 3RR violation, but definitely slow-burn edit warning. RobinCarmody has repeatedly edited in redundant, clumsy and WP:POINTy phrasing into the sentence. I have explained why I don't think it is necessary or valid on the talk page. He is free to disagree of course, but a resolution cannot be reached by avoiding the dsicussion. After 20 years on Misplaced Pages he should know the ropes by now. Betty Logan (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Indefinitely pblocked. In addition to the edit-warring, the user's failure to discuss their edits on the article Talk page is concerning. Also, the user should use edit summaries, particularly when reverting other users. The user has some 16K edits, of which just a bit over 4% include edit summaries. Edit summaries are not required, but many unexplained edits are looked at with suspicion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Janessian reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

User being reported: Janessian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Janessian is repeatedly removing the same images. By my count they have manually reverted 6 or 7 times. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I had in fact already decided to block before this report was filed. JBW (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Æ's old account wasn't working reported by User:Notwally (Result: p-block)

User being reported: Æ's old account wasn't working (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269289591 by Notwally (talk) Stop simping for Metacritic!"
23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269288727 by Notwally (talk) That sentence is unsourced. Get over it."
23:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269182473 by Barry Wom (talk) Stop."
11:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Don't start."
06:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Omitting the sentence entirely like what we have done with The NeverEnding Story I feel might be the best strategy, seeing as both films have wildly differing RT and MC scores."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

23:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2010: The Year We Make Contact."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2010: The Year We Make Contact "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"

Comments:

This editor was banned last week for 7 days after 5 reverts about this same content (link). They have now made 5 reverts again today, the first day that their block ended. They have barely contributed to the extensive talk page discussion, where other editors have been working towards a consensus. – notwally (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I will discuss the issue on the talk page. Getting a little impulsive with these reverts. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You are already at 5 reverts on the day your block for making 5 reverts about the same content ended, and now you are also sending out 3RR notices to other editors such as me (despite me only reverting twice, as there were 2 other editors who also reverted you today). The talk page discussion has been ongoing for over a month, and I think your contribution there so far speak for themselves. – notwally (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You only seem to focus on my contributions to reverting the changes, not my contributions to the talk page discussion. If you want this edit war to end, best you stop by on the talk page to do some civil discussion. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Æ, you made your first contribution to the talk page discussion three minutes before writing this reply. You aren't really in a position to demands others "stop by on the talk page" when it took four reverts from three different editors before you did the same. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess my ADHD brain thinks reverting is better than discussion on the talk page. At this point I don't even know why I keep edit warring. Maybe I have inherited this "bludgeoning" from my father. Don't know anymore. I just don't.

Help me. I don't think I can take it anymore. I have gone mentally insane. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's difficult to say why any of us edit war, but you're not alone in it. I think the best option is to just keep going. Consider doing a different task or finding another article to work on in the meantime; you've made plenty of good contributions here, so keep doing that. Find something that makes you happy. Just remember, it's not the end of the world. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Problem is, all of my edits get reverted. I can't figure out why. I am stuck in a permanent edit war on every article I touch, whether I like it or not. HELP! Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

All of them. On every article I edit. All of them get reverted. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not entirely true; looking at your contributions, I see many edits that were not reverted. In any case, you should consider reversions an opportunity to build your knowledge; discuss on the talk page and explain your edits. You may learn something to keep in mind for the future, or you might teach something to someone else. It's always better to respond to reversion with discussion than with more reversion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you even take my edits into consideration? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Since Æ's old account wasn't working cannot keep himself from reverting on this article even after having been previously blocked from edit warring at the same article, I've partially blocked him from the article for a month. If he gets talk page consensus for the disputed edits prior to the block expiring let me know and I'll lift the block.-- Ponyo 00:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)