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

Revision as of 16:21, 16 January 2008 view sourceRoadcreature (talk \| contribs)4,347 edits →User:Guido den Broeder reported by User:Seicer (Result: ): fake warning← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:27, 16 January 2008 view source Seicer (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users20,321 edits →User:Guido den Broeder reported by User:Seicer (Result: ): +Another revertNext edit →
Line 368:		Line 368:
	:*		:*
	:*		:*
			:*

	*Diff of 3RR warning:		*Diff of 3RR warning:

Revision as of 16:27, 16 January 2008

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

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)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

User:Tankred reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: No block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:31, 11 January 2008

No need for 3RR warning, old user already blocked for 3RR and made reports himself.

User:Tankred broke 3RR on the article Magyarization deleting relevant material (describing Andrej Hlinka as a controversial figure) and inserting POV information while deleting my contribution to change the meaning of my words. Also has been disruptive at the article Battle of Rozhanovce. I do not want to break the rule, so please look into this. Squash Racket (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess user Squash Racket is misleading you because of our content dispute in the article he mentioned. Only two first edits were reverts. The third edit was simple copyediting and addition of a citation. The fourth edit was expansion of a sentence based on a source cited in the article. These edits are not the same and only two of them were reverts. As to the article Battle of Rozhanovce, I am the original author and I do not understand how writing an article can be considered disruptive. Squash Racket is more than welcome to contribute to it in a constructive way. Tankred (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting another editor's edit more than three times is breaking this rule. Squash Racket (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Only two edits were reverts. Tankred (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I tried to resolve the dispute at the talk page (see section "Černová event as a proof of the 'violent' Magyarization"), but received no answer from him. Squash Racket (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have never replied to a comment by another user at that page. Anyway, the 3RR noticeboard is not a dispute resolution procedure. Tankred (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

At the time of my talk page attempt I had a dispute with Tankred (see dates and diffs), not an anonymous IP. Squash Racket (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The violation is stale, as it happened a few days ago. I'm leaving this one alone. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Djma12 reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: No Block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:07, 14 January 2008

Previous revert: 04:18, 8 January 2008

1st revert: 20:09, 13 January 2008
2rd revert: 13:15, 14 January 2008
3th revert: 14:07, 14 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 13:59, 14 January 2008

User:Djma12 is repeatedly re-adding a text that was removed before because it is not supported by the sources. He claims that he has consensus for this text, but this is not the case. The text differs significantly from the quote that he put forward for RFC, and no consensus was reached on the original quote either. Note that the source is already mentioned elsewhere in the text with a different (correct) interpretation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal - The RFC discussion can be viewed here. The edit history speaks for itself. Djma12 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Only three reverts here, no 3RR breach. Users will be warned about 3RR and votestacking. - Revolving Bugbear 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Harumphy reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:31, January 14, 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 16:15, January 8, 2008

Apparently, he doesn't agree with the concensus found on the discussion page. The user may also be a sockpuppet of User:Locke Cole, a user recently blocked as per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole. Roguegeek (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours due to clear edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It may have been appropriate to warn others too- others were inappropriately reverting, including Roguegeek. It's not very cool to report someone for edit warring when you're also doing it. Friday (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:faithlessthewonderboy reported by 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Result:no block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 21:24 14 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:16, 14 January 2008

Constant discussions on appropriateness of word "tender" in this article, which "faithless" has backed out of, as per . Followed by un-backed up claims of meatpuppetry, and canvassing (whilst clearly being canvassed on his own page). Refusal to participate in discussion re tender and constant reverting (2 more times yesterday, plus reverts by his friends and bots). Please block this person. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR, as I have been removing blatant vandalism. A simple look at the page history will confirm this. Please also note that several other editors (including ClueBot) have been fighting vandalism on this page. This is a ridiculous charge by an admitted meatpuppeteer who has been vandalizing this article for literally months now and has been blocked for it already. User has repeatedly accused me of running ClueBot which, while quite a compliment, is obviously inaccurate. faithless () 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think this can be considered blatant vandalism, but I am still unwilling to block for removing such a blatantly unencyclopedic language as this, especially when the IPs supporting this change have effectively stated an unwillingness to listen at all to the other side, essentially saying that because they disagree, there is no consensus. At best, both parties are equally guilty here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A little research with my main man whois suggests we have a lot of dynamic IPs here (which we pretty much could have guessed from the content, anyway). As this is clearly disruptive, I've semiprotected the article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, the simple addition of the offending word would not be vandalism. However, there have been several edits which couldn't be described any other way. On top of that, this IP has already been blocked because of this. It's not the addition of the word that's vandalism, but rather the editor's actions long after a consensus has been reached that he didn't like. Cheers, faithless () 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it's not really vandalism; rather, it falls under the heading of disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There can never be consensus whilst there is disagreement. Those who seek consensus (such as said IPs) discuss the change. Those who don't (such as faithless)refuse to discuss. At best both parties are equally guilty. At worst, Faithless is falsely accusing me of meetpuppetry. Semi-protection , and I quote, "should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." Please revise this decision. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, I don't know what a Dynamic IP is, but I have a feeling I am being accused of something else. What does this mean? 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You can continue making your case, but please stop misrepresenting me. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement; if it did, there would never be consensus on anything. It means general agreement. Every editor who has weighed in on the topic has disagreed with you. Consensus has been reached, which is why I don't want to continue rehashing this same tired argument. I have suggested several times that you seek dispute resolution. You have refused to do this. Instead, you admittedly enlisted your friends to engage in edit warring and you've made absolutely baseless reports at the admin noticeboard. This (hopefully) will be my last word on the matter: if you disagree with the community's decision, please seek dispute resolution. That is the proper avenue here. If you're not willing to do that, please let this go. faithless () 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus seeks the agreement of all by resolving the objections of the minority. In what way have you done this? In what way have you resolved my objections? By reporting me, having me banned and ignoring what I said? And what of the countless other people who made the same edit as I? You clearly have NO understanding of the word consensus, and should give up your adminship now. Or at least look into what the word means. Once again, I ask you were I have said that I enlisted my friends. That is an assumption you make. Falsely. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ferrylodge reported by User:Turtlescrubber (Result:72 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

This user is not new to the world of edit warring. Ferrylodge is known for his contentious editing and has been blocked four times previously. ~~I can not see the blocks myself as I am not an administrator.~~ User was banned by the community for disruptive and tendentious editing but is now on probation. User is currently banned from all abortion related topics. On this current article, user has filled up three pages of archive material and was one of the ones responsible for the month long protection of the Mitt Romney page. Article was unprotected because of a consensus reached and agree to by all editors. User has been trying to undue the consensus for many weeks now. He broke the 3rr rule today while trying to undue the original consensus. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions.Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber and I both received warnings at our respective talk pages regarding 3RR from Gwernol (Turtlescrubber deleted his warning). Neither of us has reverted since the warnings. Moreover, another admin looked at my reversions, and advised that they did not violate 3RR. Even if it could be argued somehow that I otherwise would have been in violation of 3RR, the edits and the edit summaries show that Turtlescrubber was engaged in vandalism (reversion of which cannot violate 3RR), given that Turtlescrubber was making wildly inaccurate edits to sections of the article that he did not even have any objection against (e.g. the "Personal life" section). This is a frivolous complaint.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That admin you bring up is your good friend and also takes the same side as you on the article talk page (also a brand new admin). I was not engaged in vandalism and I would ask you to stop making personal attacks. Frivolous complaint? You edit warred and then broke 3rr. I was polite and civil in my edit summaries and warned you multiple times before you violated the 3rr. The article is going to be protected once again because of your edit warring. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall ever having any contact with the admin named Gwernol before today. And I don't recall ever having any contact with the admin John Carter before January 11. I don't think these insinuations of yours are helpful, Turtlescrubber.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwernol warned you about 3rr, what does that have to do with anything? You and John Carter are friends as evidenced by your talk page, the mitt romney talk page discussion and your voting for his adminship like two days ago. Please, let's be honest here. John also supports your position rather fervently. Hardly a neutral admin in all this. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to drag out this discussion. You've made your complaint.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If I didn't have to correct half-truths then I wouldn't comment at all. I am done arguing with you for the night. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I count three reverts apiece, but whatever ... guys, you both know the rules and you both know what you're doing. Talk it out on the talk page and quit reverting each other repeatedly. Someone would probably complain if I were to make the block myself, but come on guys ... this is ridiculous - you both know better. (24hr/ea would be my block in case anyone cares.) --B (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, he has 4 reverts. He started to edit war. He was warned and he violated the 3rr. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if he does (and I count one initial edit + 3 reverts, but I could be looking at it wrong), 3RR is not license to revert exactly 3 times. You both were revert warring and three reverts inside of 30 minutes is inherently disruptive. --B (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber, you were engaged in vandalism. Or do you have some explanation of why you edited the "Personal life" section? Just to get on my nerves?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? You win. I quit the project. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account Ferrylodge's behaviour and his history, along with the ongoing ANI discussion, I've blocked for 72 hours. Of course, this is subject to review by other admins. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee reported by User:Opiumjones 23 (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:

This User claims to be awaiting admin advice but has violated 3RR on two pages See and Also note the users rationale in his edit summery on his last edit. He talks about his edit being him getting even. BKLisenbee (Talk | contribs) (3,458 bytes) "Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not."

This user refused mediation call by User:FayssalF on his talk page. For mediation page see User:FayssalF/JK. A severe block is needed. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain what the alleged BLP issue is here that you guys refer to in your edit summaries? (Removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR.) --B (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User places external link alleging illegal act by page's subject on Frank Rynne. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note: It's a lot easier to assess a 3RR notice if the evidence presented is in the form of diffs (with timestamps) rather than with histories. Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:24.60.254.74 reported by User:loodog (Result: 31 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:42, 13 January 2008

1st revert: 01:30, 14 January 2008
2nd revert: 04:38, 14 January 2008
3rd revert: 22:43, 14 January 2008
4th revert: 02:42, 15 January 2008
5th revert:

03:35, 15 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 03:05, 15 January 2008

User wishes to change "on the Charles River" to "near the Charles River". Despite two requests in edit summaries to bring to talk page, and warning of 3RR, user has engaged in edit war and broken 3RR.Loodog (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. --B (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rufuskhan reported by User:JD554 (Result: 72 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 15:38, 12 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 12:44, 15 January 2008 (not a diff as only edit)

These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and User:Chakanobody over the past few weeks as the complete history of the article shows. At this time Rufuskhan appears to have made a total of 40 edits over the past 2 weeks alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. JD554 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating WP:3RR and edit warring on Peterborough United F.C.. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chakanobody reported by User:JD554 (Result: 72 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:55, 12 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 12:44, 15 January 2008 (not a diff as only edit)

These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and User:Rufuskhan (see previous report) over the past few weeks as the complete history of the article shows. At this time Chakanobody appears to have made a total of 20 edits over the past week alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. JD554 (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating WP:3RR and edit warring on Peterborough United F.C.. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:1csimfan reported by User:Bigskyblueeyes (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:42, 11 January 2008
1st revert: 17:25 14 January 2008
2nd revert: 00:34 15 January 2008
3rd revert: 17:46 15 January 2008
4th revert: 19:12 15 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:12 15 January 2008

1csimfan has been repeatedly editing the Danny Messer article daily since at least December 27, strictly for the intent of POV pushing. It is also possible that this user has used the username Roximonoxide as a sockpuppet for the same purpose.

I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. If the user continues to edit after the block, I will protect the pages. I only chose not to protect the pages in this situation, because the user has been edit warring on multiple articles, and has made a minimal attempt at discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:1csimfan reported by User:Bigskyblueeyes (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 19:12, 15 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning:

1csimfan has been editing the Lindsay Monroe article multiple times daily since at least December 27, strictly for the intent of pushing their POV as fact. It is also possible that this user has used the username Roximonoxide as a sockpuppet for the same purpose.

I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. If the user continues to edit after the block, I will protect the pages. I only chose not to protect the pages in this situation, because the user has been edit warring on multiple articles, and has made a minimal attempt at discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BTNCOURT reported by User:The Ogre (Result: Blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:38, 16 January 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

User BTNCOURT (and maybe some sockpuppets) insists, against all other user, to add a disputed, non-encyclopedic and normative section. The Ogre (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this article, this meme looks familiar. In any event, the user is blocked. --B (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:L.Wadsworth reported by User:VirtualSteve (Result:Case sent to RFCU)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22:37, January 16, 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:23, January 16, 2008
Previous Diff of 3RR warning related also to Hervey Bay, Queensland insertions (provided as evidence as to his gaining recent earlier advice of 3RR rule): 20:23, January 16, 2008

Editor L.Wadsworth has a specific interest in the area of Hervey Bay, Queensland. He has persisted in adding detail concerning that location - in the case of this 3RR report to List of cities in Australia by population, but he has also made similar reversions stopping just before breaching the 3RR rule at Australia. It appears that he has now attempted to circumvent the rule by editing under his IP account (whilst not logged on). His page has a number of 3RR warnings. --VS 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarification purposes only, it should be noted that the information that User:L.Wadsworth insists on adding to List of cities in Australia by population is incorrect. His additions involve replacing properly cited and verified data with his own versions. This is why other editors have reverted his edits. His errors have been explained to him both on the article's talk page and on his talk page yet he insists on reverting the correct figures to his own. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder reported by User:Seicer (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:35, 16 January 2008

These are based upon the last 24:28 hours:

Diff of 3RR warning: 11:25, 16 January 2008

The user has continued to edit war at Chronic fatigue syndrome and other related articles. He is the subject of numerous disputes at his talk page, has filed requests at WQA (2nd), filed frivolous requests against disputed editors at ANI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: The user has a previous 31h block on 14 December for 5 reverts within 24 hours at the same article, with disruption to talk pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- At the time, I did not understand how 3RR was counted, and did not receive a warning. It was a simple mistake for which I apologized. Note, by the way, that User:Seicer's warning was immediately followed by this report, and therefore constitutes a fake warning. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Seicer is bandwagoning on a threatening editwar that I have prevented by starting RfC's, which he ignores. I am not the subject of any disputes and do not make frivolous requests. The diffs he mentions above pertain to several different content disputes on a very long article, all of which are presently discussed on the talk page, and do not constitute a 3RR violation (in fact, I am trying to follow 2RR these days). The content issue on Fibromyalgia is unrelated and has already been solved to my satisfaction. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

06:20, 15 January 2008 = fix where statement is erroneously attributed to author (issue 1)
12:49, 15 January 2008 = restoring link to documented outbreaks which user is denying (issue 2 - same section as issue 1, but different change)
14:56, 15 January 2008 = issue 2
16:24, 15 January 2008 = vandalism fix (reinstation of undisputed misquotation of criteria) (issue 3)
17:27, 15 January 2008 = issue 3 (note that user withdrew)
06:41, 16 January 2008 = reinstating sourced CDC quote (issue 4)
06:48, 16 January 2008 = pov-fix to indicate validity issue with source (issue 5)

I am requesting that User:Seicer reverts his own edit. It is good practice not to make contested edits while an RfC is running. His edit also includes reverting an undisputed edit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the edit marked above as "vandalism fix" is in fact a reversion of a constructive edit by an established editor. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not, I undid a revert of a constructive edit. In his haste to help his friend, user - who did not partake in any discussion - didn't notice that he destroyed an undisputed edit as well. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting WP:3RR#Exceptions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Please note User:Seicer's further disruptive behaviour by votestacking and discrediting on User talk:Orangemarlin . Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:02, 16 January 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 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 -->

Categories: