Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:15, 11 February 2007 editLulurascal (talk | contribs)216 editsm →Sample violation report to copy← Previous edit Revision as of 01:57, 11 February 2007 edit undoFolken de Fanel (talk | contribs)6,134 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:)Next edit →
Line 301: Line 301:


;Comments: This user had been warned that they were exceeding three reverts in the edit summary (] and still continued to revert. This user claimed that the material was OR, but this was never a consensus (see ]). This user was told that s/he broke wikipedian rules, and asked not to do it again. However, instead of taking this advice, this user decided to argue back, believing that s/he had not broken wikipedian rules. This user needs at least a warning that it is not ok to revert contributions from several wikipedian editors more than three times. --] ;Comments: This user had been warned that they were exceeding three reverts in the edit summary (] and still continued to revert. This user claimed that the material was OR, but this was never a consensus (see ]). This user was told that s/he broke wikipedian rules, and asked not to do it again. However, instead of taking this advice, this user decided to argue back, believing that s/he had not broken wikipedian rules. This user needs at least a warning that it is not ok to revert contributions from several wikipedian editors more than three times. --]
:] has actually started an edit war, by reverting 3 times without explanation, and without discussing the matter on the talk page even though he was invited to do so. His edits were actually established as OR, but he kept ignoring it and kept reverting to his OR edits. Before touching anything on the article, I thoroughly explained my position by quoting precise wikipedian rules, according to which his edits were OR. However, ] has never said a word on the talk page, and has never answered me, before reverting 3 times. And by his attitude there was no doubt he would have continued, had not another editor continued the edit war in his place.

:Besides, the article has already been protected more than 6 hours ago (which, interestingly, has forced ] to finally make comments on the talk page), and this late report is only a proof that ] is being vindictive, and that he is merely harassing me in order to avenge himself for being reverted by me.

:As I'm not as vindictive as he is, I don't ask anyone to warn him, however I don't want him to adress me anymore. ] 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)



== Sample violation report to copy == == Sample violation report to copy ==

Revision as of 01:57, 11 February 2007

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

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

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    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



    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning:


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    That was my suggestion, Tanaats, not Woohoo's. So thanks. --Justanother 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Last seen editing from a different IP less than an hour after being blocked, but seems to behave himself in articlespace now. Not sure how amused I am by the block-dodging, but I shan't press charges now that the edit warring has stopped. Thanks for helping. Henning Makholm 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

    Comments

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

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

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

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

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


    User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Lulurascal (Result:)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:


    Comments
    This user had been warned that they were exceeding three reverts in the edit summary (] and still continued to revert. This user claimed that the material was OR, but this was never a consensus (see Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows). This user was told that s/he broke wikipedian rules, and asked not to do it again. However, instead of taking this advice, this user decided to argue back, believing that s/he had not broken wikipedian rules. This user needs at least a warning that it is not ok to revert contributions from several wikipedian editors more than three times. --User:Lulurascal
    User:Lulurascal has actually started an edit war, by reverting 3 times without explanation, and without discussing the matter on the talk page even though he was invited to do so. His edits were actually established as OR, but he kept ignoring it and kept reverting to his OR edits. Before touching anything on the article, I thoroughly explained my position by quoting precise wikipedian rules, according to which his edits were OR. However, User:Lulurascal has never said a word on the talk page, and has never answered me, before reverting 3 times. And by his attitude there was no doubt he would have continued, had not another editor continued the edit war in his place.
    Besides, the article has already been protected more than 6 hours ago (which, interestingly, has forced User:Lulurascal to finally make comments on the talk page), and this late report is only a proof that User:Lulurascal is being vindictive, and that he is merely harassing me in order to avenge himself for being reverted by me.
    As I'm not as vindictive as he is, I don't ask anyone to warn him, however I don't want him to adress me anymore. Folken de Fanel 01:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    Sample violation report to copy

    ===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
-->
;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic