Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rjecina (talk | contribs)
6,187 edits
Line 773: Line 773:
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->


== [[User:Mike Babic]] reported by [[User:Rjecina]] (Result: ) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Serbs of Croatia}}. {{3RRV|Mike Babic}}: Time reported: --[[User:Rjecina|Rjecina]] ([[User talk:Rjecina|talk]]) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbs_of_Croatia&oldid=197998733] <!-- 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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbs_of_Croatia&diff=198055902&oldid=198043318]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbs_of_Croatia&diff=198190860&oldid=198174461]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbs_of_Croatia&diff=198223115&oldid=198207494]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbs_of_Croatia&diff=198271262&oldid=198241940]

For original version I have his last version before 3RR

This nationalistic SPA account has been warned on talk page about 3RR rule and it has been warned by administrator about POV edits. It is possible to see small difference in wording between 1/2 and 3/4 revert but 1 thing has never changed. Editor has always reverted original article (before he has started to edit on wikipedia) deleting words:'''Throughout the late Middle Ages, the term Vlach was used for Ortodox [[Vlachs]] and [[Serbs]].....'''

Because of that he has broken 3RR rule with deleting of this 2 lines. On other side I have demanded checkuser because he has made 5th revert from IP address. When this will become official he will be blocked. --[[User:Rjecina|Rjecina]] ([[User talk:Rjecina|talk]]) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
== Example ==
== Example ==


Revision as of 00:01, 15 March 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    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.

    Click here to create a new report

    Violations

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


    User:Dbachmann reported by User:Camptown (Result:Make love, not war)


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

    and:

    • 1st revert: [5]
    • 2nd revert: [6]
    • 3rd revert: [7]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [8]

    This is just two examples of edit wars the user:Dbachmann is involved in. When being notified about this, he instantly deletes the legitimate warning from his own talk page.

    and this is a typical example of user:Dbachmann's communication left on my talk page:

    [12].

    --Camptown (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This report should be removed since Dbachmann has clearly not breached the 3rr in any of these cases. You need to make *more* than three reverts during a 24h period in a single article.--Berig (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Camptown is in need of some coaching. He pushes a nationalist pov with no remorse, and now is trolling my talkpage with his 3rr warnings, besides forum-shopping with bogus 3rr reports. The diff he posts as "typical" of our interaction follows me wasting my breath talking sense to him while he limited himself to post warning templates to my talkpage. I do recommend a short cool-down block for this user. dab (𒁳) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The warnings are indeed legitimate and not "bogus", Dbachmann is repeatedly ignoring invitations to a constructive dialogue about sensitive matters regarding articles related to the Republic of Kosovo, but he resorts to quick revisions (usually without explanation on the related talk pages). Only hours after the much needed protection of Kosovo was lifted, he split the article for - I guess - the third time. It should be pointed out that the original split - suggested and executed by Dbachmann on his own initiative - was turned down in a vote, unfortunately, that vote was also ignored by Dbachmann. --Camptown (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The isn't the first time that Dab has done this. You should see how many times he has gotten away with 3RR on Assyrian people. This isn't the first time dab ingoring voting results. Despite twice being voted on down on moving the Assyrian people page, he continues with the idea of moving without taking into concent the rest of Wiki's community. Actually, if you look at the history, you will see mostly him editing the page, because other have quite since he reverts anything he doesn't agree with and his version of the page is always final .He sometimes disrespects others, including recently Chaldean, do you speak English? At all? [[13]] - is that how a mod is to communicate with others? You know, its stuff like this that gets other disgouraged from continuing to work on wiki. I am still suprised his authority has not been challanged. He continues to make drastic edits and moves that is far from the explantion of reality on multiple topics. Chaldean (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deplorable, to say the least.... Dab seems to shop for a quite a few articles he can "safely" revert three times within the stipulated 24 hours. But, doesn't the 3RR-rule actually restrict an editor from that kind of borderline behavior? --Camptown (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't technically violate 3RR in any cases; however, 3RR should not be seen as an endorsement to revert someone as much as policy allows. From now on, can you two not revert each other? If one of you makes a change the other doesn't like, please bring it up on each others' talk pages and come to an agreement. In fact, I think I'll step you guys down to 2RR. Instead of the customary 3 edits, you can only make two before it is considered warring.
    Comment – 2 revert rule instituted. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    this isn't what this board is for. replied to Master of Puppet's talkpage. You want to administrate Wikipedia beyond vandal-blocking and revert-counting? You'll have to become involved with questions of actualcontent. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – Master of Puppets, WP:AN3 is not the place to institute permanent editing restrictions [you've not indicated any length of time] and individual administrators have not been empowered to do this anyway. Dbachmann and Camptown are not on any permanent 2rr restrictions, but obviously should still do their best to refrain from edit-warring. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BrownHairedGirl reported by User:Para (Result:No action taken)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: As an administrator, obviously knows the letter of the policy, but 2 minutes difference is not in its spirit.

    BrownHairedGirl is involved in a dispute on WP:EL, where she is failing to get support for her personal opinion. For some reason she targets my edits only, and none of the others. The last time she lost control, she abused admin tools and mass-reverted all my work done after the consensus on WP:GEO in the course of several months without complaints, and her actions were reported to WP:AN/I. She seems to again be starting to do the same [14], and I'm afraid to soon find all my work reverted again by this POV revert warrior. --Para (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the 4th revert? Yahel Guhan 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined I only see three reverts; that's within 3RR, if pushing it. Also, please consider taking this up with the admin in question, and abstaining from editing the articles in question until you've reached a compromise, so that you have some consensus to help with editing. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Small Text

    More nonsense from Para, who didn't even have the courtesy to notify me of this complaint.
    Para has been mass-removing links on the basis of changes which Para would like to see made to WP:EL, but for which he has failed to achieve a consensus. Para has been falsely claiming in his edit summaries that he is removing the links "per WT:EL", but despite barraging the page for over a month with his claims that no objection are valid, there is no consensus for his desire changes. After mass-reverting Para's earlier attempt to enforce a guideline which didn't exist, I mass reverted; since then, I have simply been watching out for whatever pops up on my watchlist, and stopped after 3 reverts on this article, even though Para's practice of knowingly making of false claims about being supported by a guideline amounts to disrutive and tendentious editing.

    The fundmental problem here is that Para says that I am "failing to get support for her personal opinion". That's back-to-front: it's up to Para to get support for a consensus for any change to the guidelines, but despite not achieving that consensus he ploughs on as if the guideline had been changed in the way he wants, and accuses anyone who objects of "disruption". Simply breathtaking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear administrator, may I please remind you to reread the top of this page and not continue disputes here. Unfortunately I miscounted your disruptive reverts for this report, but luckily they did not lead to yet another reversion spree from your part, despite the tell-tale signs of an out-of-control user, with edit summaries full of typos. I and dozens of others have been happily working on removing redundant external links from Wikipedia articles for months now, and the only users to complain about it have been you and a friend of yours who won't participate in any discussion. You failed to get support for your objections on current practices, and any revert warring isn't helping your case. Everything that can be said about this topic has already been said on WT:EL. Please try to find another venue for your lost cause. --Para (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Para, you filed a 3RR report which was mistaken, and didn't bother to have to courtesy to notify the person about whom you complained. Now, stop telling lies about the lack of consensus for your hobbyhorse, and try to build a consenus around the points where there is agreement, rather than simply trying to grind down anyone who disagrees that black is white. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MJD86 reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: 24 hours)


    I cleaned the page up a few days ago, and MJD86 reverted it. He has a history of edit warring just for the sake of it on multiple articles (to the point where one had to be fully protected) and has used IP socks to help with his edit warring previously. Scorpion0422 04:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scorpion0422 trashed the page. It's idea of cleaned the page up was hitting the undo button on my edit without even reading it. The trashing up by Scorpion0422 left the section with one sentence then two sentences that were bulleted for some reason. Also it's idea of cleaning up the page is link a list of dogs names to celebrities that have the same first name even without any connection given in the episode or the reference. I do have a previous history of fighting against vandalistic deletions. Most of which were by Scorpion0422 who, as it did in this case, reverts my edits regardless of how much better my edit made that page. Scorpion0422 has accused my supporters of being sock puppets and is now pretending that it's allegations are fact.MJD86 (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird how all of your "supporters" are IPs from New Hampshire, which is where your user page used to say you were from. BTW, this page is for 3RR violation reports. Not debating about whether trivia should be included. -- Scorpion0422 05:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – also received a warning back in february for edit warring, as well. --slakr\ talk / 07:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ncmvocalist reported by User:Amarrg (Result: All warned)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: The user is well aware of the 3RR rule since he has already been blocked once for violating this rule as seen here.

    The user is edit-warring on the Raj Kumar article trying to introduce his POV without starting any discussion. I opened up a discussion page in Talk:Raj Kumar to engage a discussion with the user. Though the person participated in the discussion, the user has continued to do reverts without any consensus being reached, calling me a troll and threatening me with admin action. I had to report him for violating the 3RR rule for this. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This report was made in a clear and malicious attempt to block me on a mere technicality as yet another method by which User:Amarrg continues to persistently harass me since before 27 February 2008 or so. Even after being asked to leave me alone here, he continues to target articles that I have significantly contributed to and refuses to leave my talk page alone evidenced-here. If you inspect the various comments he has left on my talk page, he has targeted articles I have significantly contributed to, trying to be disruptive in having these articles deleted rather than being bold and making the necessary changes, or even alerting me without non-constructive templates. He has persistently made remarks in bad-faith both on my talk page, and on others talk pages (if you check his edits around 27 and 28 of February particularly). He deliberately and consciously find ways to make life difficult for editors who disagree with him by targetting their contributions and making edits and placing tags in WP:POINT, rather than giving a reasonable time to editors to improve each issue to a satisfactory standard. His overall trollistic behavior should not be tolerated.
    He has given no valid or even reasonable justification for his blatant vandalism here, here and here as he continues to game the system with certain other editors of the Karnataka WikiProject to suit their synthesised and POV based edits that are disruptive to WP:WikiProject India articles. He is in effect gaming the system to suit his POV, so that there are no editors in opposition, particularly those maintaining the assessment department of WP:WikiProject India, being myself (see a notable admin giving recognition for this here). I undid my latest revert here so this report is invalid I would think. However, I request User:Amarrg be blocked for harassment, incivility, vandalism, trollistic behaviour and failure to assume good faith based on his edits and comments made between 27 February 2008 and now (see his edit here for the most recent evidence where he made such remarks directly after he made this very report). Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the editor who filed this report attempted to make no temporary compromise, unlike my 4th edit. I therefore request an administrator to revert back to the 4th edit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned The accused editor undid the reported 4th revert not long after making it (but still after this report was filed). This, along with the accused editor's relatively good attitude in the article talk page (tone only went sour after the nominator's ill-tempered comments) suggests a certain degree of good faith. BUT, edit warring is still not the answer and such issues should be settled in the talk page and the article left as is until resolved.
    Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours given 1) the first revert was in fact by the nominator; and 2) the nominator's clear lack of bad faith in the article discussion. Warned - 52 Pickup (deal) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    52 Pickup (deal) 13:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is silly. Amarrg is one of our best and his record speaks for himself. Ncmvocalist has been disruptive for a few weeks now and its amazing that the admin feels it fit to cut the violator some slack! Ncmvocalist has been revert warring with atleast 4 or 5 other editors on different articles and Raj Kumar is only one in many such. And even on Raj Kumar, Ncmvocalist's edits have been so whimsical and uncalled for that he has to be blocked for simple disruption if not for 3RR. And we have here a new admin using one of our best as a sandbox to try his tools out! Shameful. Sarvagnya 17:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "the first revert was in fact by the nominator;" - and he reverted because Ncmvocalist's edit was simple disruption. Since when have we started blocking people for reverting disruption, vandalism and POV pushing?! And it was Amar who started the discussion and it is clear in the discussion that Ncmvocalist has no case. He made those edits because in his perception Amar is "anti-Tamil-pro-Kannada and he wanted to spite Amar by trolling on Raj Kumar's page because Rajkumar is a Kannada actor and icon. He tried to do it first by carrying out an undiscussed and uncalled for move of Rajkumar which was reverted. Once that was reverted he started being disruptive on the dab page. This is insane. Sarvagnya 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Following the actions across other articles, the block has been lifted. It is clear that multiple articles are involved here, so 3RR was not the place to start this. There are other channels to follow when dealing with this. In a 3RR examination, only that particular article should be under consideration. But Amarrg should remain warned that behaviour like this is not acceptable. Although he is clearly an established editor (and his body of work is indeed commendable), using his previous achievements as leverage in an argument is just not on. It is attitudes like that that drive away potential good editors every day. - 52 Pickup (deal) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am confused here. I dont see Amar using his contributions as leverage in that discussion. The remark you take exception to seems to be in response to Ncmvocalist's "In case you prefer to be more constructive than being a troll, ...". Can you elaborate please? Sarvagnya 20:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the comment "I have more than 75 DYKs to my name, so dont question me on my research. You are not worthy enough to call me names, your contributions to Wikipedia are hardly anything..." (emphasis added) could very easily be seen as being both an attempt as establishing "leverage" (or "intimidating" another) and as clearly unacceptable behavior. If the phrasing indicates something different to a native Indian, fine. However, it should be noted that this is the English language wikipedia, and that, at least to me as a citizen of the US, that language can very easily be seen as being an attempt at intimidation/leverage, and probably in and of itself less than acceptable. Under the circumstances, it isn't necessarily sufficient cause for any real action, as most people invovled in a heated debate wind up using language they might later regret, and that should be and generally is taken into account, but it is something which all editors should try to avoid whenever possible. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mimibianca reported by User:SWik78 (Result: 12 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [15]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [21]

    The editor keeps inserting direct quotes by the artist who created the song in question. There was a discussion started on the article's talk page where the editor was given the opinion by SKS2K6 (talk · contribs) [22], Gwernol (talk · contribs) [23], and myself [24] that these quotes should not be inserted into the article for the reasons of unclear purpose as well as verifiability through a reliable source. Mimibianca keeps reverting back to the version with the quotes without trying to reach a consensus. SWik78 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vera, Chuck & Dave reported by User:Ultraviolet scissor flame (Result: No violation)


    too long article. Image:Paul McCartney & Bono Live8[25] Vera, Chuck & Dave treats it as vandalism.[26][27] Ultra! 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.124.66.87 reported by User:Operation Spooner (Result: No action - not warned)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: No telling if he's been warned since he comes in through different IP's.

    Keeps deleting requests for sources. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: No action. The IP does seem to be the same for all reverts, and has not been warned. I have now issued a warning. TigerShark (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He's come through different IP's in the past is what I meant. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mrund reported by User:Olaf Stephanos (Result: No action - no evidence of warning)

    • Previous version reverted to: [28]


    Five reverts in 24 hours, pushing content that clearly violates the Wikipedia standards. Linking to James Randi's personal website, which does not qualify by [34]. Making unreferenced allegations, or insisting on personal elaborations on the provided references. User:Mrund has been reminded of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the article's talk page, but he has almost completely ignored these lengthy discussions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: No action. I cannot find proof that Mrund had been warned prior to their last revert. However they clearly are aware of it now [35], and I have also issued a warning on their talk page. If somebody has proof, please provide it and it will be reviewed. TigerShark (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wyattmj reported by User:Hu12 (Result:24 hours)

    Structured investment vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wyattmj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    --Hu12 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wyattmj blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Ronnotel (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]





    User:207.232.97.13 reported by User:Mr Miles (Result: No block)

    • Previous version reverted to: [36]


    A short explanation of the incident: User continues to place unreferenced material into this section of the article, despite being reverted by multiple other editors and refuses to explain his actions on discussion page.

    Mr Miles 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    No block. Seems that the editor is adding referenced material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple users reported by User:Fife Club (Result: Page semi-protected)

    Resolved

    I'm not involved with this but I am by far the leading contributer to the article State University of New York at Plattsburgh and I just checked my watch list to see what I think is an edit war going on between two other editors, one of which is an IP? Eleven edits in just the past half hour. Before I attempt to fix anything (if necessary), can somebody please take a look and assess what's going on and whether these people need to be warned, and if anything needs to be done to the page now? Thanks Fife Club (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Astanhope reported by User:Queerudite (result: novio)

    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr\ talk / 09:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Equazcion reported by User:rachel63 (Result: protected)


    I hope I'm doing this right. I don't know what DIFFTIME means. He did all these edits today then said I was a sockpuppet. I think he's an admin, but the rules should be the same for everybody.

    A short explanation of the incident. Rachel63 (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Halibutt reported by User:M.K (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [44]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: Contributor several times was blocked due to 3RR [45], so he knows the rules

    This is becoming really disruptive, contributor user:Halibutt is involved in prolonged campaign of names changes and variuos distortions. Recently he was informed by neutral administrator that similar campaigns are violations of WP:POINT [46], he was also informed that he violated WP:3RR on the different article and was suggested that further similar disruption will prompt sanctions. It is clear that contributor is following 3RR campaign again and that gentle information to stick on 3RR policy is not working on him. I hope that in this time administrators will take proper actions to stop further campaigns by this contributor. And let me stress that An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Thank you, M.K. (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 10:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

    User:Grinsandfun reported by User:Hu12 (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)

    Streaming media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grinsandfun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    repeatedly re adding redlinks to Streaming media--Hu12 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Even though there is a slight lack of many warnings which is usual in 3RR cases, it does appear that Grinsandfun (talk · contribs) has broke the 3RR, even after the warning implemented by Hu12 at 15:21. Rudget. 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johnnie390 reported by User:Jkatzen (Result: novio)


    Johnnie309 continually works to change American English forms to British English forms in article about a railway station in Lyon, France without explanation. The language variant policy has been explained on his talk page with no response or let-up in the reverts. Jkatzen (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Article has been reverted to the original form of English (American) and editor has been warned about changing it. —Travistalk 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Piotrus reported by User:M.K (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [47]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: contributor was already blocked by admin due to violation of 3RR [48]

    This is really disrupting. Another contributor involved in edit warring, that is most troubling in this case that particular contributor not even changing article version which is contested, but also trying to distort cited publications consistently; despite many pleas to stop. M.K. (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update another article is affected Simonas Daukantas [49]. Wondering how long this edit warring by particular contributor will lasts? M.K. (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed your decision was revoked by User:Zscout370‎. You can see User talk:Zscout370‎ for the details. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tortugadillo reported by User:Redrocket (Result: 24 hours)

    This editor was informed of WP:3RR twice, once here [50] (which was actually premature, and apologized for here [51]), and then here about continued edit warring [52]. In addition, this editor has continually referred to any other edits that remove his own as "vandalism," and reverted them as minor edits. Redrocket (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE:

    Not all of these are the exact same revert, but they do revert whatever corrections another editor tries to make to his edits.

    Blocked for 24 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Uconnstud reported by User:Jaysweet (Result:Blocked for 24 hours )


    I'm not sure if Talk pages count, but this is very annoying. Uconnstud continues to add a link to a comedy video that he thinks will calm everyone down, despite explanations that it is not relevant to the talk page.

    Blocked for both the 3RR violations and the inappropriate linking to copyrighted content. Metros (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    you'll notice that on this "reversion" [53] I had included 9 links as well as a question that was summarily deleted. User:Jaysweet even stated he didn't read my talk page comment [54] after I asked him [55]. he simply deleted them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uconnstud (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Jaysweet User:Colfer2 reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:malformed report, no action)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Since Uconnstud was already blocked for this edit war against two separate editors to insert material violating copyright, this seems to be a waste of everybody's time. It is stale anyway.

    • Previous version reverted to: [56]


    There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [63] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [64] and [65] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [66] and working together Uconnstud (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    you'll notice that on this "reversion" [67] I had included 9 links as well as a question that was summarily deleted. User:Jaysweet even stated he didn't read my talk page comment [68] after I asked him [69]. he simply deleted them Uconnstud (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The reversions I made were all for vandalism After the video had first been removed (not by me, but correctly), Uconnstud added the video + random links, which were just copied from the article itself & Google. So my reversions were all for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colfer2 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Jaysweet adding the 3RR warning to his page, Uconnstud added it to my Talk page and to Jaysweet's Talk page. So he is just joking around. Colfer2 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I will take no action on this report as it is severely malformed. Please submit a report for each user instead of two editors in one report. Also, follow the directions of the sample report and include times of reverts. Thanks, Metros (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:WalterGR reported by User:Kilz (Result: malformed)



    • Link to proof he know the rules: [72]

    A short explanation of the incident. The Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML has been a battleground. Over the last week me and another editor have been banned for edit waring. I have learned my lesson. Rather than take matters into my own hands I am reporting the actions here. Admin Scarian has taught me that the 3rr rule is about edit warring. Deleting things to enforce your own opinions. While WalterGR hasnt done multiple reverts, the diffs show he has removed multiple things without discussion on a very contested article.

    1. He has removed the Ars Technica reference, even though it is a news site as well as FanaticAttack without any discussion with other editors.
    2. He has replaced content Admin Scarian removed without any discussion or references.

    He is well aware that this rule is about edit warring as he has issued a report on this page.Kilz (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, I'm a bit confused by all of this. I had no idea I was making "acts of war," given that there was already significant discussion on the article's talk page, as you can see here. It was decided that blogs are not acceptable sources. Admin Scarian was involved in this discussion. He posted his comments in this edit.
    Regarding the first edit Kilz mentions, my changes were consistent with what we had already discussed on the talk page: that blogs are not to be allowed. I also went ahead and removed some references to open wikis, as per WP:SPS:
    • The Ars Technica reference just quoted Groklaw. Groklaw is a blog.
    • FanaticAttack's "About" page invites users to submit "blog entries".
    • GrokDoc is an open wiki. You can sign up for an account here.
    Regarding the second edit, where I replaced content that Scarian removed: yup, I did do that. In good faith. Rather than removing the content entirely, I put a {{fact}} by it, to give other editors a chance to find a good reference.
    Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 04:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no discussion of any of the sites you removed, all of them from one point of view. Groklaw is not a blog, that Ars Technica links to it does not make Ars Technica unusable but strengthens Groklaws use. But the Issue isnt that Groklaw was used but Ars Technica, which isnt Groklaw.
    • Ars Technica without argument is a news site. zdnet also quotes Groklaw isnt some articles. That doesnt make it unusable.
    • FanaticAttack's page asks for Blogs so that they can be looked at for story ideas. "You can send your ideas (or blog entries) to tips “AT” fanaticattack “DOT” com." It is not asking for you to make blog entries on its site.
    • An example of an open wiki is Wikipedia that allows Anonymous editors to use it. That you must create an account and people are removed proves it isnt open.
    That still doesnt make removing them on a contested article without discussion correct. Kilz (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 12:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gni reported by User:68.23.8.245 (Result: 8 hours)

    User:Gni has been reverting out different portions of the article which he appears to disagree with (though 4 reversions of the same material within a 24 hour period are provided in the diff's above). Different editors have put the page back, and different sources have been used to try to address his complaints. The discussion has moved to the article's talk page; however, reversion of material has continued. 68.23.8.245 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User Gni appears to be a single purpose account edit warring here and on other articles, promoting the CAMERA POV, deleting sourced info that doesnt conform to that POV, etc. Reported here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There was another single purpose account involved in reversion, but Gni's edit history reflects work on multiple articles (despite the fact that most of his recent edits are indeed to this one article). The main point I think Boodles and I agree on is the excessive amount of reversions from User:Gni. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A review of other edits show an effort to insert CAMERA reports into those articles and the CAMERA POV in general, e.g., here, here, here, here, here (a CAMERA associate), etc. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 12:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Colombiano200 reported by User:PageantUpdater (Result: 8 hours)


    WP:BLP Issue regarding height of Natalie Glebova. User claims she is 5'8.5" and keeps reverting to this but there is a reliable sources that shows she's 5'11". PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 12:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dmcm2008 reported by User:Jza84 (Result: 24 hours)


    Fairly new editor who appears to wish an unsourced, unpopular, technically inaccurate and non-consensual phrase included on articles stating that certain towns outside of the City of Liverpool (in North West England) are suburbs of that city. A consensus exists against Dmcm2008's point of view (see here). Huyton isn't the only article involved (there are several), on a cursory glance it was Huyton and Netherton, Sefton that has over 3 reverts. User also threatened to keep editting regardless of feedback.

    Simillarly, I'm concerned about Dmcm2008's understanding of civility surrounding this issue. After this post, he recieved this reply. I've also shared that his approach of "truth" and "local knowledge" isn't the right way forwards ([73]) for various reasons.

    I would also add that two additional users have witnessed this conflict with Dmcm2008, stating that "they disagree with his edits, "his comments show that he does not wish to find common ground", and that Jza84 is offering constructive dialogue..... and that you (Dmcm2008) should remain civil, and apologise to Jza84 for making imprudent remarks. A short block may be the most appropriate --Jza84 |  Talk  16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jagz reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 24 hours )

    Four complete reverts.Ultramarine (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Blocked for 24 hours. Moreschi (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Jaysweet reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:no action)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Retaliatory report by editor justly blocked for edit warring, meritless and stale anyway.


    1st revert: 20:29, 12 March 2008

    There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [75] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [76] and [77] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [78] and working together. In all, Jaye did in fact violate a 3rr. Previous report was made [79] but it was stated taht it was severly malformed and must be resubmitted. As a result, I am resubmitting it. Uconnstud (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am one of the parties mentioned.
    • Note, this is about Talk:David Paterson not the article David Paterson. The article was receiving heavy edits due to a breaking news story, that due to N.Y. Gov. Eliot Spitzer's sudden resignation, Paterson will be the next governor. The Talk page was an important venue for making collaborative decisions quickly. Overall, it was a successful joint effort on a high-visiblity site, for an obscure person thrown into the national spotlight.
    • The link to my User Talk:Colfer2 is wrong, no material was deleted. The diffs linked are for User talk:Jaysweet.
    • Jaysweet owns his Talk and can delete.
    • The reverts made by Jaysweet and me on Talk:David Paterson were for Copyvio, so 3RR does not apply.
    • The reverts may have been for obvious vandalism. After the first add of the Chapelle video, Uconnstud put it back in with a list of random links on the article subject and no substantive comments.
    • Jaysweet then filed a 3RR report on Uconnstud. Uconnstud retaliated by filing one on Jaysweet and me.
    • I do not know Jaysweet and as far as I recall I have not edited the same pages as him.
    • Uconnstud was then banned for 24 hours.
    • An anonymous I.P. was then used to make his edits again to the Talk:David Paterson page. [80] I tagged that I.P. as a suspected Sockpuppet of Uconnstud: User talk:199.3.218.137
    • The Sockpuppet tag on 199.3.218.137 was then removed by another I.P., 74.66.11.10, whose edits, such as Talk:St. John's University (Jamaica, NY) (scene of a longstanding edit war over the name) show a similar interest to Uconnstud. So I tagged it as a Sockpuppet: User Talk: 74.66.11.10
    • As I noted there, Uconnstud is interested in the boundaries of Wikipedia policies, see archived Uconnstud User Talk, and also interested in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.
    • Uconnstud's current talk page ends with "Waiting Patiently... going to ride this one out..." and some ideas for new articles.
    In summary, this 3RR report is not constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colfer2 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever seen a 3RR report on an article talk page, with accusations of sockpuppetry as icing on the cake.
    • First, this report is stale by almost 24 hours. The reverting has stopped, so no action is required on our part here. Blocks are preventative, not punitive.
    • Stop editing/deleting/moving/tagging each other's comments on article talk pages. If you don't like someone's comments, respond to them, discuss them, walk away, fly a kite, do something else – but stop deleting comments by other editors. If it happens again and we find out, any or all of you can and probably will be blocked. This is nonsense.
    • Editors can remove comments and warnings on their own user talk pages as they see fit. Once upon a long time ago it was verboten, but it is now allowed. - KrakatoaKatie 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you scroll above there has been blocks that were over 2 days old and over 24 hours. So why is this ignored?
    • I was told by an admin to resubmit it If you look at the link on the report.
    • Had I resubmitted it earlier I would've been circumventing the block.
    • Why is it that I was blocked and the other users if you scroll a bit higher not blocked for reverting a talk page of an article [81]
    • There have been bad faith edits and bad faith accusation and bad faith warnings. [82] Uconnstud (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:12.144.110.131 reported by User:Mysteryquest (Result:24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: [83]


    This editor has reverted the article four or five times despite a warning and a request that they engage in talk. The reverts have all been the same.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jalalabadi reported by User:McTools (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [84]



    The vandal reverting is desperately attempting to avoid checkuser being filed on him and his different ips. If you may please revert its last edits.McTools (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked by another admin for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Para reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: No action)


    Para has been repeatedly trying to amend this guideline without achieving consensus support. There have been massive discussions on the talk page over more than a month and eventually Para achieved agreement of 3 out of 4 remaining participants for a change. Two of the 4 participants want further input, but Para prefers to edit way than to check whether there is a consensus other than amongst those left standing.

    Note that while the revision log shows multiple reverts today by me, one of those was a mistaken revert of the wrong edit, and I self-reverted that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No. If this report doesn't qualify as tendentious, I don't know what does. The page is already protected, and blocks are preventative, not punitive. This is ridiculous. How is that fourth diff a revert? It's a post on the talk page. He has made 3 reverts today. You have also made 3 reverts today, I notice. Just as bad as each other. Moreschi (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reconsider per disruption, its a slow war on guideline page....
    In this case this is obvious Gamming and edit warring which is disruption to a guideline page. Even if this user did not revert more than three times per day, 3RR should not be discounted as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy. (I'm not advocating others behavior in this case)--Hu12 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, but in a goodly number of those diffs you've just listed it's still Para and BHG edit-warring away. Either we block both parties (which there is certainly a good case for doing), or we block neither. I see no cause just to block one. Take your pick (and see also here). Moreschi (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Hu12. AS noted here, Para started by unilaterally changing the guidelines, and has persisted in trying again and again and again to find a group of people, however small, will support his change. Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus_in_practice is clear that repeatedly pushing the same point does not amount to a consensus.
    Moreschi, if you check back, you will see tat other editors have reverted Para's insertion of a new item in the guideline, and it is not solely me. Can anyone suggest a way of persuading Para to actually seek a consensus per Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus_in_practice? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Moreschi's point BHG. This is one of those reports that gets everyone blocked. right or wrong, It still doesn't confer a license to war even if it's true. There has to be a better way to resolve this, and blocking won't help. --Hu12 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Moreschi's point, too. Any suggestions on what that better way might be? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFC? For the guideline, not user conduct. As far as I can see the main problem is confusion about where consensus lies - who holds what opinion. RFC should settle that problem. Frankly, I can make neither heads nor tails of what's being fought over, so if you do go for RFC please make the issues very plain. Moreschi (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Colfer2 reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:Reporter warned for personal attacks)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Retaliatory report, requester now blocked again for disruption.


    There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [96] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [97] and [98] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [99] and working together. In all, Jaye did in fact violate a 3rr. Previous report was made [100] but it was stated taht it was severly malformed and must be resubmitted. As a result, I am resubmitting it. Uconnstud (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I only see two reverts here and each revert is done by a different editor. Metros (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    and it was now fixed. gosh you must have me on your watch list isn't there a WP:Stalk Uconnstud (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or perhaps I have 3RR on my watchlist considering I am an administrator. Did you consider that? And you say it's fixed, but I still only see two reverts. Metros (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    or perhaps you're following me around. I think the latter considering my last two edits you were right behind me. Look above " Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day." Uconnstud (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My response is above. There are numerous reasons why this was not 3RR besides the factual inaccuracy of the report. Also it is stale! Have a good weekend everybody. - Colfer2 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it's a fact that you were edit warring. I guess you aren't familiar with WP:Stalk as well. Look at the edits you reverted more than once! Uconnstud (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was in NY I would invite you out for a beer! - Colfer2 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks renoved by Metros (talk) at 21:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Uconnstud (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Conclusion - I don't believe any 3RR violation has occured although I am going to warn Uconnstud for personl attacks. ScarianCall me Pat 21:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am from Manhattan, this isn't a personal attack. Guys don't ask guys they don't know out for a drink of beer unless they are trying to go out with them (date) I gave user Colfer2 a decline after he asked me out Uconnstud (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's some serious stereotyping right there. It doesn't matter now; I've found no evidence of 3RR violation or edit warring. Please take heed of what other editors are saying about your additions. Any admin can feel free to reverse my decision (if they notify me first, of course). ScarianCall me Pat 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to remove any personal attacks against me, I don't care. I'm more concerned that the resolution was "WARNED", as I think you mean you warned the reporter. Anyway, there is one more matter to clear up, this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.66.11.10&oldid=198280020 I would appreciate it someone would edit it for me. The other page in question is User talk:199.3.218.137 but it seems fine now. Thanks! - Colfer2 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the header. Metros (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mike Babic reported by User:Rjecina (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [101]


    For original version I have his last version before 3RR

    This nationalistic SPA account has been warned on talk page about 3RR rule and it has been warned by administrator about POV edits. It is possible to see small difference in wording between 1/2 and 3/4 revert but 1 thing has never changed. Editor has always reverted original article (before he has started to edit on wikipedia) deleting words:Throughout the late Middle Ages, the term Vlach was used for Ortodox Vlachs and Serbs.....

    Because of that he has broken 3RR rule with deleting of this 2 lines. On other side I have demanded checkuser because he has made 5th revert from IP address. When this will become official he will be blocked. --Rjecina (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- 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: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~



<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=198310005"