Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stifle (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 21 February 2008 (→‎User:74.228.158.68 reported by User:xareu bs (Result: No violation): protected as well). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveprotected

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.

    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:Derek.cashman reported by User:bkonrad (Result:warning both)

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Derek.cashman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME (Derek.cashman is not a new user)

    A short explanation of the incident. Derek.cashman finds general references to be unacceptable and has attempted to force this dictate into the WP:City Guidelines, despite there being no such explicit deprecation on WP:CITE. He has demonstrated no support for this change and others have expressed disagreement. In addition, he has accused me of being a sock puppet [1] (on what basis I have no idea). While I object to Derek.cashman edits, I have no problem with the suggestion proposed by Maclean25 here and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Guideline. older ≠ wiser 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both sides are edit warring. Bkonrad has not technically violated 3RR, but has reverted four times in the past two days. Not willing to block only one, but have watchlisted the article and will block either one if he continues the edit war. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'm not exactly proud of having the course this has taken. WP:BRD suggests that further discussion is needed before a controversial new dictate is added to the project guidelines that, at present, far overreaches the general guidance at WP:CITE. older ≠ wiser 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hate to point this out to you, but I don't see that as a violation of 3RR, since the first edit and the third edit is just outside of a 24-hour period (see above). However, irregardless, I have decided not to continue edit-warring anyway, and instead have initiated a discussion regarding my position on "general references" here. I did make a minor modification to Bkonrad's wording today, to streamline the text a bit and make it a bit more readable, but I don't think that qualifies as a revert because it doesn't really change the spirit of what he wrote. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is indisputable that you (and I) were edit-warring over that page, which is what 3RR is about. Getting legalistic about technicalities is a poor excuse for continuing to revert without any clear support for your change. I think we both went over the line in this interaction, which is unfortunate because I can see that you are a good editor and valuable contributor to the Wikipedia. I don't agree with you about general references, but that is a matter for further discussion. I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources‎. BTW, the "wording" you revised is not mine -- in the initial instances I was restoring the text that had been there for quite a long time, and in the later instances the new text was by Maclean25. older ≠ wiser 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AerospaceM reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: no violation, but 8 hour block for edit warring)

    n parallel on second article:

    Warning given: [2]

    Repeated removal of contested map previously added by User:Polibiush [3]. Sterile reverting, no participation in discussion on talk (unlike his main opponent, User:Polibiush, who discusses constructively and stopped reverting after warning.) Identity of IP and named account seems obvious from behaviour and style. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not all of the edits are within a 24-hour period nor are they by the same user, but it's enough to justify an 8-hour block for general edit warring. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for the record, yes, the first four items in the first set are within 24h, if you follow the reasonable assumption that these are in fact the same user, as I argued. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Akhamenehpour reported by User:Zedla (Result: 24h)

    Piedmont, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Akhamenehpour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Piedmont High School (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Akhamenehpour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User warned. I didn't see any previous attempt at engaging this new user in talk or warn him, so I think an immediate block would not be warranted at this point. However, I'd be for blocking immediately if he resumes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike that. Blocking 24h. My bad for not checking his talk page history. He was indeed warned, removed the warning, and went on edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RESUBMIT wasn't blocked properly before and continues to edit war despite all warnings, call for discussion. Has threatened to puppet disrupt these articles. Zedla (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LPRABCMP reported by User:Jakew (Result: 7 hours)

    Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LPRABCMP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Persistent edit warrior, as can be seen by viewing the page histories. User first appeared as 70.114.38.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), then signed one of the IP's contributions using the LPRABCMP account. Jakew (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sbw01f reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: blocked 72 hours)

    Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sbw01f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    4 identical reverts against consensus of other editors. Also incivility against me [4] and other users in this edit commentary[5].Ultramarine (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 72 hrs for 3RR and incivility (which declined even further after this report was listed.) CIreland (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by 65.96.171.231 (Result: 48 hours; reporter blocked 12 hours)

    Rogers Cadenhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bramlet Abercrombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [6]


    Established user, clearly well aware of 3RR given three previous revert blocks (see block log). Was clearly advised twice in edit summaries that the material re-added in the revert was removed on BLP grounds. While Bramlet disputed BLP applicability in his 4th revert edit summary (wrongly in my view), that doesn't justify a 3RR violation, particularly when all I requested was a reliable source. (btw, I'm not a sock. am a former named editor, inactive for almost a year, scrambled password, and prefer to ip my few one-off edits now.). 65.96.171.231 (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear troll who himself violated 3RR. Single-purpose account trying to remove "co-founder" references, and then making up nonsensical BLP claim to remove entire paragraph where the "co-founder" occurs. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bramlet Abercrombie has three previous blocks for edit warring, 48 hour block. The IP reporting has violated 3RR as well, but with no block history gets 12 hours. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The recent anon Stifle blocked may already have an account and has been deleting cited text for months.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Trulexicon troll/sockpuppet account

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.96.171.231 suspected IP sock

    Take a look at the similarities of both the anon and logged in account.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bramlet_Abercrombie#Three-revert_rule

    By the way, the three revert rules does not apply to reverting a troll/sockpuppet account IMHO.

    Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironically enough, I didn't realize I had also crossed 3, so my block was also in order. However, Quack I am neither sock nor troll. Nor have I even been editing "for months" (try 2 days) as you obviously know perfectly well by having look at my contribs. I gave well-reasoned edits and edit summaries grounded in policy with citations to the same. Bramlet simply repeatedly punched rollback without comment or discussion. I'd ask you to assume good faith Quack; it's hardly shocking that two people disagree with you and Bramlet -- indeed many other editors including slimvirgin and jimmy wales himself are on record disagreeing with you -- or perhaps jimbo is also a troll sock of truelexicon? by your logic, you and bramlet must also be sock-buddies since you two share the same opinion and edits? Regards, 65.96.171.231 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zzalzzal reported by User:Bobblehead (Result: 24 hours)

    Hillary Rodham Clinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zzalzzal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The user has been attempting to add the percentage of the Iowa Caucuses to Hillary Rodham Clinton down to two decimal points since January 19. Previously he's done hit and runs, but today he seems intent upon having his version included and has done 4 reversions back to his preferred version in less than an hour. Bobblehead (rants) 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: Although the warning indicated above was issued only two minutes before the final revert, and may not have been seen by the user until after that revert, the user was also warned at 19:03. Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Walter Mellon Head reported by User:Parent5446 (Result: Blocked indefinitely via separate process)

    Resolved

    Aang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Walter Mellon Head (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The user is continuously adding speculative unsourced information to the article even after his edits have been reverted. In addition, he continued to edit even though there were hidden comments warning editors to discuss changes on the talk page due to the controversial status of his edits. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, he is tried to escape WP:3RR by waiting until the end of the day (February 18). But his edits are still within the same 24-hour period. He has been warned twice. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chriscohen reported by User:Jheald (Result: 24 hours)

    Y-chromosomal Aaron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chriscohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    The user insists on putting the same misconceived material into the article Y-chromosomal Aaron, against the protests of several editors, and eventually 3RR warnings.

    I know we have to be gentle with him, because he's a new to Wikipedia, and also because English may not be his first language, but this can't go on.

    In scientific terms, what he's trying to add is as wrong as saying 2+2 = 6. I have tried to explain why it's wrong in talk, and he puts it back. User:Iris-J2 tried to explain why it was wrong, and he put it back. User:AdrianTM tried to take it out for the sourcing not being sufficient, but he put it back. User:Jfdwolff asked him to take it to talk and stop edit warring, [7], but back it comes. User:Shoessss tried to get in a mediator, and left an edit summary specifically warning about 3RR, but now Chris has reverted that too.

    In his latest response on the talk page, he seems to finally accept ([8] - see "(2)") that the CMH is not a Unique Event Polymorphism - one of the fundamental scientific points. And yet the material he puts back in [9] uses the phrase "Cohen Unique-Event Polymorphism" no fewer than seven times.

    I don't want to see the page locked down and protected - there are other areas there that needs to be corrected, with cites to more up to date material. And, per User:Shoessss's latest edit summary, I guess it shouldn't be me that tries to put the page back to rights any more myself, because I really don't want to be seen as edit warring.

    But this misconceived material shouldn't be allowed to stand on Wikipedia, just because one editor insists on reinserting it. Jheald (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for 24 hours and I admire your patience in not reporting until now. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Huaiwei reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: 1 week)

    Certis CISCO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME – This editor has a block log as long as your arm – more than a dozen 3rr violations, the last one just a week ago. I’m surprised that he is still editong,and don;t belive a “warning” is need here.

    User edit wars to add information which the consensus judged to be undue weight. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that:
    • The page in question is now protected for a couple of days.
    • Talk page discussions have been ongoing throughout.
    • Whilst there was a violation of the 3RR, there were only 5 minutes in it.
    I would be inclined to see a block as unnecessary and essentially punitive. I will, however, leave this report open for any other comments. CIreland (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor committed 3RR despite multiple requests from different editors to discuss on the talk page; given his 14-or-so previous offences, I've decided to hand him a 1 week block. Hopefully the point gets sent across... Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Morpheus Lyric reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result: 1 week)

    Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Morpheus Lyric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 11:16, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "formatted entry")
    2. 12:30, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted wiki to previous state. Changes made are neither vandalism nor gag. Image uploaded is a somewhat popular pro-Obama primary graphic.")
    3. 13:10, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
    4. 13:12, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
    5. 13:16, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
    6. 13:20, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
    7. 13:43, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "←Replaced page with 'Barack Me Obamadeus.

    Ban me, but Texas, take note... It is over. I have committed wikisuicide. Viva Obama!'")

    1. 13:50, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Anger at something so trivial? Is this less than death? No? Very well, then. We will treat it as such.")
    2. 13:56, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 192792567 by Remy B (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    User continues to insert image after being reverted by several users and asked to use the talk page...twice replacing the entire article with the image after being warned about 3rr. -—Onorem♠Dil 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked --slakr\ talk / 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cebactokpatop reported by User:Seminarist (Result: 31 hours)

    Image:MZizijulas.jpg. Cebactokpatop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [10]

    Cebactokpatop repeatedly insists on placing POV description on MZizijulas.jpg file. This is part of ongoing dispute over the article on John Zizioulas. (Previous 3RR violation by Cebactokpatop on that page resulted in page being protected for 10 days.) Seminarist (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, I have stepped in on this and I am attempting to mediate. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There was no 3RR violation on John Zizioulas. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, 3RR warning given here. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 17:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cebactokpatop has reverted the text again.[15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seminarist (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed by me. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 31 hours. · AndonicO Hail! 19:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LPRABCMP reported by User:Jakew (Result: 1 week)

    Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LPRABCMP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Note: should there be any doubt that the two users are the same, User:LPRABCMP signed a post made by User:70.114.38.167.

    After being blocked for edit warring at 19:25, 18 February 2008, this user has now started edit warring over a different issue at the same page. Jakew (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week (IP and sock). --slakr\ talk / 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GHcool reported by User:Imad_marie (result: page protected)

    Hezbollah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GHcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Revert-war on how the article should state why Hezbollah launched Katyusha rockets in the 2006 war. - Imad marie (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected --slakr\ talk / 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rschen7754 reported by User:NE2 (Result:No block )

    Resolved

    User:Rschen7754/Problems with Wikipedia (edit | [[Talk:User:Rschen7754/Problems with Wikipedia|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 21:26

    Basically Rschen7754 thinks he can do what he wants because he's an admin (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is it valid to semiprotect an IP talk page to keep the IP from removing warnings?). He wrote up a little essay that's factually inaccurate. NE2 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A 3RR on a user's sandbox page? Mmmm... Not applicable, NE2. If and when he moves it to the Wikipedia namespace, then yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:74.228.158.68 reported by User:xareu bs (Result: No violation; page protected)

    Reggaeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.228.158.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [16]


    • 1st revert: [17]01:10, 21 February 2008
    • 2nd revert: [18]16:56, 20 February 2008
    • 3rd revert: [19]16:51, 20 February 2008


    • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME The user is well aware of the policy (he even complained about me!)


    This anonymous user keeps on deleting referenced information (see discussion page: lyrics from songs are provided which show explicit sexism; links to newsmedia with complaints to women´s right councils; internal links to wikipedia musical definitions are also provided to define the lacks of this music. Seeing his historial, I realize he´s a reggaeton fan which cannot admit the less criticism to his loved music. --Xareu bs (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll get straight to the point. Xareau_bs was vandalizing that wiki on a daily basis with critical POV statements. He refuses to include a single reference. I reported him for 3RR last week, and an admin protected the page to prevent further vandalism by him. Take 10 seconds to look at the talk page and the wiki history, his additions are noticeably POV, and he has yet to actually reference anything. He isn't even trying to source anything. I also think he just inadvertantly butchered the 3RR noticeboard coding. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The three-revert rule prohibits more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. You have provided only three. No violation made out. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous! Don't start a revert war on this page. Wait for an admin to follow-up. - oahiyeel talk 10:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've protected the page due to further edit warring. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.47.138.61 reported by User:NE2 (Result: Semi-protected)

    California State Route 88 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.47.138.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    This guy changes IP every day so blocking might have no effect. NE2 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page semi-protected. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 21 February 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=193008544"