When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understandWP: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.
Violations of other restrictions, likeWP: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 abehavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from abold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregiouspoint of view edits and other good-faith changesdo 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. Seehere for exemptions.
23:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1282525833 byAdamstom.97 (talk) Jeff Sneider is not a reliable source, it literally said "better citation needed" since Sneider is not a good citation to use. Don't accuse me of edit warring again when you started this first."
23:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1282525221 byAdamstom.97 (talk) You did not show any proof, Sneider has not been discussed anywhere in this article. At least pinpoint where this "consensus" was reached to back up your claim, because it doesn't show up anywhere"
23:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "You can't just say "this is confirmed by reliable sources" without actually providing any, and you started the edit war by undoing my edits. There is no consensus that Sneider is a reliable source anywhere here, that is literally your opnion and there are numerous instances where he gets rumors wrong."
23:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ I do not see any consensus on the talk page of this article on Jeff Sneider, as I stated already he is a scooper and not a reliable source whatsoever/"
23:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ Jeff Sneider is not a legitimate source, he is literally a scooper who spreads rumors, many of which turn out to be false. Until there is a legit citation Jeremy Renner shouldn't be on here"
Comments:Kala7922- I stopped editing on that article and conceded, why is a report against me necessary? Also I was not the one who started edit warring because by the user Adamstom.97 reverted my edits over and over again. I stopped editing on that article, and just want to be left alone. Once I saw the consensus on the talk page I stopped editing.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKala7992 (talk •contribs)10:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed likely violations of theWP:3RR, which is why I filed this report. It does not matter if someone stops editing an article soon after if the violation still occurred.Trailblazer101 (talk)14:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do you want to get me banned from editing now?? What is your goal now that I stopped. I wasn't even being irrational, Jeff Sneider gets stuff wrong and I stopped once I saw consensus being reached. What else am I supposed to do to not get banned now? Idk why you're coming after me so hard for this as if I don't have any valid reason to be suspicious of Sneider at all. I made a mistake, but still I'm getting banned for it.Kala7992 (talk)22:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
buddy, maybe they'llWP:BLOCK you for a few days. you made no mistake, you chose to keep on reverting and removing, all the while your changes were being refuted, and only chose discussion after it became obvious that your method was going nowhere. Do give theWikipedia:policies and guidelines a good look over before editing foolhardily.BarntToust22:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I at least just be blocked from editing the Avengers Doomsday article as opposed to being blocked from the whole site? I messed up but it's too late nowKala7992 (talk)22:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kala, this has nothing to do with my perspective of you as an editor. Violations of the 3RR ought to be reported regardless of whether there were some constructive edits or the material itself, solely because you reverted more than three times on the article in the span of 24 hours. I understand that this is frustrating, but Wikipedia has rules that need to be followed and enforced. I merely filed this report. It is up to the closing admin to determine what, if any, penalty is warranted. Blocks are typically imposed to prevent further or continuous disruptions.Trailblazer101 (talk)23:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"what, if any, penalty is warranted" No penalty is warranted. – "Blocks are typically imposed to prevent further or continuous disruptions." That's correct. Blocks are never imposed as a penalty, only to prevent disruptions. SeeWP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. In this case, it looks like Kala7992 apologized and promised not to edit-war in the future, so no block appears to be necessary or warranted. —Chrisahn (talk)23:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kala7992 broke 3RR like so many on the very, very high-profile page that became the intensely popular subject of insane levels editing yesterday.BarntToust17:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of24 hours.@Bbb23: I highly considered it, but I'm hopeful a 24 hour block will be enough to cause them to move on to more productive editing. However,any reoccurrence or reintroduction of this content should result in an indef, which is something I'll try to keep an eye on. -Aoidh (talk)01:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[17]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[18]
Comments:
The user repeatedly adds the phrase "is John Romero's wife" to the first sentence while refusing to engage in any discussion.Siev (talk)22:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cansubscribe to aweb feed of this page in eitherRSS orAtom format.
Declined as stale and moot per Chrisahn, above.Daniel Case (talk)03:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indefinitely. NOTHERE.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)14:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of24 hours.@Bbb23: I highly considered it, but I'm hopeful a 24 hour block will be enough to cause them to move on to more productive editing. However,any reoccurrence or reintroduction of this content should result in an indef, which is something I'll try to keep an eye on. -Aoidh (talk)01:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected In full, for a day byESKog.Daniel Case (talk)17:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]