Wikipedia:Don't edit-war with vandals or sockpuppets

WP:3RR says that you're allowed to revert vandalism, sockpuppetry, and several other things, without regard to the three-revert rule. That's true. That doesn't mean, however, that it's always a good idea to do so, nor that such reverts can never be disruptive.

If a vandal or sockpuppet is making edits across a bunch of pages, and you've already reported them but are waiting for a block, reverting those edits might be a good idea if they don't start reverting you in turn. But if it's clear that when you revert them, they'll revert you back: Stop.

Because otherwise, from the perspective of an admin responding to that block request, now there's dozens of edits to sift through to figure out where admin tools are needed. If the content is anything other than 100% obvious vandalism, the admin now has to figure out if this is a content dispute or regular vandalism. (An experienced user repeatedly reverting a good-faith new user and claiming "vandalism" is, sadly, a common enough occurrence that it must be considered.) And in the meantime you clutter up a bunch of people's watchlists, and potentially draw more attention to content that needs to be revision-deleted or suppressed. You'll also make the page history much less readable for others in the future, and thereby may make it harder for people to improve the articles in question.

And if you do turn out to be wrong on whether their edit was vandalism or block evasion, you might find yourself looking at an edit-warring block, if the reviewing admin doesn't think that was a reasonable mistake.

If it's really an emergency and an AIV report isn't being actioned, there are other options. You can check Recently Active Admins, or see if anyone's online on or Discord. Or if there's RevDel/OS issues mixed in, try. But remember: One way or another, the account or IP will be blocked soon enough. And then you can revert.