Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. 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

User:JohnCWiesenthal reported by User:ZLMedia (Result: Blocked)

Page

IntelliStar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JohnCWiesenthal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on IntelliStar. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Products */ new section"

Comments:

This user has continued to add unsourced and original research to the IntelliStar article that is trivial. It has been taken down at least three times and put back up twice by the same user. The user has also disregarded my first warning, and has now been warned twice by me. --ZLMedia 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:CastleRockChick reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Castle Rock, Colorado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

CastleRockChick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Prairie Dog Controversy */ removed unsourced information"
2. 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inaccurate information"
3. 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inappropriate information"
4. 15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inaccurate information"
5. 22:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC) "Information from non-reliable source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Castle Rock, Colorado. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Discussion at User talk:Winner 42#CastleRock
• Discussion at WP:COIN#Castle Rock, Colorado

Comments:

They are also under discussion at WP:COIN, where they have complained about this. They seem overly keen to removed sourced content, and refactor this paragraph to their liking. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. The user complained about a non-reliable source but did not identify it. Another admin pointed out back in March at Talk:Castle Rock, Colorado#Prairie Dog incident that the talk page should be used to reach a consensus, but neither side has joined in there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:104.156.240.162 and User:104.156.240.163, reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Semi)

Page

Vanessa Lynne Bryant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

104.156.240.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [1] - Sixth revert.
2. [2] - Fifth revert, even as this case is pending.
3. 07:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 658955741 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
4. 07:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 658955223 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
5. 07:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 658954171 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) ugh"
6. [3] - on an obviously-related IP, 104.156.240.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [4] - on the obviously-related IP.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Recent Changes */"
2. 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Recent Changes */"

Comments:

Reverting questionable/disputed negative material into a BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved editor note: I consider it probable that 104.156.240.162/104.156.240.163 is the same editor as 168.1.75.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who reached 3 reverts on the page shortly before 104.156.240.163 started editing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have edit warred in fact less than the reporter. Neither he, nor the previous non-IP editor seems interested in following BRD. It's strange he should report it; I didn't report it to spare him. An active discussion is ongoing on the talk page, the article should stay in its stable state until that's concluded. If there are any improperly sourced BLP claims they should of course be removed immediately. There are none I can find. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Yes, I am .162 and .163. Here are the diffs of the reporting editor violating 3RR:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The first diff you post is not a revert. The fourth is taken under BLP guidelines, and is a response to your fourth revert which inserts questionably-sourced and unduly-weighted negative material into the biography of a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I note that the editor has reverted this questionably-sourced, unduly-weighted negative material a fifth time. They quite obviously have no interest in discussion, editorial process or compliance with the biographies of living persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A common piece of content was removed in all 5 diffs. This material does not rise to a WP:3RRBLP exception. The sources are not questionable. You effected a significant change to the article, multiple editors objected and the first (168.1.75.52) began a talk page discussion which neither you nor the editor above chose to participate in before edit warring. Reach consensus on the article talk page and stop this silliness. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the definition of a revert. The first diff you link is my initial edit, which made specific changes to the article and did not "undo" any person's work. A person undoing that edit would constitute a revert. You also seem to have a poor grasp of the BLP policy. The source (specifically "AllGov.com") is absolutely questionable, and the weight placed upon its brief description of some anonymous random website's claims about a living person is absolutely subject to BLP standards. That material is questionable, and it stays out until consensus is reached that it isn't questionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your attempts to offend me will be ineffective. Stop edit warring and discuss your changes on the talk page. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I will be happy to discuss your proposal to insert anonymous claims about a living person into their Wikipedia biography; of course, as it violates fundamental content policies, it will be rejected. We don't care what anonymous people on anonymous websites say about people, any more than we republish what someone says on Reddit about a living person. It simply isn't of encyclopedic quality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

When a neutral, respected RS sees fit to report them we report them. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. We aren't required to report anything, and the inclusion or exclusion of such content based on its quality is a matter for editorial judgment and the weighting of policies. The BLP policy demands that questionable content — particularly questionable negative content — be removed by default, until clear consensus establishes its reliability, necessity and suitability for the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The above editor has reverted yet a sixth time, this time after another editor saw fit to remove the content in question. This should put to rest any debate about whether this editor is interested in discussion or is merely an anonymous POV-pushing edit-warrior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. The burden of discussion is on the editors seeking change and neither you, nor this most recent editor has discussed anything. I posted a message on his talk page - in his edit summary he indicated we don't source BLP content to "ratings sites", yet no ratings site was sourced in that article - only in previous versions of the article. If he has valid objections lets discuss them. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll provide that diff here because the editor has chosen to remove it without responding. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The material in question is nothing more than anonymous gossip — it's strident and vicious attack quotes taken from an anonymous messageboard which is explicitly designed to allow nameless attacks on living people. Were this to have been republished in The New York Times, that might be one thing, but "AllGov.com" is, at best, an extremely-marginal secondary source and there doesn't appear to be any indication that anyone else cares about what these anonymous cowards said about this woman on the Internet. Ergo, it stays out until there's consensus that it belongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Original "reverter" here. Baranof: that would be horrible if it were true. However the site is run BY lawyers FOR lawyers and requires the "anonymous" commenters submit identifying information to be verified as lawyers. The quotes were reported in RS and attributed in our article to the source. It's unfortunate the responding admin didn't sufficiently investigate or allow reasonable time to respond to these nonsense claims. I notice you don't mention the critical information you removed sourced to The Hartford Courant and the American Bar Association - or are they also "marginal" sources?

@EdJohnston: I expect you to respond to the filer's breach of 3RR. The BLPN concerns have merit but nowhere near the level required for 3RRBLP. I will file a separate request if no action is taken here. 168.1.75.50 (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether they're lawyers or not, they're still anonymous. Whether "AllGov.com" is really a significant reliable source suitable for sourcing contentious negative claims about living people is an open question. Whether quoting the second-hand thrice-removed anonymous opinions of anonymous lawyers from a marginal website is really suitable material for an encyclopedic biography is also an open question, as is the question of whether or not we are placing undue weight on those anonymous opinions. But these are questions for discussion on the article talk page, not for edit-warring, and BLP demands that questionable material be removed first and then discussed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Valid BLP concerns have been raised, and it is time to discuss them on the article talk page. If necessary use WP:BLPN to get additional opinions. It is possible that negative information is being used that originates from anonymous web commenters. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User: ‎Superfluous man reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Superfluous man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16][17][18][19]

Comments: The user just does not want to discuss his edits, even after telling him to do so four times. And when he opens a discussion at the talk page, he reverts my edit just 2 minutes later. I do not understand what's the point of opening a discussion at the TP when the user is just going to keep on edit-warring. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Warned and has continued reverting, even while this discussion was open here. Kuru (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:G'day mates! (Result: No violation)

Page: Vanessa Lynne Bryant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25] (Note: user's talk page is protected)

Notification of filing: @NorthBySouthBaranof:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:
User edit-warred to preserve major article changes without consensus, removing almost all content critical of the subject sourced to established RS (e.g. The Hartford Courant and the American Bar Association.) User has several previous blocks for edit-warring: [27]

Disclosure: I am the previously IP-only editor 168.1.75.52 who posted to the talk page. G'day mates! (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. Those were incandescently obvious reverts of WP:BLP violations. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Criticisms sourced to RS are not incandescently obvious BLP violations. Wow! Filing closed in record time. All that's obvious is that the content of these filings matters less than the filer or the accused. Further confirmation I was right to not register previously; I may have always "lost" to the unblockables but at least I wasn't targeted. Likely that's no longer the case. G'day mates! (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, did you have a lot of admin trouble under your previous account? Bishonen | talk 19:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC).
      • I wouldn't say a lot, certainly no more than the editor above. Are we calling IP addresses accounts now or is this more good faith on your part? Just the kind of helpful response one should expect from an administrator. Thanks, you've told me all I need to know. G'day mates! (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The correct response would've been WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE; there's no point in blocking them now that the warring has ceased. If you're concerned that the reverts did not fall under WP:BLPREMOVE, perhaps it would be best to approach an admin on their talk page to take a look. Alakzi (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Ah, if only this had been reported in time! But wait, an IP editor did report it in time in the first response to the filing here while the edit-war was ongoing. That administrator's response was to semi-protect the page, effectively siding with registered users in a content dispute between two IPs and two registered users, where the registered users disregarded BRD and began the edit war. Or this entirely accurate post to an experienced editor's talk page after he was likely canvassed by the registered users and participated in the edit war. He responded constructively by reverting it. There's always an extra i that could have been dotted or t crossed allowing you to believe that these processes work despite continued evidence to the contrary. You might convince yourselves because you have so much invested, but every outside observer and new editor has a more difficult time believing it - and that won't end well for wikipedia. G'day mates! (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
        • That report was filed by NorthBySouthBaranof, not the IP who had jumped across several accounts to continue inserting poorly sourced negative BLP content into the article. Are you the IP in question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Oh hey, it's the other edit warring editor. Several times now you've suggested I and the other IP were the same editor based only on the observation that he "showed up" to revert after I hit 3RR. Interesting, because just after you hit 3RR NorthBySouthBaranof showed up to to continue your reverts. And looking through your contributions you edit almost exclusively in articles he's banned from editing. Very interesting. What do they say? Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind. G'day mates! (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bill the Cat 7 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: )

Page

William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659019842 by Mann jess (talk)The order is good the previous way."
2. 18:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659026103 by Mann jess (talk)He is not a scientist but Stephen Hawking is and he says it is "the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology"."
3. 18:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659029138 by Mann jess (talk)Yes, take it to talk, per BRD, Not BRRD."
4. 19:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Mann jess (talk) to last version by Bill the Cat 7"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on William Lane Craig. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Ordering of Lead */ new section"
2. 18:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Craig is not a scientist. */ new section"

Comments:

4 reverts today, with no attempt to engage in discussion of sources. Editor insists on restoring unsourced content and original research to the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The 4th revert was a mistake (my apologies), but MJ began the edit warring with his second revert in violation of WP:BRD, removing well-sourced content and not willing to discuss. And he continues to [28] chop up the article rather than improving it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing more than an attempt by Mann Jess and Theroadislong to cut down the page, and now they are trying to ban all opposition.--TMD Talk Page. 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith your recent edit at William Lane Craig removed 24 good quality edits which were all based on sound Wikipedia policies.Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Those were not quality edits, but were attempts to remove quality information from the article.--TMD Talk Page. 15:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to double check then, most of my edits removed unreferenced material and Mann Jess's edits improved the grammar and readability enormously. Theroadislong (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If the 4th revert was a mistake, I'm sure you'd be happy to self-revert. Or, I'd be immensely happy for you to discuss the reverts, instead of refusing to. No editor is entitled to 3 reverts, despite the patterned behavior (e.g. April 2nd: [29], [30], [31], June 7th: [32], [33], [34], [35], both in just this last year on this article). Repeated reverting without participating in discussion is edit warring, regardless of the number of reverts. It just so happens this time you also went over 3rr.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting comments about a dispute with User:Bobrayner at the article Stealing a Nation.

Hi

Can somebody here have a look at the dispute I'm having with User:Bobrayner at Stealing a Nation? He has blanked the page in the past, and now he's blanking a piece of information that's central to the documentary itself. I've been reverting these attempts, but now I'm being accused of harassment and stalking (see edit history and comments). Would someone please look at the dispute, are the accusations baseless or reasonable? I simply don't understand the stubborn removal of content about this documentary. I'm posting it here because the edits have been too much back-and-forth, and have been coming to close to an edit war situation. Thanks in advance for any help. - Anonimski (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Anonimski stalked me to that article, and every edit Anonimski has ever made there is reverting me. [36] [37] [38] [39]. There has been similar harassment on other articles. I would welcome some admin attention to this problem although it's unclear to me why Anonimski raises this on the 3RR noticeboard when the evidence shows that it's Anonimski making kneejerk reverts of any change that I try to initiate. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The part of Wikipedia where our editing habits have overlapped the most, are Balkan topics. And I can't really see much that's out of the ordinary in the past disputes there. There have been some debates that have gotten really strange and filled with "loaded questions" and unconstructive approaches, the most notable from my perspective is Talk:Goraždevac.

Another thing: my notice on Bob's talkpage was reverted with the edit summary "stop harassing me", despite that it was a formality that I was obliged to do when starting this thread. It's unfair behavior to repeat this accusation over and over again when I've started a discussion to get some help with resolving this issue.

Disagreement is not harassment, but your loaded questions at for example Talk:Goraždevac are much closer to it. - Anonimski (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Anonimski; your best defence is a case last year where you stalked me to Goraždevac to revert my edits, you edit-warred to reinsert unsourced content, then I repeatedly tried to explain WP:V, and now you call that harassment. I would welcome more eyes on this problem. bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I told you that the sources were on the page which was wikilinked there, but you seemed to pretend that they weren't any sources at all. If you would have said that you wanted me to copy over the refs, everything would have gone so much better and quicker. But your behavior towards me was as if I never cared about verification in the first place. I'm not trying to deny you the right to come with criticism, but have you ever heard of "constructive criticism"? And you've seemed to jump to conclusions about malicious intent very quickly (such as the first thread on Talk:North Mitrovica), when it would be very easy to pause for a moment and think it through. There are much easier and much less complicated ways to interact with other Wikipedia editors. I don't know what more to say at the moment... - Anonimski (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:88.236.197.61 reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: )

Page: Armenian Genocide recognition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.236.197.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:

This IP is refusing to participate in the talk page, and is removing sourced information that has been agreed to be included in the article at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bob1764 reported by User:Snowager (Result: )

Page

Dunk Tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bob1764 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Experience */Improved content"
2. 04:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Easy Dunker */Improved content"
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) to 05:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 04:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Experience */Added content"
   2. 04:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Added content"
   3. 04:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Easy Dunker */Added content"
   4. 04:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Clothing */Added content"
   5. 04:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Safety */Added content"
   6. 05:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Experience */Added content"
4. Consecutive edits made from 05:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) to 05:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Fundraising */Added content"
   2. 05:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Clothing */Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dunk tank. (TW)"
2. 05:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Dunk tank. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Made reckless disruptive editing on Dunk tank. The Snowager-is awake 05:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bobbertybob reported by User:Jbhunley (Result: Blocked for 24 hours by Philg88 for violation of 3RR)

Page

Ezra A. Bowen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bobbertybob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659097173 by Interference 541 (talk) rv?"
2. 06:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "{{Proposed deletion/dated |concern = Notability |timestamp = 20150425061200 }}"
3. 05:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659096058 by Interference 541 (talk)"
4. 05:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659094810 by Haminoon (talk) let an admin decide"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments: See Special:Contributions/Bobbertybob for what has been going on at other articles.

This account has been edit warring over deletion tags with other editors on many (10+) articles. That seems to be the only contributions this account has made. Jbh (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I don't believe I've broken any rules - if I have, please do me the courtesy of telling me what I've done wrong. I will watch THIS page, and look for more info. Thnak you. Bobbertybob (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Regards the specific things show above - I note that the 'revert/undo' are to differing edits, and that there is no notice of 'attempt to resolve', etc.

Let me know, ty. Bobbertybob (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So the 14 reverts over deletion tags on 6 different pages in the last hour and a half in your edit history is not, in your opinion, a disruptive edit war? Anyway the admins here can sort it out. I would strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy completely before placing any further deletion tags or edit warring to replace a properly removed PROD or CSD tags. When someone reverts you it is a signal you should stop and discuss things. Jbh (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also wasting others' time here. Editor does not seem to understand deletion criteria despite (deleted) notices like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Edit warring continues here after case opened at Muara Bungo history using the pattern CSD-revert-revert-PROD-revert-revert- which is the same pattern as at Ezra A. Bowen CSD-revert-revert-PROD-revert-revert-AfD This seems calculated to cause disruption while nominally avoiding 3rr. Jbh (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is some very strange definition of 'edit warring'. So I also hope that "admins here can sort it". Watch out for boomerangs. Bobbertybob (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'd like to respond re "CSD-revert-revert-PROD-revert-revert"

I cannot 'revert'. I don't have that power.

The other users here can, and appear to be abusing it, according to wikipedia rules.

I've only used 'undo' for inappropriate uses of revert.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using a PROD once a CSD is declined? Bobbertybob (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Reverting" isn't a power. Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits. Please read WP:PROD. Your edits are disruptive. --Onorem (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, read Wikipedia:Reverting. Esp "The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting, but you should avoid reverting edits other than vandalism most of the time.". Thanks. Bobbertybob (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

/boggle. Did you read your link? It says exactly what I said. --Onorem (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I read it. Did you read the link I put?

You shouldn't be using 'revert' for non-vandalism (basically). Right?

Admins can sort this out, I hope. Bobbertybob (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm done being trolled. Have a good night. --Onorem (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Multiple examples of ignoring the three revert rule and general disruptive editing.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rarevogel reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rarevogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 23:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Incredibly one sided. Tried to bring some balance.."
3. 23:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "this is crucial stuff, not POV. if we cant even mention the claims of Turkey, are we then simply being a propaganda tool. Whatever one sides says is correct and the other side is outside the debate?"
4. 07:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "I added sources. this article needs to be cleaned up. It relies heavily on Armenian, Russian and Western sources. the use of missionary accounts is especially alarming, as are those of official British accounts."
5. 09:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "(please stop removing sourced content. I am nowhere disputing what is written in the text, I am simply adding facts. There is nothing wrong with that, especcially in a biased piece like this is.)"
6. 10:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "(This is historical background, crucial in understanding what happened. Not allowing this crucial fact, is setting yourself up as a propgandist. No need for consensus here.)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Armenian Genocide. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Article is on WP:1RR. Editor was informed of this. NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

S/he seems to be on unresponsive, automated edit-warring mode. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Last block they got was for a week. One would think they would take that on board. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Although I don't have an account on this website, I would like to leave a comment on what happened. I added a notice in the last week on the talk page of the mentioned article calling the editors to fix this obvious and undisputable "Template:Systemic bias" of the article. The article is heavily propagating one single view (the view of those who claim that there has been "an Armenian genocide" and under-representing the view of the other party (those who claim that there has not been such an event). I asked them to present the two views in a balanced manner without bias and without this advertising language. However, no one of them made any positive response except "Rarevogel" who started to add some "sourced information" to the article in order to bring for it some of the needed-balance. The biased editors of the pro-Armenian view didn't accept to keep these sourced information, in spite of the fact that they are sourced, in the article and made an illegal removal of them.

Theoretically, these biased editors of the pro-Armenian view should be blocked because of their co-operation to prevent anyone of the other editors, who don't share with them this bias toward the Armenians, from adding "sourced information" to the article.--95.141.20.198 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You are advocating a false balance. We have parties that claim Evolution doesn't exist. The article isn't "balanced" to highlight these views. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Evolution" is a scientific theory based on scientific evidence. The Armenian claims are not "scientific" and are not based on scientific evidence.

So it is you my dear who is advocating a false balance, not me.

Here we have a legal case: in which the Armenians and their supporters are on one side, while the Turks and their supporters are on the other side. In order to be just and neutral, we have to give them both an equal space to represent themselves and to introduce their arguments. Without doing so, our judgment becomes unjust and unbalanced.

The Christian conscience is one-eyed. That is why an article written by the Christian majority of Wikipedia is almost always one-sided. (Full stop)--95.141.20.198 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

History is not a legal case. If you want to continue the discussion, I suggest you use WP:NPOVN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Crisco 1492. Favonian (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sjones23 reported by User:Empire M (Result: Boomerang)

Page

List of Cross Ange episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sjones23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."
2. 08:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."
3. 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."
4. 08:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
2. 07:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
3. 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
4. 08:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
5. 08:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He removed Template:Notability. Empire M (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Empire M (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Empire M (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The reporter is blocked (subject to appeals etc) as a LTA, and most would consider this report a waste of time. Please note, without a mention of bans or sockpuppets, this wasn't the most judicious use of rollback I've seen. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Vermilioncliffs reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: )

Page: Gordon B. Hinckley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vermilioncliffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50]
6. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Linke to article talk page discussiiono: [53]

Comments: Although the editor, to their credit, went to the Talk page (and I did not), they continued to revert on the article over and over. One other editor commented in the discussion, and my edit summaries, which admittedly are not the same as discussion, noted that they needed WP:CONSENSUS at the Talk page for their additions, many of which are poorly sourced or unsourced, and are obviously promotional.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23, I am frustrated by the current situation. I have written numerous posts on the talk page, and neither you nor Neiln has responded to my comments about the substance of your claims. I asked which sources would be better, and which sources were 'poorly sourced' or non-neutral, and I have not received a specific reply. What is worse, you are merely 'undoing' everything I have added, rather than deleting or modifying specific entries. I have asked, how is a statewide newspaper a poor source? How is the only extant biography of Hinckley a poor source? Moreover, there are countless entries in there no with no source whatsoever, which makes your wholesale revert seem unevenly applied. And I am not reverting wholesale like you. I am trying to engage in your comments, but neither you nor NeilN are looking at the sources themselves, offering alternatives, etc. I am happy to seek consensus, but I do not see how your not engaging with the sources, and simply undoing anything I have added will lead to that. I am attempting to make a good faith effort to improve a wiki page that needs significant improvement. And as far as I understand, edit war involves reverts like you are doing (undoing wholesale). I am going back, re-analyzing the text, and trying to find a solution. Otherwise, being accused of reverting would mean I simply cannot modify and add anything I have ever added.Vermilioncliffs (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You posted, which is great, but you need to allow for more than 8 hours for a reply. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I can wait. And just please in the future, be specific about which sources, sentences. It is frustrating to spend a good deal of time researching to improve a page that needs much improvement just to receive a "yeah, nope: all crap" revert. Thanks. Vermilioncliffs (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

First, even if you got zero response at the Talk page, you cannot breach WP:3RR. There are other dispute resolution mechanisms you can try besides the Talk page. Second, I notified you of this discussion at 17:52, and at 19:02 you reverted yet again. Your "frustration" aside, I have trouble believing that you will not resume disrupting the article. At the moment, another editor, ChristensenMJ has reverted twice (similar to your reverts), while 70.34.2.50, like you, has clearly breached 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:J man708 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

Page

Template:2012 Major League Soccer season table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

J man708 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Teams in other countries qualify for tournaments like the Europa League through non-league means, (ie-FA Cup winners). This is shown on their overall season table. Why must it be different for the MLS?"
2. 12:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Talk it out here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Inclusion_of_MLS_Playoffs_in_the_overall_table. The current edit conforms with other similar league systems (ie. A-League, ASB Premiership). The US league has no need to be an exception."
3. 21:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Read the WikiProject Football page to see WHY it is to be kept like THIS during discussions. Thank you."
4. 21:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Consensus has already been reached a good month ago and this is a part of it being rolled out as part of WikiProject Football. We're not going to "Leave it in the longstanding format" when a new format was already voted on and passed to show playoffs."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring instead of discussing */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

A second warning provided at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football&diff=prev&oldid=659201874 where a discussion is happening to determine consensus Editor seems to think a unilateral decision to change to a different format, similar to those used in other leagues, means that it should stay despite two editors reverting. Similar activity on Template:2013 Major League Soccer season table and Template:2014 Major League Soccer season table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to add an outside comment that User:Walter Görlitz also reported me 8 days ago for edit warring when he also had 3 reverts. The result was that both was advised to stop warring (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:Qed237 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Advice)). Seeing the same pattern here, I wanted to bring it up for knowledge to the closing admins. If it is a habbit (not saying it is) to report "opponents" in an edit war when you have 3 reverts on your own, I dont think it is a very good habbit. I have been told that you dont have to break 3RR to be edit warring, and it seems like Walter Görlitz stops at 3 reverts not to be blocked, but reports the other editor. It is not my job to decide, but it might be appropriate to inform Walter Görlitz with a message to let him know he can not edit war himself. QED237 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't stop at three reverts intentionally. I stop when I realize it's an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Walter, I understand the issue at hand, but I've been lead to believe that the consensus reached at WikiProject football is something to stick to. Your reverts of the article make it fail to conform to this consensus. Whilst I understand that the 3RR has been breached, this whole situation happened over a short space of time, wherein we were both reverting articles and writing responses to one another (I think the majority was within a ten minute period or so). Regardless, I assure you that the edits I have made to the articles in question have been voted for in a LONG debate (which actually lasted for about two months) over at WikiProject football (ironically enough with QED who responded above), wherein both sides came to an equal and content consensus over their issues and requests. For this, I hope you can see that this issue has been pondered over for a very long time and isn't just an edit that I've created because I think it looks good or something. I'm actually surprised to be perfectly honest that the American league tables have slipped through the cracks and not been updated to conform to the consensus. - J man708 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay User:Walter Görlitz, I can understand and relate to that, I have done the same. But then report the other editor for edit warring when you are edit warring yourself might not be the best idea, it may look like you want to stop the other editor to get your will through. In my books User:Walter Görlitz just are as guilty as User:J man708 and both can be seen as edit warring. QED237 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You claim there's a consensus, but you have not pointed to it.

I'm not trying to stop the editor since, as was seen with you, admins don't always block. I want the other editor to know that their behaviour is over the line and they need to stop since the subtle warnings were ignored. It's also obvious that other editors may revert and then we have a worse problem on our hands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By the way, I also was/have stopped editing once realising it has turned into an edit war. The other user who is involved in this debate has since reverted the 2015 article, to which I have left (despite the fact that I haven't reverted that one at all). Perhaps you should see that as me not being a reverter and instead leaving it for the higher powers to deal with, too? I feel as though you have honestly reported me on here, whilst being just as guilty as I am. It's as though you had this page all readied, waiting for a third revert to cause an issue, rather than trying to discuss this on the WikiProjectFootball page like I had suggested we use after Revert Number 1 had taken place.. QED, I 100% agree with you. - J man708 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not trying to stop the editor since, as was seen with you, admins don't always block" and yet, you said also "I expect an admin to step in and block you for breaking WP:3RR if you revert to your preferred version prior to establishing a consensus to accept the new format."... Really? - J man708 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the consensus is voted upon here. Something I HAVE already linked you to before. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_93#Consensus_2 - J man708 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the former: a public comment for the Footy admins to do with as they please. The latter is reality. I didn't actually expect you to cross the bright line after I wrote the statement. Since you did, were you expecting the admins to step-in?

You claim consensus. I don't see that actually being accepted. Several editors argue with you. And you even ignored the consensus in applying the formatting to the templates in question, correcting it only now. Thanks for pointing me to it. Do you think other FOOTY participants know about it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And the consensus, now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season, so it is recognized, is only for the colouring of the table, not for the inclusion of other national qualifications. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that other Footy Participants know about it, as it is on the League Season page that you yourself presented. Can you provide evidence of ignoring the consensus in applying the formatting? I'm sure there is a logical reason behind that occuring. Besides, I do honestly believe you're bringing up points here to try and get me blocked or something similar, something you see as justification for arguing with you. The facts are that we're both on two different sides of a conflict. I took the means of taking this discussion to the Football Project page, where it (like all other similar football issues are discussed) and you chose to put up an edit warring admin notification against me and bring up stale arguments with the intention of trying to get me into trouble. Please wait for an admin to discuss this issue further. Thank you. - J man708 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I can't prove that they don't know about it any more than you can prove that they all know about it. That's flawed logic.

I nominated you because you went past WP:3RR not to offer an argument.

Now that another editor has reverted, the third to do so, do you plan to discuss? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season page. This is the template for everything football on Wiki. "Another editor has reverted", no... That's still just two. Yourself and BMF. I intend on waiting for an admin to mediate this, as despite what you say, you do seem to be hell bent on finding an argument here. As I said before, please wait for an admin to discuss this further. - J man708 (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rahuloof reported by User:Mar4d (Result: Rahuloof blocked; many warnings)

Page: Kargil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rahuloof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59] [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kargil_War#Kargil_War_Result & [61]

Comments: User edit warred with two users on the concerned article, editing in content that is contentious, without consensus and currently under dispute at the talk page. The user has no recent history of edits at the article, nor has he participated in any of the past discussions at the talk page until mysteriously coming in to make the reverts. He abused the rollback feature and knowingly broke 3RR [62] yet has chosen not to self-revert despite being warned on his talk page and being asked to on the article talk page, and let the article remain in present form until the dispute is settled. Mar4d (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Mar4d has made 5 reverts. Thus page protection would be a better choice, I had already requested it on WP:RFPP. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There were 3 reverts, not 5. You went overboard with 3RR by not only reverting me, but also TopGun. Mar4d (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Rahul's statement in the editsummary (no matter who was 'right') while breaking 3RR that he's knowingly breaking 3RR isn't the way to go. Regardless of block, protection etc outcome, it is clear that he does not need the rollback user rights. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, I would like to present the following points in my defence

1. TopGun amd mar4d are engaged in some kind of groupism where they edit as a group and always support each other in talk pages. They are various instances where they both have been part of a edit war [63] [64] [65]
2. As they edit as a group, they are using the 3RR rule as shield to insert their views in the article without any consensus and threatens users who do not support their views with block warnings.
3. In this particular case , there is an active debate on the talk page regarding the issue and in my edit summary i have repeatedly urge them to gain consensus on talk page before making any changes.
4. This is my first engagement in any kind of edit war while both topgun and mr4d have a history of edit wars
5. I request the ADMIN to check the concerned article and the talk page before making any decision.
6. I used twinkle for reverting their edits and the single use of rollback was a mistake on my point
7. I believe common sense will prevail here

Rahul^{Text me} 11:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Both TopGun and I were involved in that article previously and had been participating in the talk page. You appeared out of the blue without any history at that article and started making reverts while completely ignoring the entire discussion taking place at the talk page. I am more curious about your motives and what brought you into the edit war. Mar4d (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well its Ironic that after giving human3015 a lecture about bad faith you are accusing me of editing in bad faith. I dont care about your participation in the talk page regarding older topics, but this particular topic is under discussion in the article's talk page with my active participation Rahul^{Text me} 12:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment, Mar4d has made 5 reverts and page protection will be a better option. I want tell one more thing, few users are always acting in group to write Anti-India matter in any related article. Mar4d, TopGun together made me to get blocked for 48 hours recently. And here also they fighting together to get another user blocked. They blame others for making 3-4 reverts(which they actually revert vandalism), but Mar4d and TopGun together makes 6-7 reverts(that too to enforce personal POV). --Human3015 12:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should have some introspection on the way you conduct yourself. You've been following me at places and involving yourself in matters that do not seem to be of relevance to you. This attitude got you blocked too for 3RR. I have noticed that your habit of making personal attacks and bad faith remarks on me has become quite consistent at almost every thread. This is something that is of deep concern. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, who said I'm following you, you recently nominated me on this same page so this page was on my watchlist. You, your team and your agenda has been exposed several times. We should always maintain good faith, we all are Humans, we should use wikipedia as a neutral tool to make positive change in the society. Please read Wikipedia:Five pillars. --Human3015 12:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And Mar4d, you can't say that this matter is not relevant to me, Kargil War has always been on my watchlist, and as soon as I got unblocked I took part in discussion on talk page of Kargil War which is now going on. --Human3015 12:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a load of bollocks. You've never edited that article before, and you only commented on the talk page an hour ago from now. And that is also your very first edit on that article talk page. It is clear you are following me, and it is also clear that this seems to be some attempt at tag-teaming. Just quit it. Mar4d (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• 1) A few editors who have edited the same articles since ages and have them on the watchlist support a similar version of the article as an attempt towards neutrality... that's not groupism and calling it that is plainly divisive, 2) Human3015 was just blocked because he ediwarred at another article and has chosen to turn up at this article and report as a tit for tat gesture which is hostile attitude. I don't mind this article getting protected until a clear consensus is achieved towards what the infobox should say but blatant and divisive accusations and casting of aspirations towards established editors should be curbed. Inspite of my repeated attempts to engage in content related discussion on article talkpage, Rahul is instead choosing to accuse editors which is definitely not achieving anything. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• I've Blocked Rahuloof for 24 hours, not only for breaching 3RR, but for knowingly doing so and apparently not caring. After OccultZone's revert, the article is currently Rahuloof's version (retreat). Thus, they had no cause to revert again, but I have no confidence that they wouldn't. Mar4d did not breach 3RR. They made three reverts in a 24-hour window. There was a previous edit war on April 23, though, in which Mar4d was involved, but actually less so than other editors (one revert). I know everyone is screaming that they have consensus for their version, but I don't see any clear consensus, although I went back only so far in the rather contentious Talk page discussions. I suggest an RfC to determine whether the infobox should say retreat or return to status quo. In the meantime, the following editors are Warned: Mar4d, TopGun, Imperial HRH2, and OccultZone. If there are any reverts of the disputed material in the next seven days, you may be blocked. And that includes the revert of a revert. If you want to report a revert, come to my Talk page or report it to another admin, but don't revert back. It's a bit unfair to include OccultZone because they made only one revert, the most recent one, in quite some time. However, they have edited the article before and are participating in the discussion on the Talk page. Having entered the fray with more than just a simple revert to keep the peace, they are stuck with my warning. I can't force you folk to initiate an RfC, but whatever you do, can't you at least be more civil and stop throwing nationalist slurs around? I don't even care if there's evidence to support them, they are never constructive. If someone is making consistently biased edits to Wikipedia articles, then take them to ANI. Otherwise keep your mouth shut about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Dannemel reported by User:Nick-D (Result: )

Page: Battle of Milne Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dannemel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (both logged in as Dannemel and logged out)

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]
6. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73] [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
This person has been using the Dannemel account and logged-out editing to add POV-pushing material to the feature article Battle of Milne Bay. Nick-D (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)