Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:04, 4 November 2010

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Sundowners reported by User:76.248.144.143 (Result: sprot)

Page: Little Green Footballs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sundowners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

i'm sorry, i'm not certain of how to use the warning templates. i'll drop him a note on his user page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

i'm not certain if i have this form filled out correctly, so here's how i jotted it down in wordpad:

user:Sundowners is edit-warring at the article for Little Green Footballs

He blanked the section: "Alteration and Deletion of Posts here.]

another user reinstated it, and he blanked it again here. ]

finally, i reinstated it with an advisement to discuss the section in talk, but he instead blanked it again here. ]

I have reverted again, but this looks like it's going to be a problem.

also, another fresh user, Spacejesus5000, has entered the fray, along with a couple of opponents.

76.248.144.143 (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A request for protection of the page has been made. See here. Minimac (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

i object to the request for protection for the reasons stated here. I would prefer mediation. i'll put in a request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.144.143 (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected by Ged UK. -Atmoz (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Raider Duck reported by User:67.170.110.1 (Result: Protected)

Page: Shaun Alexander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raider Duck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaun_Alexander&oldid=394121978

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaun_Alexander&oldid=393993591
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Raider Duck is continuously forcing an inaccurate edit on the article of Shaun Alexander. He is saying he is a FORMER player, but Alexander has never retired and has said he still wants to play in the NFL and is actively seeking a position with a team.

Can you please stop him from telling people his opinion is the only one, changing it to his preferred content and threatening users with claims of "vandalism"? That has got to be some kind of abuse of the rules, doesn't it?

PLEASE do something about this. He's just unrelenting in his hostility. 67.170.110.1 (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've warned the reporter about this and stated that anyone can use the article's talk page. This IP is getting pretty close to violating 3RR, but I don't think any other action is needed yet. Minimac (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Result - Protected two weeks. It is annoying that the IP is hopping from one address to another, but I do not perceive that Raider Duck has obtained any clear consensus on the talk page. Consider an RFC, make a request at a WikiProject, or try other steps of WP:Dispute resolution. If anyone believes the IP is a sock, consider making a report at WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by Shuki (talk) (Result: 12 hour block)

Page: Eretz Yisrael Shelanu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

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

1. 10:27, 31 October 2010 (edit summary: "Fix link to original ref") Not merely fixed, but also 1st revert.
2. 11:51, 31 October 2010 (edit summary: ""More neutral"? Restore long-term description")
3. 17:01, 31 October 2010 (edit summary: "Per last reversion & the fact that last time this was an issue, another editor also reverted to this version")
4. 10:48, 1 November 2010 (edit summary: "rv standard attempt to shift political spectrum to the right")

Ignored attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The dispute is if this political party can be described as right-wing party or a far-right party. Reliable sources are available using both descriptions, even within the same local newspapers. In this edit, I attempted to introduce a RS sourced compromise using both descriptions in this edit, but the editor, an admin no less, merely reverted to meet his POV. There had been inconclusive discussion last year in which the editor uses WP:SYNTH to come to the conclusion that the party can ONLY be decribed as far-right and refuses to include other information. Even with AGF, the editor, has conveniently waited 24hours + 20minutes to make the fourth revert without bothering to discuss. The editor, an avid political contributor, assumes he is the end-all expert in the area and has a history of edit warring, see here. —Shuki (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I won't bother with a detailed reponse to the above, but I suggest anyone wanting to take action has a brief look at the edit and block history of Shuki and myself and decide which one is trying to introduce bias to the article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's pathetic that you are attacking my credibility rather than deal with the subject at hand. Once again, you completely evade justifying your, admittedly uncharacteristic, yet poor holier than thou behaviour. --Shuki (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on a sensitive political subject is unacceptable, and justifying it by disparaging the other party doesn't make things any better. I've blocked Number 57 for 12 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've restricted Shuki to 1RR until the end of December for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles interpreted broadly. PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arbor832466 reported by User:Theeagleman (Result: Both blocked)

Chris Gibson
Arbor832466: Arbor832466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

3RR warning:

I have made an attempt to discuss this, the other editor started the discussion, but then continued to edit I asked that we wait on consensus but they would not wait see:

:

This has been a continued issue with the user, they have previously simply blanked this section previously rather then making any serious effort to improve it. I also had previously tried to engage them, but they simply did not engage see Theeagleman (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,

Theeagleman (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Courcelles 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoops gza reported by User:Dpmuk (Result: 24h)

Page: Led Zeppelin IV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hoops gza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: (Note: done at some time as warning given)
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Been discussed on user's talk page and in the edit log - which from the comments I think this user is aware of.

Comments:

Dpmuk (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24h. Obvious violation of 3RR. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:AVanover reported by Uncle Dick (talk) (Result: Reverted, warned)

Page: Age disparity in sexual relationships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: AVanover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 19:11, 1 November 2010 (edit summary: "Added a section for a cultural "rule".")
2. 08:01, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 394233780 by Uncle Dick (talk), not dubious or sourceless, check new link added")
3. 08:17, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "In this context, urban dictionary is reliable. This is a cultural phenomena and therefore a cultural source, from the people, was used.")
4. 08:40, 2 November 2010 (edit summary: "Actually, I am correct. It's tertiary source which gets it's information from a primary (people), specifically a compendium (i.e. a list or collection of various items, in this case: definitions).")

• Diff of warning: here

AVanover has attempted to add dubiously sourced content to Age disparity in sexual relationships regarding the mythical "half your age plus 7 rule". After I reverted his unsourced edits, the user reverted back to his content with an added citation to the ever reliable Urban Dictionary, which offers half a dozen "definitions" for the phrase. User refuses to participate in an active discussion on the article talk page regarding this content. I am under the impression that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source based on previous discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. —Uncle Dick (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note I have reverted the edit and warned the editor, as it is a clear violation of WP:RS. Any further attempts to re-add this material without support from other editors will result in a block. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Inspector123 reported by User:Jasepl (Result: semi)

Page: Kansai International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Inspector123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• This user, and several IPs self-admittedly used by the same user (User:119.155.37.2, User:119.155.43.160 and user:116.71.3.94 are only today's selection). User's basic contention is always "I know what I am adding is correct". Whilst that may well be true, one of pur primary tenets is to include a valid source when editing. Or at least to explain why something is being altered. Said user flat out refuses to do any such thing, instead resorting to a litany of abuse when challenged. Here's a couple of examples: and .

Note that while some words, such as those starting with "f" and "b" are common enough for all to understand, a lot of the rant is incomprehensible to me, but I assume it is swearing.

Also, all of these avatars have (individually and collectively) exceeded 3RR by some margin. And the page listed above is just one example. Jasepl (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected I have semi-protected the article, which should at least prevent sock disruption for a while. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jasepl (Result: Malformed report)

• Jasepl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to report this sockpuppet of Zaps93 and 124x247x221x146 kindly take strict notice of this person, also see how in defience he reverts valid edits as if he owns this site, he's disturbed now because his authority is being challenged.119.155.37.2 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Note: There is no user named Jaspel. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see that this relates to the report above by Jasepl (talk · contribs) -- already handled. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the above header to refer to User:Jasepl, spelled properly. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Passionless (Result: decline)

Page: Portal:Current events/2010 October 24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Passionless (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC) This user may be an admin, but he reverted the same edit 15 times in 12 hours ( Oct 24 Current Events), and tried to start a war with me on another issue in the same portal. Passionless (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note You'll have to provide some evidence if you want those statements taken seriously. The statement about reverting the same edit 15 times in 12 hours is obviously false, as the article history shows. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• oh, my bad, I'm use to current events histories all being the same date, it was 14 over 5 days...but it does include 4 in 25hours (Oct 28/29) and 5 in 16 hours (Nov 1/2), sorry about that, Passionless (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Declined Could use some more discussion and the phrasing is suboptimal, but no big deal. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Austria12 reported by User:Richwales (Result: Protected)

Page: Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Austria12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A; please note that I (Richwales) am only reporting an incident which I observed; I myself have not been involved in any recent editing on this page.

Comments: I advised the user of this notification on his talk page. He responded by semi-blanking his talk page.

Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Both Austria12 (talk · contribs) and Stephen G. Brown (talk · contribs) have violated 3RR here. Looie496 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note Update: Austria12 has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor, and I have therefore unprotected the page. Looie496 (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 1w for IP)

Page: Berber people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rarevogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 84.83.145.241 (talk · contribs)

Comments:

Note: This is a notice of edit-warring, not 3RR violation. User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 was blocked a couple of days ago for persistent edit-warring on the Berber people article. The report is here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive143#User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24 hours). In essence, since September 21 he has regularly reverted an infobox to his own preferred pictures, while refusing to discuss why, or the appropriateness of his edits, on the article talk page. Following the block, he edited a small amount using his userid, but still did not discuss the issue. Today he returned to the page as his IP, and reverted to his infobox yet again. He still has made no comment on the article talk page; nor, in fact, even in the edit-summary of his latest revert. Jayjg 19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week (The IP, that is.) Looie496 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Gangwonackr reported by User:Kusunose (Result: )

Page: Gangwon Provincial College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gangwonackr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As the user in question is the sole significant content contributer, I have explained relevant guidelines in his/her talk page.

Comments:
This report is for edit waring, not 3RR. User:Gangwonackr has been changing reference to the Sea of Japan to "East Sea", ignoring guidelines (WP:NC-KO) provided in the edit summary and the editor's talk page. He/She has never explained his/her edit in edit summary and did not responded in talk pages. --Kusunose 07:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a very slow-moving edit war. Anyway, I've reminded Gangwonackr about having to use an edit summary for any reverts, since he/she has never used it before. I don't think any action is needed here. Minimac (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Gangwonackr created this article a few months ago, and he insists on reverting certain names in the article to his own style preferences, which contradict the ones generally used in Wikipeda. For example he insists that Sea of Japan be called the East Sea. Since he rarely edits anything but this one article, and he is here less than once a month on average, we face the seldom-used need to issue a long block just to get his attention. If he will partake of any reasonable discussion, the block could be lifted. I suggest three months just so that the block will not escape his notice. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User:99.231.241.146 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Protected)

Page: Sriracha sauce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.231.241.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article is the site of an edit war by a contentious IP on one side, and myself and two other registered editors on the other. IP removes information because the company website (not an RS) claims something different, and dubious. IP then screams vandalism. Several times this past hour, so our rollbacks will appear as 3RR, when in fact we were returning the article to its previous state.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result - Article fully protected by TFOWR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Rwflammang reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor Esoglou has been following me through various Eastern Orthodox articles I have contributed to in the past and rewritten them to in ways that I have objected to. I however have not revert warring with Esoglou in quote sometime. Now it appears that Esoglou has a fellow Roman Catholic friend he has found who will now tag team with him to take out information that Esoglou does not like and can not refute with valid sourcing. However the information I have posted is valid (or was said to be so far) and sources involved directly in the issue. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note If I were going to block anybody here, it would be the filing editor. But it seems better to let this play out a little longer before intervening. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Advice needed: Both Esoglou and LoveMonkey have been at this board in the past. They specialize in similar topics, but they appear to be scornful of each others' work. They have been advised about WP:Dispute resolution, but neither party has tried any of the steps so far as I'm aware. Should the 3RR board be accepting unlimited return visits from people who find it inconvenient to follow policy? Here are some past reports:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive130#User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: No violation) (Filioque, May 2010)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive133#User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Not blocked / stale) (Filioque, June 2010)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive136#User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: protected 1 week) (July 2010)

Does anyone have any ideas of what to do? Possibly a 1RR restriction for both parties on all religious topics for six months? A 1RR would have prevented the series of reverts detailed in this report. Thanks for any comment by other editors. I moved this report to the bottom of the page for more visibility. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston has asked me personally to add comments here. I am sorry that I can offer no advice. Bringing others in has been tried. They don't persevere in their efforts, doubtless find them fruitless and frustrating. The present dispute is between LoveMonkey and another editor, LoveMonkey blames it on me. See his opening comment above, in which he suggests that Rwflammang is editing the article because of being, LoveMonkey says, a Roman Catholic friend of mine. And I see that LoveMonkey, when protesting against Rwflammang, has used the same exclamation that he recently used against another editor (again, not me): "How Roman Catholic of you!" I have had absolutely nothing to do with Rwflammang's effort to improve the article, and I hope that neither EdJohnston nor anybody else has been misled by LoveMonkey's outburst into thinking that I was in some way behind it. To this dispute I am totally extraneous. I have even held off my efforts, which I would otherwise be continuing in these days, to overcome by dint of patient arguing LoveMonkey's systematic reversal of my edits. You can see, in the subsections under Talk:Filioque#Edit warring and policy abuse (the heading is LoveMonkey's), how I set about discussing separately each of the seven items that he reverted in the same way as he is systematically reverting Rwflammang's edits. Of those items I have so far solved only one, with the removal of the statement, "The Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans", which LoveMonkey falsely attributed to two sources that said nothing of the sort. Instead of rephrasing the statement or producing a citation to support it, you can see how he preferred to write at length of the ill-treatment meted out by Westerners to the Greeks and Russians over the post-Frank centuries, down to Mussolini and Hitler - as if that showed that the Franks were called Western Romans! An intervention by me at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard brought above an unusually speedy solution to this argument, and I was planning to make, if necessary, a similar intervention to solve the one other item on which active discussion between him and me had begun, with a view to then tackling the remaining five. But I judged it much more pleasant to be a spectator of the LoveMonkey-Rwflammang dispute, rather than to pursue my own dispute for now. I am watching the discussion on the present dispute with interest, but with little hope that it will be more successful than those on the LoveMonkey disputes in which I myself was involved. Esoglou (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User: InaMaka reported by User: Stonemason89

NOTE: This is a notice of edit-warring, not 3RR violation.

User: InaMaka has been acting in a disruptive manner during and after the recent United States midterm elections. In a span of ten minutes he made the following six reverts (, , , , , ), all of which were on candidate BLPs and all of which were reverts of edits made by User: Arbor832466, against whom InaMaka appears to have a personal vendetta: . He also inserts his own personal opinions into edit summaries, for example: . Finally, he unilaterally deletes articles about candidates, claiming they are non-notable even though they received widespread media coverage: ; it's not up to InaMaka to decide what is notable and what isn't; and he expresses a very defiant, bullheaded attitude toward other editors: . He has been repeatedly warned about such behavior on his talk page (and blocked three times in the past for edit warring), but doesn't seem to ever learn. This behavior is quite long-term and I think it's time it stopped. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The politicians that have never held political office are not qualified to have articles about them in Misplaced Pages. Krystal Ball has never held elective office. Under the defined terms of having an article about a politician, Krystal Ball does not meet any of those requirements. The election is over and article was deleted. The same applies to Stephene Moore. Once again, she has never held political office and she does not qualify as a politician.--InaMaka (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The standard for notability is not whether they win. We have an article on Jim Clymer, who has never won an election in his life. He does pass the notability standard, though, because many media outlets have written about him. Again, you by yourself are not the arbiter of what is notable and what isn't. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Ezzex reported by User:Jiujitsuguy

Page: Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ezzex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• First revert 3 November 2010 @20:33 Edit summary: “Remove POV”

• Second revert 3 November 2010 @20:40, No edit summary

• Third revert 3 November 2010 @21:24, No edit summary

• Fourth revert 3 November 2010 @22:52, No edit summary

• Fifth revert 3 November 2010 @23:27, No edit summary

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
User: Ezzex has now violated 3RR by making 5 reverts and reverting four editors in a span of less than 3hrs. He fails to discuss his reverts on the Talk page and offers no explanation in the edit summary. He has also been given a previous 48hr block for edit warring--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Recent and rapid edit-warring. The warning came late but as he/she has been blocked previously for edit-warring a warning is unnecessary. Will also notify of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Mkativerata (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

folk etymology

Reporting a dispute over the inclusion of material on the term as used in folklore; two editors will admit only material relating to linguistics. I have not been able to get either to address the actual issues, and indiscriminate reversions have been done. Additionally, there has been canvassing. One of the disputants is an admin, and is ruling there that my sources are non-RS. S/he has also placed a message on my talkpage accusing me of 3RR violation -- demonstrably untrue. Between them they may have done 3RR, but the overall behavior is what amounts to the edit warring. The article is not improving. DavidOaks (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring