Page

Gamergate controversy (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631279690 byJavier2005 (talk) You are asking us to identify the people who made the statements that The Verge is quoting when that is not what Wikipedia can or should do."
2. 03:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631276514 byJavier2005 (talk) READ THE REFERENCE AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE FFS"
3. 03:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631275483 byTorga (talk) "Boogie" and Yiannopoulos' stories have not been addressed by any of the reliable sources stated so there is no reason to include them"
4. 02:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631274145 byMuscat Hoe This revert is addressed on the talk page atTalk:Gamergate controversy#Muscat Hoe's removal of "jokingly" in more detail than the edit summary allows"
5. 02:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631270366 byTorga (talk) this isn't biased, it is accurate based on the preponderance of reliable sources that define it as such; look at the talk page; also a typo"
6. 01:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit byTorga (talk): Unexplained blanket revert to an old version. (TW)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 16:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) to 16:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631199378 byBelorn (talk) This section is indeed covered inhttp://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting &http://time.com/3274247/video-game-culture-war/"
   2. 16:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631198871 byBelorn (talk) In Vox and Time at the end of the entire paragraph"
   3. 16:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631189092 byHalfhat (talk) this isn't bloat, part of it shows other evidence of misogyny in the community"
8. 05:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit byPengo (talk): Stop going "it's actually about ethics in journalism". (TW)"
9. Consecutive edits made from 04:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC) to 04:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 04:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631144633 byPengo (talk) it's not an edit conflict, stop changing it to downplay the misogyny aspect"
   2. 04:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631144004 byMasem (talk) Masem, this is accurate to the present weight of the sources out there"
10. 04:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631142985 byPengo (talk) stop throwing the reliably sourced and almost universal description of this as a misogynist movement deep in the last sentence of the lede"
11. 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631126833 byTutelary (talk) Yes I am because they're reliably sourced"
12. 04:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit byBelorn (talk): Are you reading the sources in question? (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Ryulong is at 15RR in this single article, and with no signs of stopping or slowing down. They have not asserted any 3RR exemption and as a result, are grossly edit warring and way over 3RR.Tutelary (talk)04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Users in question are almost exclusively pushing a POV on the article despite reliable sources supporting the content that had been consistently removed and issues variously addressed on the talk page despite actions consistently taken by the other editors arguably in this larger dispute. This is an attempt to silence me on this issue when I have been working diligently to edit the article in a way that fits in with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that most of the editors I reverted do not care about. I should not be punished for making sure that the article is not disrupted by POV pushers simply because I'm the only one editing the page. All edits have been extensively discussed on the talk page, and as usual, I am being chastised when other editors do not adhere to the community's policies and guidelines on article content. I am simply the big bad wolf in all of this. This is just another attempt to silence me in the GamerGate debate because of my alleged position.—Ryūlóng (琉竜)04:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I will not comment on this report based on content issues. This is about editor conduct. I don't believe asserting 15 reverts on an article after being given warning for edit warring should be rubber stamped as fine because Ryulong decided he wants to be the sole caretaker of the article and to stop apparent POV pushing. 4RR or even 5RR could be justified and forgiven because of the fast paced notion of the page and loss of counting. 15RR is deliberate.Tutelary (talk)05:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom has also been involved in reverting the actions of editors, as hasCountered,NorthBySouthBaranof,Tarc,Bilby, among others. In addition,Muscat Hoe's concerns were addressed in a self revert (I think it was a self revert because there was an edit conflict at some point). Nearly everything here is under discussion on the talk page, and I pressured the other users to discuss it on the talk page. The fact thatWP:BRD is never adhered to should not be my fault.—Ryūlóng (琉竜)05:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So is 4 hours considered suitably stale considering nearly every issue that the reverts concerned have been under talk page discussion since long before Tutelary began this thread and were either resolved or in the process of resolving before the posting was made? Not to forget that due to the general sanctions, some of these might be considered acts that violate BLP as several edits called for identifying non-public figures, or denying statements made in reliable sources that effectively violate BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜)09:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulongneeds strict ongoing sanctions related toedit summaries, reverting, addressing talk page notifications, andperson to person civility. These things are part of the load, of the type of editing User:Ryulong engages, but there is little to say User:Ryulong has more than apassing familiarity with the sanctioned guides for these things though they are not apparently lacking the literacy tounderstand. User:Ryulong has 200k edits to the en.wiki, so it is obvious, nothing is going tolead Ryulong toappreciate the wiki community ethic, and only strict sanctions can provide a basis for them to conform, after which they may or may not develop an understanding. These are just some entries from Ryulongs talk page archives, but it is important to note that User:Ryulong routinely deletes talk page notifications as soon as they are delivered, without addressing them, even in edit summary:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Ryulong needs to recognise, acknowledge and adequately respond in situations of resentment, and that is too tall an order for Wikipedia to insist on, but it is the basis for the initial complaints of my statement and those are not tall enough for Wikipedia to insist.16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

RTG is just making a pisspoor attempt at a pile on. He should know thatWP:OWNTALK says, and I quote (with my own emphasis)

Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving.The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users.

You are aso conveniently pulling threads from months ago as if that is representative of my behaviornow. Most of the complaints are that I use the revert tools (vandalism revert, etc.) to remove content that is not vandalism andthat is not what at all happened here. People complaining to me about reverts that I've then explained thoroughly in the threads he links to as well. I have left extensive edit summaries throughout the whole Gamergate article, been heavily involved in the talk page, and on user talk pages. RTG is simply using this opportunity to be completely ignorant of Wikipedia policy as he was in every other time he and I crossed paths, such as hiscomplete ignorance of SPI and his trolling nature to me andwhatever this behavior is called. It has now been 12 hours since Tutelary posted her first complaint. This is stale other than RTG's attempt to be a pain in my ass.—Ryūlóng (琉竜)16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The short tempers on that page are largely the fault of an overly permissive approach to editors who are very obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Ryulong has been outright harrassed off wiki for the heinous crime of respecting WP policy. There is an ongoing pattern of disruption on that page and frustration is completely understandable. Being 'nice' is nice, but being 'nice' while completely disrespecting the project and its rules is much more destructive than being brusque and adhering to policy.

But regardless, this isWP:3RRN, not the Wikiquette noticeboard. It's not the place to pursue old grudges. -TaraInDC (talk)16:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In the last 17 days User:Ryulong has reverted 14 talk page messages related to complaints of their editing. Most of these reverts have occured within one minute of the notification. You've got to understand Ryulong, being a pain in "your ass" is not a personal goal I have wether I am or not. Telling you that you battle and show flagrant disregard, well thatmay be a pain in "your ass". Do you even realise, that the response to my edit you cited above, was torevert it with the edit summary "Trolling", with a capital "T" Ryulong and yet, can you remember the rest of the discussion? You effed me out of it a bit at least when you realised I was not going to agree with you, was not going to shy away and was not going to have a tirade of abuse with you either. The threads I have "pulled" are merely the ones you haven't deleted from your talk page archives, or, the ones you haven'tgotten away with deleting because, you do routinely delete them all instantly without response, meaning that to get any sort of a background on you I have to fully examine your contributions, and I'll challenge you without quoting any policies, that talk page notifications about conduct are not to be wholesale removed without address, because that appears the same way as someone who deletes them to hide them, doesn't it? And what is the difference after it isdifferent because you say so?

Note: "...every other time he and I crossed paths..." doesn't User:Ryulong mean that one time, we crossed paths and he followed me to a few talk pages to see if he could get a fight? Until he couldn't settle for agreeing to disagree, and resorted to expletives and following me to other talk pages? Does someone want me to get into diffs because I think that reverting and disputing is what this thread is about isn't it? LookUser:Ryulong, you are notorious in your interactions. Understanding how tocorrect that, is not so much different from learning how to correct content.17:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You still bring up the issues that I've told you thatWP:OWNTALK covers. I went toone discussion page where you were also highly disruptive (as evident by the fact that your thread is shut down completely before the RFC ever closed) when you were basically saying "SPI is a sham". This does not have anything to do with the edits Tutelary raised here. If you have issues with my behavior, there are other venues, but I will turn it into aWP:BOOMERANG to point out your ignorance of policies that allow me to do what you're accusng me of doing here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜)17:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You really have no idea thatWP:OWNTALK allows me to do whatever the hell I want with messages sent to me on my user talk page,do you, RTG?—Ryūlóng (琉竜)17:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, you cannot, so you didn't read it, or, you didn't care for it, and yet you post it to me where I am supposed to develop a respect for it. And just for relevance, I reinstated the notice that this thread was open on Ryulongs talk page, andthis is their third removal of it.17:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you saying?WP:OWNTALK allows me to do whatever the hell I want with messages sent to me on my user talk page. PerWP:3RRNO, a user's own user space (which includes their user talk page)is one of the small handful of exceptions to 3RR. You are explicitly and failing at trying togame me into violating 3RR on my user talk which I've already pointed out does not count. You are making up rules that you think will get me in trouble without actually knowing jack squat about any of the real rules and regulations on this website. You did this at the SPI and its talk page. You did this in the Archive.is RFC. You obviously must have done this in multiple other locations that I've not bothered to go to either if this is how you insist on how things are done here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜)17:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Andthis is a violation ofWP:POINT (if not a massive violation ofm:DBAD) if I ever saw one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜)17:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

See pal, you are "gaming" into it alright, but not because I amdoing it to you. I did something at an RFC that I am doing here, but it's to complicated for a paragraph such as the above one to explain? Well then according to you I didn't, but you reckon you might make it appear that I did, and you reckon doing that will be similar to posting up twenty diffs querying policy violations.

WP:OWNTALK, "There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details." Each guide has a spirit. The spirit of this guide is not "whatever I want",

Look Ryu, you do need to address your attitude. The idea that you just haven't had the right indication yet is waning. Don't be a dick is what you post to people who revert without edit summaries, Ryu...18:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked atWikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings? It doesn't say "no one is allowed to remove anything". It says that the removal of warnings is not forbidden. And it also says "restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule". So therefore if you decide to keep restoring the warning, you are the one violatingWP:3RR and I am not. There have beenmultiple users who have reported me here after I reverted their messages to me on my user talk andthey were the ones who ended up being blocked. You clearly don't know how the policies and guidelines work or are implimented so do not try to get me in trouble based on something you clearly do not understand.—Ryūlóng (琉竜)18:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is overrun by SPAs and POV pushers who are trying to take advantage of their numbers to shout down constructive work on the talk page and 'win' at reverting the article, making large numbers of transparently unconstructive changes like tagging cited material with citation needed tags and removing wording that was added based on an established consensus because it's 'biased.' Tutelary has consistently been very supportive of these accounts as they share an anti-feminist POV, so it's unsurprising that it's an editor who's been trying to keep the article in compliance with Wikipedia policy for months who's been reported here when there are several pro-gamergate POV warriors who are clearly engaging in disruptive editing patterns. (Cue Tutelary accusing me of being an SPA because I was inactive for two months over the summer.) --TaraInDC (talk)13:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Eliminating Ryulong appears to be an arbitrary goal for them outside of any policy reasons.[10]Artw (talk)18:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As a new editor in Wikipedia, a so called SPA, I have to say the amount of ad hominem thrown at supposed SPAs has made me less willing to further participate in Wikipedia. Calling someone a SPA has been used many times as an ad hominem, as a way of disregarding a person's arguments because of what he is. Giving less importance to new editor is expected, but I would like to have my arguments argued against (or even ignored) instead of getting the SPA label thrown around.Awaker81 )14:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, maybe a few of these can be stretched to meet the limited exceptions for reverting atWP:3RR, but not all of these, and just because most of these are new accounts is not reason to claim that reverting them are allowed 3RR exceptions, particularly when the language in the edit summary is that strong. Granted some of those who were reverted are also at high RR since the sanctions have been placed, so this isn't solely on Ryulong, but this is still inappropriate behavior for the page under the sanctions. --MASEM (t)18:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Some may qualify underWP:MEAT.—Ryūlóng (琉竜)18:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem with being so permissive of SPAs on this type of article, though: it encourages groups that want to 'control the narrative' on Wikipedia to simply overwhelm the page with unproductive edits from a large number of accounts and then act like the wounded party when a far smaller number of editors try to clean up after them. --TaraInDC (talk)19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I am a long-term editor, and I find Ryulong to be hugely POV pushing and generally someone who does not edit cooperatively with established editors. The accusation that everybody who has an issue with the slant that Ryulong has injected into this article over the last several days or so is a "single purpose account" is an empty and uncalled-for accusation. For what it's worth, I think Ryulong should be sanctioned for edit warring or at least given a warning to quit acting like he owns the article, and to work with other editors.Iamcuriousblue (talk)02:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what Ryulong said. You've argued since yesterday that it's "POV pushing" to summarize what the majority of the RS say about GamerGate (because it ain't nice), but Ryulong didn't call you an SPA, so please stop pretending like he accuseseveryone who doesn't understand WP:NPOV. Your topic area of interest is only somewhat related ((anti-)feminism, pornography, sexuality). There's no denying that many SPAs with no understanding of WP policy or no intention of following it have disrupted the GameGate article and talk page, or that there have been coordinated attempts to get rid of Ryulong. --Sonicyouth86 (talk)11:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• StaleDreadstar☥19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  Of course it's stale 15 hours later. The only way Ryulong would have been considered to have been edit warring is that he made a big kettle full of black coffee and stayed awake for more than 24 hours. --Pudeo'16:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

RocketShoes83 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631394582 byViperSnake151 (talk)"
2. 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Updated article with Controversy section; added subtext to promotional picture"
3. 20:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Added controversy surrounding the quality of the amiibo figures"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: Amiibo */"
2. 21:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of defamatory content onAmiibo. (TW)"
3. 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Only edits have been to constantly re-introduce references to reports that the supposed final versions of the figures do not resemble how they were originally presented when unveiled. It isundue to reference this, an NPOV violation to consider it "controversy", and a normal part of a product development process that is not relevant for the article.

Previous versions also included anOR-violating "Amiibo Rankings" that ranked, in the editors' opinion, Amiibo toys as being worse than Happy Meal toys. Persists despite multiple warnings. As such, this is merely a campaign to push their own POV.ViperSnake151 Talk 00:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You have only shown us three reverts when you need 4. Here's two more (here andhere),ViperSnake151. This now brings it to five reverts. Though, there is still no talk page discussion. But as you already stated the user was fully aware that he could be blocked.AcidSnow (talk)00:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignore that last bit, he still at 3 reverts.AcidSnow (talk)00:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result:User:RocketShoes83 is warned that they may be blocked if they restore their material again without getting a consensus for it on the talk page. Another editor may be pushing the 3RR limit also and ought to be careful. The phrase"which could potentially dupe customers", though it is offered in quotes, appears to lack a source.EdJohnston (talk)15:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor seems to have cooled down; actually gave me a "Thanks" notification on my last revert, and the editor has not done so again.ViperSnake151 Talk 22:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Page:Eritrea (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Vetrisimino0 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 17:29, 28 October 2014
2. Revision as of 17:42, 28 October 2014
3. Revision as of 19:15, 28 October 2014
4. Revision as of 20:48, 28 October 2014

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk Page

Comments:
Not only has this user broken 3RR by reverting 4 times (three with main account[11][12][13] and once with an IP[14]) and failing to receive consensus, he has also flat out denied removing sourced content.AcidSnow (talk)

• Blocked – for a period of31 hours. The user did not revert again after being warned. Normally, given that this is a new account, I would be less inclined to block. However, in June of this year, the user was warned about edit warring on the same article. In addition, the discussion on the talk page of the article is needlessly tendentious.--Bbb23 (talk)22:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

He did not revert again because nobody revered him again...... I am still on one revert too,Bbb23. So it's not surprising that he didn't.AcidSnow (talk)23:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not the point. It would have been better for you to warn him after your revert but before his last revert. Nothing obliges you to do this, but it helps if you bring a report here.--Bbb23 (talk)23:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Usually when their reverting I would warn them before their final revert. But I forgot that he used an ip to revert the first time. So it was a bit to late to tell him to stop when he slid in his 4th revert.AcidSnow (talk)

Page

Volga Tatars (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "In infobox there are supposed to be notable Volga Tatars. Halfies are not the best representatives of Volga Tatar phenotype. Plus Shaimiev and Mukhametshin are much more notable than Mustafina and Shayk."
2. 22:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "For the forth time, if you think they are so famous put them in infobox in article about Russian people."
3. 22:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631384735 byKazekageTR (talk)For the third time, if you think they are so famous put them in infobox on article about Russian people"
4. 22:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631375592 byKazekageTR (talk) For the second time, if you think they are so famous put them in infobox on article about Russian people"
5. 15:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule onVolga Tatars. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Page protected (semi) for one month. The IP is the same person (multiple IPs) that caused me to protect the article for a week on October 15.--Bbb23 (talk)01:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Page:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Rm w a vu (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[21]

Comments: Despite multiple attempts from different editors to bring awareness ofWP:BRD,Rm w a vu (talk ·contribs) has continually reverted the page to his preferred version. Rm w a vu made the initial bold change to article which was subsequently reverted. At this time, he did begin a discussion on the articles talk page but re-reverted the revert before anyone had a chance to respond. Rm w a vu went on to make 3 more re-reverts while discussion was taking place.--TriiipleThreat (talk)10:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of36 hours - see more comments in filing above10:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Page:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Adamstom.97 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) &TriiipleThreat (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films&diff=631556662&oldid=631556459

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films&diff=631556662&oldid=631556459

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films&diff=631572015&oldid=631551745

Comments: Despite my attempts to initiate and engage in a sensible discussion determining my grounds for the inclusion of a table in the article, two users removed the table without regard and with pithy dismissal for my reasoning, and clearly no intention to seek consensus. --rm 'w avu05:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I reverted twice, once when I came upon what appeared to be vandalism, and again to inform the above user that a discussion should take place prior to the addition of such material. They continued to re-add the information, without attempting to discuss the issue first, taking their personal opinion as superior to the consensus of two other editors, as can be seen at the articles talk page,Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. I have no interest in edit wars or long debates, and am open to leaving the contentious material on the page if the user is willing to discuss its inclusion with myself and the other regular MCU editors. -adamstom97 (talk)09:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I only reverted twice as well, whereasRm w a vu (talk ·contribs) has reverted a total of four times (seebelow). Though he did initiate discussion, he re-reverted before anyone had a chance to respond and has since continually reverted to his preferred version of the page. After my initial revert of his bold change, he should have began discussion and made no further reverts until consensus could be reached. Sadly, this was not the case. It should be noted that I have no further edits to article after my second revert, nor will I until the dispute is settled.--TriiipleThreat (talk)10:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• FilerBlocked – for a period of36 hours (see also report below). What's clear here is that Rm w a vu performed abold edit. It was not accepted by the community - for whatever reason, and thusWP:CONSENSUS was against the editat the time. If you make an edit and it's reverted, you have ZERO authority to re-implement the editno matter what until you have discussed the edit, and achieved new consensus. In many cases, you will NOT gain consensus, which means your editmay not be made. Simply starting the consensus discussiondoes not permit you to re-add, ever. AlthoughWP:BRD is an essay, it's the simplest method of understanding the responsibilities of the person who wishes to make a bold edit. The fact that not only did Rm w a vu make the edit, re-make the edit, then continued to revert back to their preferred version while a consensus discussion took place (the exactopposite of the process), they took it upon themselves to file this AN/3RR report against the editors who clearly understood theWP:BRD process has led to a 36 hour block.10:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Shooting of Michael Brown (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "/* County autopsy */"
2. 17:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "/* County autopsy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Independent Autopsy */ other scenarios"
2. 02:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Independent Autopsy */ how is this synth?"
3. 12:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Criticism of Brown Family Autopsy by Baden and Parcell */R"
4. 13:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Criticism of Brown Family Autopsy by Baden and Parcell */ add ping and link"

Comments:

New IP repeatedly adding info cited to personal blog in violation ofWP:SELFPUB andWP:SPSBLP. Content in question has been under discussion for a day+ now, but IP has not participated (or indeed ever edited before today)

They are technically only at 2RR now, but as this is BLP violating, and I would go to 3RR by reverting them again, I am reporting.Gaijin42 (talk)18:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Reverting by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the talk page.EdJohnston (talk)20:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem was one IP, as stated. Other IPs have recently made uncontroversial edits or at least given up after being reverted once. Even the problem IP gave up 26 hours before the protection was applied. ‑‑Mandruss ☎20:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

Adjutor101 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631633777 byDMacks (talk) Dear DMacks I have responded to the reservations on the talk page. Wikipedia is place were all arguments/view-points are to be represented."
2. 16:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631605986 byBladesmulti (talk) Bladesmulti these are citiations from books by you can go check their isbns out or their publishing houses. The books are by Islamic scholars"
3. 05:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631421841 byBladesmulti (talk) aliislam.org is the Ahmadi official website, remove references 2, 7, 24, 30, 35, 37, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,69, 74, 80 are all from this websit"

• [22]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor was blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring which was extended to a week for block evasion. The block expired 01:04, 28 October 2014 and he has returned to editwar. He's been reverted by 5 editors including me.Dougweller (talk)19:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And despite the notification of this discussion, he's again reverted.19:43, 29 October 2014‎ Adjutor101 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (60,860 bytes) (+2,936)‎ . . (Undid revision 631651680 by Dougweller (talk) If information is properly sourced: [sourced with books and accurate then why is this information being hidden?)]Dougweller (talk)21:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period ofone month.--Bbb23 (talk)00:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Republic of Ilirida (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631543256 byLocal hero (talk) There's no reason to remove the useful infobox showing a map of the republic. Also, the Albanian insurgency of 2001 is relevant."
2. 23:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629706712 byLocal hero (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was placed on strictWP:1RR per thisdiscussion. This is a clear violation of that restriction. He has already been blocked for breaking said restriction once before.RGloucester —☎21:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period ofone month.--Bbb23 (talk)00:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparent newbie, single purpose editor has engaged in edit warring and violating3RR. I welcomed her (?), offered to work collegially if she would only specify what I got wrong in the article. I specifically warned her that she would be violating 3RR which would likely incur a block if she reverted my edits again. She has made no response, nor even acknowledged reading anything in the welcome or which I personally wrote on her talk page. I don't even know if shehas read anything on her talk page. Please delete her last revert, impose block for violating 3RR despite specific warning and if possible protect the page for 48 hours. Edit warring ANI notice left. Please see[23] and[24]. Thanks,Quis separabit?19:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

:: Why is this being ignored?? I mean you just skip over to a newer issue?? This is ridiculous and not the first time it's happened.Quis separabit?21:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not a case of being ignored more of a case of an administrative shortage. Its only been here 2 hours and you can request page protection seperatley atWP:RFPP. The turn around there is normally better than the response here for that sort of request.Amortias (T)(C)21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I mistakenly thought newer entries had been handled out of sequence.Quis separabit?21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note. The reported editor has not breached 3RR (she's made three reverts), and she made her last revert only a few minutes after your warning, so it's possible she did not see it. And you,Rms125a@hotmail.com, really need to follow the instructions on this page when filing a report.--Bbb23 (talk)00:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed the instructions and I don't see what I did wrong. Your punt on this issue ensures that Margerypark's outrageous conduct -- i.e. erasing text with barely an explanation, refusal to respond to messages on her talk page, refuse to engage civilly or collegially, etc. -- will continue.Quis separabit?00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm frankly astounded. Why don't you answer a modified Passover question: why is your report different from all other reports? I should have just closed it asDeclined – 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 completediffs.--Bbb23 (talk)01:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will check it out. I hardly ever report people for 3RR so I guess I didn't know. Does this mean I should make the same report that I just made over again? But it's not really 3RR, it's 4RR, so I don't have a case. I am going to have to wait for her to violate 3RR (really 4RR) again to file a new report, I guess, if she does. Anyway you declined not because of technical reasons (malformation) but substantive ones. So thanks anyway, Yours,Quis separabit?02:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Page:Eastern Europe (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Users being reported:Szaboci (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) andYatzhek (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Yatzhek'saddition to the article isn't necessary in my opinion, but technically the one who broke 3RR rule isUser:Szaboci (4 reverts in less than 24h - the 1st one at18:36, 27 October 2014‎ and the 4th one at17:09, 28 October 2014‎). At the moment of this reportUser:Yatzhek has a total of 3 reverts (I've also counted 2 reverts made by the IPs 195.69.81.75 and 78.9.132.188 which most probably also belong to him)106.185.47.4 (talk)22:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note. At this juncture I've alerted both reported users toWP:ARBEE. Yatzhek should, of course, not be blocked for edit warring. Although the filer is correct thatSzaboci breached 3RR, they weren't warned of the potential breach. That said, I think it would be constructive for Szaboci to comment here.--Bbb23 (talk)23:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, this won't happen again.Szaboci (talk)13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Deepika Padukone (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

Omio Asad (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 08:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 08:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuously tries to add an infobox to the featured article, albeit without full success - in spite of the article containing a note advising not to add the same. Moreover, the article passed its FAC without an infobox.Kailash29792 (talk)08:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. I've blocked the account for 48 hours for multiple issues including edit-warring and BLP concerns.--17:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Page:Middle Ages (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:46.218.48.167 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]
5. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[31]Hchc2009 (talk)16:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected one month.EdJohnston (talk)21:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Page:Alzira Peirce (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Margerypark (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. [32]
2. [33]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[35]

Comments: This user simply reverts my edits, without stating what is wrong, replacing my version with a resume-style, non MOS-conforming, highly inferior version (of her own). I reported this yesterday, however for both technical and subtantive reasons my report was rejected.

Now, however, she has violatedWP:3RR by makingFIVE reverts within the last 24 hours, despite my clear warning on her talk page to her, which I have no idea if she has even read. The warning was good will on my part as I presumed she is a newbie editor and I didn't want to bite her. She may not be a newbie, who knows? I have gone out of my way to be civil and collegial to Margerypark on her talkpage, asking, imploring her to work with me. She has never responded there or anywhere else, and I have no reason to think she even reads what is on her talk page. This apparent newbie editor believes she owns the article and possibly has some COI connection.

• NOTE: page may need protection. I know that's another ANI dept but since I am here already. Yours,Quis separabit?19:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Just to clarify: I did not know another editor would be making an editwarring/3RR complaint aboutMargerypark, a few minutes after my own. I am leaving my own version, complementary to his, as it contains certain info which is not present in his, understandably as I am the one who initiated contact with Margerypark. The only reason my signature stamp reveals a later time, indicating that I filed this reportafter he did is because I worked piecemeal since I am on a library database/catalog computer (Wikipedia is accessible as part of the database) and there is no notepad accessory or even Microsoft Word access, so I made more than one trip here now, and re-signed, thus producing an apparently later time stamp, which, if true, would mean I had broken the sequence, which I would not do.Quis separabit?20:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected (full) for one week byCambridgeBayWeather.--Bbb23 (talk)04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Alzira Peirce (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC) to 15:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC) "Corrected numerous inaccurate amendments made to article."
   2. 15:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision by Rms125a@hotmail.com which deleted accurate sourced info with inaccuracies, notably identifying Alzira's grandfather as her father."
3. 18:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631642695 byRms125a@hotmail.com (talk)"
4. 19:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 19:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC) "As apparent from previous controversies Rms125a@hotmal.com appears to be a compulsive Wikipedia vandal."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[36]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned by another user (diff to follow) though not3RR definetly edit warring and is so close to the revert rule is quite possibly gaming the system.Amortias (T)(C)19:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week byCambridgeBayWeather.--Bbb23 (talk)04:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've alsowarnedMargerypark about her disruptive edits and her personal attack againstRms125a@hotmail.com.--Bbb23 (talk)04:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Page

Alien (creature in Alien franchise) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 05:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to version 631571887 re talk page."
2. 11:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631873388 byMcGeddon (talk) Policy revision: DRNC, along side failure to adhere to talk page."
3. 11:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Removing edit war based vandalism under edit war exempt wiki policy: "Do not revert for 'no consensus' ". User reported. Reminded to apply for dispute resolution per policy."
4. 12:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631877063 bySturmgewehr88 (talk) Vandalism. User referred to talk page, informed of dispute resolution request filed by McGeddon, per breakdown of talk pg/be bold policy."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Reverting other editors */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise) "RfC: "Alien" or "Xenomorph"?"

Comments:

I have also attempted to report this user for the same offence on my talk page. I'm sorry im fairly new and I didn't realise there was a page for it, I just requested an administrator. Oops, sorry.

My initial revision was based on the be bold policy. Further revisions to counter McGeddon's out of policy 'edit war' reversions were done under the WP:DRNC, which is necessary,and exempt from edit war counts, along with multiple warnings in our discussion regarding the issue found on my talk page, in order to facilitate resolution of the dispute according to policy.

UserUser:McGeddon was clearly instructed and warned, many times, on both the talk page and our discussions that dispute resolution was necessary for progression of the issue, and ignored them on each count, contributing unnecessarily to an 'edit war'.

Thank you for your time

Urammar (talk)12:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:DRNC is about how it's a bad idea to revert an out-of-the-blue edit with a gruff and unexplained "no consensus", it does not mean "if an edit summary uses the magic words 'no consensus', it's always vandalism". Even the most grumpily inappropriate revert of "no consensus" to restore an article's status quo would not meet the "obvious vandalism" exemption ofWP:NOT3RR. --McGeddon (talk)12:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd add that DNRC is also not a policy, but a community essay, and is most certainly not a case for exemption from 3RR.Yunshui ^雲_水13:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected byUser:Fuhghettaboutit. Hopefully Urammar now has a better understanding of what constitutes edit-warring. Please thrash out the RFC now on the talkpage and establish consensus for future changes.Yunshui ^雲_水14:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Page:Central Stadium (Leipzig, GDR) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Page:Zentralstadion (1956) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Nukefirestadium (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. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]
   
6. [42]
7. [43]
8. [44]
9. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[46]

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

Comments:

User has been removing AfD template.Yngvadottir (talk)16:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period ofone week.--Bbb23 (talk)16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Page:The Wolverine (film) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:112.208.77.48 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[53]

Comments:
TriiipleThreat (talk) first posted on this IP's Talk page and the article's Talk page. I followed up as necessary later today with the 3RR warning when the IP continued reverting without discussion. He then put in his version a fourth time. The page might be considered for auto-protection as well. -Gothicfilm (talk)02:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one year. See protection log for the past problems.EdJohnston (talk)17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Article:Sana Khan (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:TheRedPenOfDoom (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Please seerevision history of the article.

I had given3RR warning to reported user.Abhi (talk)14:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
TRPoD looks to be in the right here. PerWP:BLPCRIME, we do not give undue weight to criminal allegations against living people, and unless a conviction is secured the information should be, at best, restricted to a passing mention. He's not "throwing policies randomly", he's providing you with links that explain why the content is unacceptable. If he is reverting the BLP violation which you keep re-adding, then his edits areexempted from the three-revert limit.Yunshui ^雲_水14:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Some users useWP:BLPCRIME tocensor articles. As perWP:WELLKNOWN we simply document whatever is covered by reliable sources. For example, seeNarendra Modi who was never convicted in court of law, but riot allegations are covered in the article. There is no BLP violation regarding Sana Khan. Pls do not misinterpret BLPCRIME and encourage censorship on wikipedia.Abhi (talk)15:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week.Abhi, you're fortunate that I didn't block you for breaching 3RR and for BLP violations. And don't give me this nonsense about censorship. If you want to discuss the intersection of BLPCRIME and this article, go toWP:BLPN, but a "consensus" of two is hardly a consensus for this kind of material. Also, next time, file a report here properly.--Bbb23 (talk)15:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't show me mercy if I am wrong. Those 4 sentences were added by user:Anupmehra as perWP:WELLKNOWN and they are well sourced and neutrally phrased. Don't use that magic word 'BLP violation'. 2 users are not consensus, but 1 user is 'consensus' to remove well-sourced contents, keep this weird logic with you. But it is useless to argue with some brainless admins.Abhi (talk)17:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:Revision as of 20:28, 30 October 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:27, 30 October 2014
2. 17:31, 31 October 2014
3. 19:01, 31 October 2014 (undoesthis preceding edit)
4. 19:19, 31 October 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: NazariyKaminski is well aware of the 3RR/edit-warring policies, having beenblocked three times for edit-warring in the past few months.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk page thread

Comments:
NazariyKaminski has beenblocked 4 times this year, most recently for 1 month for edit-warring. He's doing it again. His contribution history consists of nothing but relentlessly tendentious, combative, hyperpartisan edit-warring and invective, and it is unclear to me why he retains any editing privileges at all on this site. In any case, this is a clear 3RR violation (and clear edit-warring) from an editor with a long, recalcitrant history of the same.MastCell ^Talk20:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are always problems where one editor appears to betrying to makecontiguous edits and a tag is placed while the series of edits is ongoing. Probably the best course is tolock the article until the election is over at this point.Collect (talk)20:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that in the same time periodUser:Cwobeel made 4 reverts in 28:25 hours and thatUser:Somedifferentstuff made 4 reverts or partial reverts in 24:08 hours. Both of those users have also been blocked multiple times for the same reasons in the past, Cwobeel being blocked 3 times this year, though most recently only for 4 days.Juno (talk)21:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Juno, if you're going to allege violations or near violations of 3RR, you must include diffs.--Bbb23 (talk)22:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 apologies, Cwobeel at14:41,20:35,16:50, and19:06, and SDS at19:03,18:55, and18:57 and the respective block logs:1,2.Juno (talk)23:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Juno, thanks. With respect to the 16:50 revert by Cwobeel, I'm not going to count that per the BLP exemption. He identified it as a BLP issue, and I've verified that the sources don't mention the two people he removed. As for SDS, you've only identified three reverts. Also, I might add that SDS's previous blocks are much older (2013 and 2011).--Bbb23 (talk)23:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 Fair enough, just wanted everything out there.Juno (talk)23:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries,Juno, it's always a pleasure to deal with thoughtful, civil editors.--Bbb23 (talk)00:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My first edit today was an attempt to address NK’s concerns, offering a compromise version[54], after a long discussion in talk atTalk:Greg_Orman#Working_towards_consensus. Other edits today included adding dispute tags[55], and restoring the tags[56] after these were deleted by NK. And this edit[57] was to remove content that was unsourced perWP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. -Cwobeel(talk)21:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk)23:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Page:United States Senate election in Virginia, 2014 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:‎Reallibertyforall (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]
5. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[64]

Comments: The user is a single-issue account, pushing the campaign ofRobert Sarvis in the aforementioned election. A poll of millenials only is the issue, and every editor but this one has found it to be irrelevant. There is a history of this user trying to push Sarvis onVirginia gubernatorial election, 2013.

I am not a single-issue account. I have updated various other pages. I can reference these pages if you wish.

As for the poll, it was conducted by Christopher Newport University's Center for Public Policy (previous polls conducted by this university are listed under the polling header). Thus, the poll isn't unsuitable. Also, the poll is referenced by national, state and local news outlets for its implications. I have added references to these outlets and articles. Therefore, it's not an irrelevant poll and should be noted on the page.

Next, users Tiller54 and Moboshgu have teamed up and blanked other sections that run contrary to their opinions on other pages. One example would be:Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013. Just look at the page history and talk page.

Antarctica4Liberty 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byReallibertyforall (talk •contribs)

Blocked – 24 hours.EdJohnston (talk)02:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Page:Rebirthing-breathwork (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Truthteller1008 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:prior version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 15:41, 31 October 2014
2. diff 17:08, 31 October 2014
3. diff 19:29, 31 October 2014
4. diff 19:43, 31 October 2014
5. diff 19:52, 31 October 2014
6. diff 20:26, 31 October 2014

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:link

Comments:

Obvious sock of another editor, perthis. Behavior is probably vandalism but this seemed moderately more respectful. Please block for a week. User is completely out of control. thanks.Jytdog (talk)20:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period ofone month. I've endorsed a CU at the SPI, although after looking at thecontent added by the two accounts, it's probably not needed. Still, assuming a CU is performed, it will confirm the relationship.--Bbb23 (talk)05:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Page

Clifford Chance (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 09:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC) to 09:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 09:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "This is relevant information showing the firm's recent performance. It is referenced. Undid revision 631803127 byMaxitrillian LG (talk)"
   2. 09:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "The information is supported by the source. Undid revision 631802899 byMaxitrillian LG (talk)"
2. 12:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 631875151 byMaxitrillian LG (talk)"
3. 14:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "Because it's relevant to the firm's comparative performance. I'm watching this and will undo it if you keep deleting my sourced additUndid revision 631880466 byMaxitrillian LG (talk)"
4. 14:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC) "You clearly work for the firm. Stop undoing sources edits or I will report you. Undid revision 631893146 byTheroadislong (talk)"
5. 11:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "The information is referenced. If you keep deleting it I will report you. I have your IP. Undid revision 631994854 byMaxitrillian LG (talk)"
6. 12:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632003816 byMaxitrillian LG (talk)"